Boogieman

Yes I agree. This would have big effects on both red and blue teams. Red would have to be more careful using terrain masking and low altitude notching en route/over the FEBA to counter blue AWACS and AMRAAMs, while blue would need to be careful of SAM traps set by highly lethal & mobile red team medium/long range SAM systems (Kub/Buk/Tor/S300 etc). Would be lots of fun!

Fascinating stat - particular wrt the surviveability of the mobile SA6s. I wonder how this influenced the development of weapons like JSOW, JASSM, SDB, AARGM etc... It's yet another aspect of modern air warfare that would make a fascinating addition to DCS - high(er) fidelity SAM modelling. It would be an absolute game changer on multiplayer servers to know that there are numerous player-controlled GBAD systems out there waiting for you. The strike packages we'll be able to put together with the Hornet might make this a more attractive form of gameplay for some too...

Haha never thought of it like that. Difference I guess is that once those keybinds become muscle memory the process of flying and fighting in the jet is a fair bit quicker and more efficient in a lot of cases.

Not to mention APG63(V)2 AESA (along with the unique possibilities that entails), AMRAAM flight profiling & guidance, a host of EW possibilities and, yes, ANY datalink functionality whatsoever. You are correct, BOTH sides of the FC3 module have been pretty heavily sanitised in some game changing areas.

Which ones do you mean?

Not serious problems, just facing a very worthy opponent! ;-) I personally would love to see a full fidelity Su27SM, Su30 or Mig29M/K in the game. It would really give the red team some much needed love in the mid-2000s timeframe that DCS is set in.

Actually, there probably would. After all we are talking about a technologically ambitious aircraft that will be making up the bulk of US (if not western) tactical airpower for many years to come. It was always going to come under tremendous scrutiny and critique from multiple angles for that reason alone. As for the author, well I covered the issues with getting reliable info from POGO earlier.

True. That said I imagine a lot of the F35's best party tricks occur "under the hood" so to speak (ditto for its contemporaries). For instance there is a whole world of competition and development going on behind the scenes in terms of electronic warfare & attack, signals management, secure data sharing, cyber warfare, 360 degree weapon cueing, unmanned teaming and weapon employment/guidance/sharing thereof that I'd bet is AT LEAST as important (if not more) as the more superficial & publically available features we tend to focus on around here... yet we basically have zero insight into how it is all shaping up. We're probably all missing the forest for the trees when it comes to the reality of who would win the next air war on a forum like this. From what I'm hearing it would likely hinge on who has the best, most effective team of networked assets (the whole being greater than the sum of its parts). The real inner workings of that seem very much shrouded in the sort of secrecy you'd expect.

It's an aircraft that will be interesting to observe (as an enthusiast at least) over the decades. I am sure in a perfect world we would have all preferred 3 different programs in place of JSF but would that really have survived the early 2000s? I for one remember what an absolute struggle the F22 endured in the Iraq/Afghanistan years where new fast jets like it were being painted as cold war relics not worth the cost. Fast forward to today and US airpower is essentially paying the price for the premature cancellation of the Raptor. My hunch is that the F35 will be a world beater in its intended role as a next gen fighter bomber in the spirit of the Hornet and Falcon. I don't see it as the F35's "fault" that it will probably have to pick up some of the slack left behind by ~150 "missing" Raptors. As for F35 replacing the Harrier and Hog - it will surely be a quantum leap ahead of the former but I understand some people's reservations about the latter. It is, after all, a very qualitatively different aircraft. That said, even that might not be such a bad thing if you're preparing to deal with the emerging array of stupidly capable GBAD/IADS systems coming out of the competition. I for one do not see the Hog successfully running the gauntlet of a battlefield populated by the likes of S400, Buk M3, Tor M2, Pantsir, Verba, Sosna or their Chinese analogues - SEAD/DEAD support or not. The picture only worsens when you factor in enemy airpower.

Odd, my experience has been the total opposite. :dunno:

I don't know about that. What I do suspect is that western/US programs of this kind inevitably have their dirty laundry aired in a way that simply does not (/cannot?) occur to remotely the same extent in places like China or Russia (the stereotypical "competition"). Add in the influence of rival companies, the appeal of media sensationalism, clickbait blogging and any other conflicting interests and you get an unprecedented hurricane of misinformation and hyperbole. My 2c...

Here's some F35s in reality: :pilotfly:

Yeah, I suspect it will be tough going at EA. Once the module matures though it will be pretty potent. AMRAAM, 9X, ATFLIR, full APG73 functionality, JHMCS, Link 16... tough combo to beat.

As has been alluded to earlier, POGO have an (anti-F35) agenda of their own to push. They did much the same thing with: The V22 The Stryker wheeled IFV The F22 Raptor The bloody M1 Abrams(!?) In short, they're not big fans of large scale military development programs in general. AFAIK they're a rather terrible source of insight into the "reality" of the F35 today.

I think the direction the server is going in is great. I love the idea of being able to jump into a living, breathing real-time battlefield. Works best with lots of players on - could even look at cycling some of the older missions during quieter times, with Op Longbow for peak periods? Balance and fairness be damned when ED themselves don't design the sim with either in mind... realism ftw :thumbup:

Interesting asymmetrical loadouts on RAAF (alert) Hornets recently. https://www.facebook.com/AviationSpottersOnline/posts/872738659573108 ASRAAM on each wingtip, 3 bags, TGP on fuselage and a pair of slammers under one wing. Would be interesting to know what the rationale is behind it! Perhaps the two slammers balance the asymmetrical drag of the TGP somewhat...

I suspect you are right Vatikus. Problem is that when the story first came out it was (and still is) cited as scandalous proof of the F35's inadequacy in the WVR domain overall. The truth, as you and I seem to agree, is probably more complex than the clickbait bloggers would have us believe.

...only if your name is Bill Sweetman or David Axe. Fortunately it sounds like further tuning of the CLAWS in the intervening period has yielded better results.

My suspicion is it will make more sense to go with 4-6 AMRAAMS (1-2 on each outer underwing station and 2 on fuselage), 2 Sidewinders (wingtips), 2 bags (inner underwing stations) and an ATFLIR (centreline station.) I imagine ATFLIR would be useful (assuming it has AA mode) for keeping track of notching bandits, and the 2 bags should give decent loiter time.

^My thoughts exactly. Start practicing your notching technique now gents... ;-)

Fair enough. I'm not a fan of restricting anything either, just thinking of possibilities for hosts who do decide to crack down regardless. :thumbup:

Would it be possible to just restrict the number carried per aircraft? I don't know if it's feasible for hosts to simply use mission files were it is only possible to carry the Phoenix on two stations or something. IIRC, more restricted AIM54 loads were actually the norm when the Tomcat was in service - the Phoenix was a big and expensive beast to be loading jets to the hilt with on a regular basis.

Actually I'd argue that Kopp is worse. He and his mate Peter Goon tried to pitch their "Raptor/Super F111 combo" idea as a solution for the RAAF AIR6000 program via a shell company known as Australian Flight Test Services. They expected to subcontract the work to LM et al. (!?) and presumably make their squillions that way. When their idea (and credibility in the Australian aviation community) immediately went down in flames they became notoriously... disgruntled.

I think this is the premise behind the MSDM - a hardkill defensive munition to be used alongside conventional softkill measures. That said I imagine an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure on this one - better to kill the launch platform with F35/22 before you have a Mach 5+, ~600kg problem to deal with.

True. That said the KS172 was never fully pursued by the Russians AFAIK. The very similar Chinese VLRAAM apparently has both an RF and IR seekerhead though. If it's directed at large lumbering ISR aircraft and tankers it may still be viable as a weapon used in an opportunistic fashion. Could also launch from a Flanker derivative and hand off guidance to a J20 that is closer to the target I suppose...