neofightr

have you bothered to check what others are charging? Check out the civie sims like prepared and xplane and look at how much they are charging. My jaw hit hit the floor when I saw $150 price tags for some of the airliners and DCS level of detail easily matches what others are offering. So no belly aching here, I have no problems dropping $80 for the plane I use to fly :)

It's been too long from my flying days but if I remember correctly the gens were of redundant design but I believe certain secondary systems would not be fully supported by one gen. If one gen cutout you would see a flicker of displays but that's about it (when on the ground). Never had that situation in the air thankfully because that meant something bad just happened to one of the engines (the gens were pretty reliable and simple so mech failure was unheard of). BTW to turn off the gens via the switch you had to pull out then lower the switch so accidentally doing this was impossible thankfully.

I instantly noticed this on the youtube video posting and commented on it. It would have sent chills down my spine if I had done that back in my flying days because I would have to come back and hope there was no missing pieces in the wheel well after landing. Then I would have to do the walk of shame to the hangars and explain what I did to the maintenance chief and then I would have to grovel and ask forgiveness from the dept head and eventually the CO. The good news is that due to the massive and beefy landing gear (thanks to landing on a ship) the potential damage would have been minimal.

It's for redundancy, in case the HUD display actually fails. The standby instruments are placed way down the front console and would be a pain to constantly reference during IFR and night. If the HUD is working normally then you would never have the hud repeated on the DDIs unless you were on autopilot and was doing some serious heads-down map reading on the HSI and kneeboard wanted to glance at the DDI to verify altitiude and speed are still good. -retired f18 pilot

Ditto for me

Ok, I am not going to let you paint a false narrative of this thread. I did NOT call a fellow pilot's credibility into question, you tried to get me to go there but it didn't work. I clearly stated he had bias towards his aircraft just like I naturally did with the F18. I even reminded garrya of this point when he was presenting me as a fake in another forum to another pilot. Attacking someone and calling him retarded is not a valid concern. You and the other toxic posters on this thread were adamant of painting an erroneous and mean spirited picture of Sprey. Let me make it clear, I apologized to Garrya about inferring that he took a private message and made it public which would be poor form. It sure looked like that to me but I will assume I was wrong with that perception and give him the benefit of the doubt. I did not apologize to him for anything else I said on anything he posted in this thread. The fact you call garrya a curious little kid, tells me you want to place youself above the toxicity you and others like you have established and you will be called out for it. This is by far one of the most toxic interactions I have ever had on a message board. Moderators are not to blame since in the end it was a discussion but boy was it ever so full of hubris and absurdity I will never ever share my professional experience or opinion with such toxic people again. Congrats, you now own this little part of the forum all to yourselves. So debate amongst yourselves in your own little artificial world. Just like the kev2go character who sabotaged my f18 thread and forced it to move you toxic trolls have done it again because I am done with this nonesense. Any future postings I do will be in threads that will be providing feedback of the game. Now, I finally see why you don't have many self-identified real-world pilots on these type of forums. It's like putting a huge bullseye on your back that the armchair experts will jump on. I apologize to those that were fair and heard me out without attacking but this is crazy.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's turning into a free-for-fall of personal criticisms. Everybody is coming out of the woodwork now. I am out.....

You in effect did by posting the screencap that had the link to the topic.

Ok then, let me revise this: We have no idea what the outcome will be in a major air war between world powers based on the limited engagements of the past 45 years. This is based on: Training doctrines on all sides changing frequently (as they should to remain unpredictable). All sides can only guess what the other side will do in terms of doctrine and tactics. The platforms of the past 45 years that are still in service have not been involved in a large scale multi-nation air wars. There has been small-scale wars sure but nothing major. The air to ground action in Iraq and Afghanistan had no real air opposition so outside of the sam threat, it was a benign environment to verify the effectiveness of the platforms in question. So I carefully rethought my post, you happy?

Then I apologize because this "Unread post16 Aug 2017, 03:52 I sent 35AoA the topic and he replied directly in my inbox, so i thought i should put it here as well....." Gave me the impression it started out as a private conversation and you went out of your way to post it here to make sure everyone saw his proclamation that I was fake.

Well good thing I don't agree with this line of thinking since I would be demanding Garrya verify the source and technical validity of all those slides, verify all those non-public manuals he screencapped are indeed the full digital manuals of all those platforms, request proof of all those experts he keeps citing etc etc. I don't do that because it's silly and petty.

Let me also remind the readers, that those that claim "Sprey attacks platforms that have proven successful programs which makes him a fool" need to be reminded that the last time the US took on a major adversary was Vietnam. Where N. Vietnam was the proxy, so training and numbers were a factor. The so called successful proven track records of the past 45 years has been based on very limited and very few engagements. No where near enough data to assess the viability of the platforms. We have no idea how well the US platforms will hold up against the platforms of major adversaries of today and let us hope we don't have to find out.

If anyone still believes Garrya (and fellow attackers) stated unbias motivation look at this statement made by him talking about the private message from a professional F16 pilot. By the way, I believe the F16 pilot to be the real deal since the pilot did what any professional would do and keep the discussion in private via inbox. From the other board: "Unread post16 Aug 2017, 03:52 I sent 35AoA the topic and he replied directly in my inbox, so i thought i should put it here as well....." In that private email the F16 pilot confirms the assumption presented by garrya, this idea that "reported pilot sounds sounds as described, fake" The fact that Garrya decides to make this private conversation public shows the motivations that we are really dealing with here. I have received many private emails on this forum subject that I would never post on this board to further my view/agenda. This is what professionals do. Let me remind you that I have not attacked any publicly identified professional, I have done the opposite by defending a professional who has been famously critical.

And with "all due reespect" I suggest you do the very same.

I agree it is poorly explained because his audience (as he sees it anyway) is government officials and industry professionals. I keep bringing up the F104 example because on face value it's ludicrous to compare the F104 performance against the F35. So why did he do it? He did it to make a cryptic point about the controversy that surrounded that lockheed product involving multiple governments and individuals in the industry. He knew it would go over the heads of those outside the industry but not to those that he is really talking to. It got the "armchair experts" here to call him "retarded".

Trust me, the way they have gone after Sprey, there is no way I am ever giving them (personal attackers) anything more to attack me with. I mean they start digging up people by name that supposedly knew him just so they can disparage and ridicule him. So so sad. It's as if I am expected to humbly submit my credentials for their seal of approval and consent of validation? Seriously? It's like if a self identified lawyer came on here to make a point that contradicted another and then all of sudden that lawyer is expected to submit proof they passed the bar exam (location and date) and provide a history of all the law cases they participated in on said topic. All towards having his opinion accepted and validated on this gaming message board. Really? It's one thing if I was going on national television like Sprey or making a presentation at an academic institution then yeah I better put up or shut up but here, uh no. It's very easy to anonymously come on a website like this, throw a bunch of sales pitch slides, academic synthetic charts and heresay from another message board to attempt to invalidate another's opinion. No need to provide any personal professional record since there is none that applies. But to expect others? Utter nonsense! Exceedingly polite? Did you not read between the lines with his posts? He has been questioning the validity of everything I said since the start and my only claim on him is that he has an academic point of view which apparently drives him nuts. I already have had private feedback from fellow navy professionals as well as other open-minded adults who get where I am coming from and take my statements on face value without demanding proof. So I know my message is getting through.

I knew I should have clarified my Gajin remarks. Yup, the simulation is no where near the grade of say ED/777 studios but the sheer variety of models and historical detail is amazing and worthy of praise. I played around with their editor and was amazed at how good their AI was at certain tasks, for example the navy bombers actually executed diving runs for the apropriate aircraft vs. torpedo runs etc. Keep in mind that their primary focus is on multiplayer so I thought it was commendable what they attempted to do with the seldom used AI. When you factor in the sheer variety of cockpits and varying flight models it's pretty damn amazing what they are doing. And it runs very well in VR. I have enjoyed that game off and on for 4 years now. But yes sadly, their user base is primarily made up of keyboard/mouse users.

Not once did I make a statement that all who are questioning Sprey are doing it on political bias. I stated that certain documents after reading them clearly showed a political agenda by labeling conservative vs. liberal mindsets of the past in their historical critique and thereby I dismissed the article. But of course you are happy to ignore that little detail and claim I am unfairly labeling all Sprey's critics with political bias in order to paint me as the bad guy. Yes, yes you have been trying to dismiss my insight by constantly throwing charts and numbers at me to prove that I don't know what I am talking about. You have been watching and parsing every exact word I have stated and ready to pounce on anything that might be erroneous then once you find something (like my guess at pitch buck), you proceed to get back up from others on other boards then gleefully come back here hide behind a thin veil of respect and impartiality to try to discredit me in front of others. Did it ever occur to you to privately msg me about what others are saying and post something to the effect that I might be off about pitch buck after checking with other sources. Do you really think I would have argued against that type of post? In the end I conceded I could be wrong about pitch buck but I still feel something is off. (And stop with the all due respect nonsense since it's clear you don't have any). Of course you continue with your agenda, because your goal is to attempt to embarrass me and discredit me. A private message would have been the respectful and sincere way of handling it if you were being sincere as you say but you are clearly not. Do you seriously think anyone would believe your line about "apologizing for harsh language on behalf of..." after all your insane amounts of efforts of flooding this thread with synthetic charts and vendor sales pitch slides and constantly questioning if I am a pilot. And for the record, yes, yes you are giving LM a pass because not once have you ever attempted to show the other side of the argument as to issues of the F35 to balance out your case. Not once have you tried to balance out all the LM sale propaganda you keep pushing with impartial articles that support the company's outlook and current status of the program. Meanwhile others on this board have adroitly pointed out issues that other competitors namely the Russians are having with their latest and greatest and you will note I haven't argued those points because they are valid and are presented in such a way as to provide perspective not to discredit or embarrass. Those slides from Denmark don't mean anything because for all we know they could be from local LM reps working closely with the Denmark govt and created back in 1995. I have cited DOD and GAO articles and data along with articles w/educated guesses (that I clearly stated are debatable). I have also said more than once the F35 will be a capable platform at some point in the future but at one hell of a cost in the end both in final production numbers and upkeep. I mean for pete's sake look at those LM sales pitch slides you posted on acquisition cost, do you really think this program is just as sound as past legacy programs both in terms of cost and current performance? Even after all that has been posted to the contrary on this board? Seriously? And finally I will remind you that no amount of synthetic performance numbers, sales pitch slides, collection of 2nd and 3rd hand testimonials will ever replace the insight of being in the cockpit of a tactical fighter, understanding the real limitations of a working tactical radar or having a career in acquisitions working side by side with defense analysts like Sprey, seeing the wide spectrum of groupthink and mindsets in that industry first-hand. All that complemented with a Master's degree in acquisitions studying the good, bad and ugly of the huge system that we call acquisitions in the US for the past 70 years. You really need to accept this.

Here is a dated article (decision to move foward already made) that in effect makes a case for branch specific platforms. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a24682/f-35-vs-super-hornet/

Wow, I don't think I have ever seen a more cynical and egotistical thread before. Now I see where the motivation is coming from to attack me. Thanks for providing this link. For the record, I am here on this site because this company (ED) has produced some of the best simulations I have ever seen and I have seen a lot of them. I am not sure if it's the water their drinking but the programming talent in this part of the world is impressive when it comes to simulations (777 studios, Gaijen, Belsimtek) ED/Belsimtek's attention to detail is impeccable from what I have seen. The fact the Boeing is willing to work with them on providing authentic sounds says a lot to their reputation as a simulation maker. And so far what I have seen on their hornet work looks very promising and engaging. To imply that I am traitorous for being on a .ru based website is simply ignorant. I am no longer in the military and I am a civilian with a right to free speech. I know a lot of very sensitive highly classified information that I would never ever post on this website nor any website in the US or elsewhere. I do this out of loyalty to my country not because of fear of imprisonment. The fact that I have been highly critical of the F35 program is because I care about what our country is doing with our resources and where we are going with development mindset and I know Sprey does as well. He is and has been the loudest squeaky wheel for the sake of getting our acquisition and design mindset back on track. He is being bombastic and broad with his claims because he has to in order to be heard amongst the lobby interest groups of the industry. He wants to see us go back to a time of robust competition (republic, general dynamics, mcdonnell douglas, lockheed, grumman and vought to name a few) and where creativity knew no bounds. I recently finished a bunch of documentaries focused on all the experimental designs of the 50 and 60s. It was amazing what companies and designers were willing to take a chance on. Truly amazing stuff. And none of that stuff broke the bank neither for the company or the government. Did you know they successfully designed a turbo-prop jet to almost go supersonic (.9M/670 mph: contested numbers) back in the day? Crazy exciting stuff that needed to happen to see what worked and what didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H And yet here we are. Where brutally honest critics get lambasted and a very small number of non-competitive corporations get a pass.

I agree with his assessment. It goes in line with what has been discussed for 20 years now in the acquisition review process.

Thanks for your words of encouragement, I have high confidence that most of you in this sim-gaming community are professionally open-minded and are willing to hear both sides of the argument. It's the only reason why I continue to post really.

You will find your answers in the latest DOD doc. Already the Navy is seeing greater problems with the F35 engine then they had with the F18 when onboard ship. Lot's of issues clearly detailed about Support Equipment in the latest op test review. It's been known for years now that each variant is very different thus requiring unique training for each version. Just look at the F35B vstol design, that alone requires a lot of unique and specialized training and maintenance requirements. Like I said 1 airframe for 3 services is fine in theory but just does not work as efficiently in real-world operation. It can work but at a cost in extra manpower and resources. A good example of this would be why the Navy turned down the F16 after the Air Force approved it. The Navy realized that all the modifications necessary for maritime service would have severely hampered the effectiveness of the F16 after it would have been tailored for Air force needs that's why they went with the yF17 prototype because they knew they would be able to tailor fit it (without compromise i.e. F35 with a gunpod) for the Navy needs thus was born the F18. From these developments of course, was the notion that if a design was started from scratch that would accommodate all 3 services (and other countries like the UK and CA) at the same time, it would lead to an efficient cost effective platform and lo and behold here we are $400M and 25+ years later. But don't take my fake f18 pilot word for it, go look for yourself: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669619.pdf

Let them have their excuse to attack, I prefer my privacy over answering to a bunch of doubters and hate mongers. Where does it say I have to answer to them anyway. You don't see me demanding full academic citation and validation to all their claims of bias. And if I were to post my bio, I guarantee at least two individuals on this board would go out of their to try to attack my reputation, maybe claim I didn't get a medal, or they heard from so and so I failed flight school etc etc. So far, all the documents I have seen attacking Sprey have been political (conservative vs. liberal mindset nonsense) that I want nothing to do with. I have already had at least one Navy professional (who I take on face value to be legitimate) confirm their belief in my legitimacy in private so it'e clear those in the know can tell I am not full of it. -fake F18 pilot

I stand corrected you didn't call him an idiot you just called him retarded "Originally Posted by Basher54321 View Post ...Sprey makes the claim - not much more maneuverable than an F-104 - obviously Berke pretty much has to restrain himself in the reply at something so retarded. The only authority on the F-104 is the pilots that flew them - that doesn't include you and doesn't include Sprey. Their testaments are backed up with reams of flight test data and Technical Orders."