D-Scythe

No launch warning is given because of the missile datalink, which guides the missile into its acquisition basket to begin terminal homing - exactly like AMRAAM in TWS and STT, the latter which is not the case in LO. I've brought this up before in beta testing - an AMRAAM and R-27 launch in STT should not give any missile launch warning to the target, only later when the missiles activate their own seekers. Early model AIM-7Ms do provide a launch warning because they have no datalink. Sparrows have been updated since then to include a missile datalink in the AIM-7P version, IIRC, which entered service in the late '80s as an upgrade to the AIM-7M stock.

That's not his arm bud ;)

You, Red Tiger, are my hero.

Hey, you can always PM me if you feel like throwing some mud. Cause that post was rather pointless. And hurtful - what a terrible thing to say....

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831 "Invisibility - even with eyes on When the Raptor finds itself in a dogfight, it is no longer beyond visual range, but the advantage of stealth isn't diminished. It maintains "high ground" even at close range. "I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me." Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power. Turn and burn Thrust vectoring, internal weapons mounting and increased power all contribute to the Raptor's maneuvering advantage. From the cockpit of the F-22, Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters." So...the fact that you used the word "ignoramus"...does that make you not an ignoramus? You see, I can throw out big words as well to sound smart - pseudo-intellectualism. See?

It's the new Batman movie that's breaking records all over the place. Are you the DarkWanderer because you're always in the dark about things? :harhar: Wow, that was a terrible joke. Honestly, Batman, and the Joker, watch it. Anyway, I will elect to pull the ejection handles on this pointless thread.

I'm sorry - I didn't know anyone would get this worked up over, as you put it, such a "pointless discussion" in such a "pointless thread." Personally, I like to exercise the option not to read anything that I deem pointless, but I guess that's just me. I recommend that you go watch The Dark Knight. It'll make you feel better :) I watched it twice.

TWS is a radar mode, and even the harshest F-22 critics agree that the Raptor is radar stealthy. Failed. You got the thrust ratio for the F-22 wrong already. Failed. The Su-30 has a higher "turn ratio"? Making stuff up. Failed. Three strikes, yeeeeeeeeeeeer out!

If I remember correctly, the guy who said an F-5 (with an advanced SRAAM) was just as much as a threat as an F-22 WVR was an advocate for off-boresight missiles. It was a Navy official who was not involved in any way with the F-22 program - in fact, no DACM was conducted between F-22s and F-5s at the time the statement was issued. Furthermore, Groove, I have to say, GGTharos is right. Red Air F-16 and F-15 pilots have stated with JHMCs and AIM-9X, they can't even lock up the Raptor despite being able to see it with their own eyes. Also consider that F-22s have been armed with AIM-9Ms and are not currently able to operate either JHMCs or AIM-9X, and are frequently out-numbered. In the F-22's first Red Flag exercise, it took 3 F-16s to bring down a single F-22 in a WVR fight. The F-22 splashed one Falcon with an AIM-9M, gunned down another, and was killed by the third in a Sidewinder missile exchange that "killed" both combatants. And this was the only F-22 lost in the entire exercise.

Oh right, now I remember. Thanks.

Unless other sources are around to corroborate this information, I'd take it with a grain of salt. The date of that article goes back to February - surely more people would've heard and reported something about a Su-35 purchase by now if it was true,

These are the only other photos that I know of...

IMO, he didn't "bend" anything you wrote. How he read your message was exactly how I read your message, and I replied to your posts in the exact same way. I doubt Rhen was trying to offend you. He's just a busy guy.

AH-64D Block III First Flight ST. LOUIS, July 11, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA], U.S. Army leaders, supplier representatives and other guests celebrated the first flight of the AH-64D Apache Block III helicopter this week in Mesa, Ariz. Just prior to a ceremony attended by more than 300 people at the company's Apache production facility, the aircraft was flown by two Apache-rated aviators -- U.S. Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody and an Army experimental test pilot, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Rucie Moore. "This milestone is a testament to the tremendous team effort of Team Apache -- the U.S. Army, our worldwide industry suppliers and Boeing," said Al Winn, Boeing vice president of Apache Programs. "The technologies incorporated into the Block III helicopter come from a cross-section of the best of industry." Experimental test pilots -- one U.S. Army soldier and one Boeing teammate -- initially flew this Block III prototype aircraft over the Arizona desert on June 27 in preparation for today's ceremony, which commemorates the success of engineers, production teams and program managers in keeping the Apache Block III program on time and on budget. Ensuring the continued relevance of this rotorcraft platform for the warfighter, Apache Block III technologies deliver network-centric communications capabilities, extended ranges for sensors and weapons, unmanned aerial systems connectivity and control, and enhanced aircraft performance. The Block III technologies have been successfully tested and matured through a planned process of continuous modernization used since the delivery of the first AH-64A model to the U.S. Army in January 1984 and throughout the deliveries of AH-64A Apaches and AH-64D Apache Longbows to the Army and the defense forces of 10 nations around the world. "Built upon a legacy of success, the Apache Block III will deliver mission-critical performance capabilities to U.S. Army aviators, facilitating successful operations across the spectrum of conflict," U.S. Army Apache Project Manager Col. Derek Paquette said to Boeing teammates who worked to build the helicopter. The Army awarded Boeing the first Apache Block III contract in June 2005. In accordance with contractual milestones, Boeing plans to begin Low Rate Initial Production in April 2010 and to deliver the first production AH-64D Apache Block III in June 2011.

Um, the rotors make up virtually the ENTIRE silhouette of a helicopter. The rotor disc area for the Ka-50 is over 300 m^2. It doesn't matter if the helicopter is static - it's rotor blades aren't. That's what gets picked up and tracked. For example, on your radar scope, a hovering helicopter contact will appear stationary - that is, the radar "brick" won't move. But when you lock it up, your radar will calculate the speed of the rotors, NOT the entire helicopter. I think that's what Rhen was saying. Forgot what? The rotor blades MOVE - or more specifically, generate radial movement - that's all that matters for a doppler radar.

Would you eat something contaminated with tungsten then? If DU usage in military weapons are banned, the next dense, heavy metal in line would be tungsten, which is by no means "safe" either.

Actually, the heavy metal toxicity of depleted uranium will do the trick and poison you immediately if you inhale depleted uranium - the same thing would happen if you inhale lead, gold, copper, zinc, etc. It should be noted that tungsten, the "alternative" to DU in military use, is also a heavy metal and will also poison you, though it doesn't have the same tendency to become aerosolized. But yes, though it would take years for the toxic radioactive effects of depleted uranium to poison you, it will only take days for the heavy metal toxicity of depleted uranium to kill you if you somehow ingest a large enough dose.

The armor is not "stored" anywhere - it's built inside the tank. The ceramic tiles are more effective when compressed - thus the entire chobham armor package (with it's DU mesh) must always be encased in the armor of the tank to maintain a constant pressure on the ceramic components of the armor package. There have also been "reports" that people have been abducted by aliens before being set free again. Depleted Uranium is a much weaker alpha emitter than the Polonium-210 used to poison Alexander Litvinenko. Polonium-210 has a half life of 138 days - in comparison, Depleted Uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Thus, it's no surprise that Polonium-210 can kill a person at a concentration much less than the threshold of heavy metal toxicity. **For anyone unfamiliar with half-lives, it means if you have a sample of 100 g of Depleted Uranium, after 4.5 billion years 50 grams out of the original 100 grams of Depleted Uranium will have emitted one alpha particle, while the other 50 grams would not have emitted anything. More powerful and radioactively dangerous substances have much shorter half-lives - like Polonium-210. BTW, I'm not saying that DU is safe - far from it. But as far as being radioactively poisoned, DU is one of the least bad things to be poisoned with. Depleted Uranium is the chlamydia of radioactive substances - if you absolutely have to get a sexually transmitted disease, get chlamydia. Likewise, if someone holds you at gunpoint and forces you to eat something radioactive, sprinkle some depleted uranium in your cereal.

Thanks. Regretfully, it could've potentially been very impressive - I only did pasted the satellite image on, I didn't work some Photoshop magic to make it look better. For example, the rock on the mountains are still purple, haha. The thing was though, while I can get the major valleys to match up with Lock On's terrain (with a LOT of work, cause Lock On's terrain doesn't perfectly match with satellite imagery in the first place), the smaller valleys and striations on the mountain totally do not match up with Lock On's terrain mesh, reinforcing GGTharos' point. It's something the devs have to do, I'm afraid.

I can confirm this - I've tried using real world maps to add more detail to LO's terrain, took forever just for a first pass rough draft. Moreover, you can't edit the terrain mesh.

To my understanding, no - your wingman can only attack one (air) target at a time. Now, if you lock up one target, give the 'Attack my Target' command, wait for him to launch the missile, then tell him to attack another target, then theoretically yes, the wingman would then attack them in order.

What GG said :)

That's 3 questions :smartass:

I apologize. I meant it to be funny. Well, I thought the part about F-15E crews beating each other would've been hilarious, but guess not. I didn't make any personal attacks though.

No, it said that he fired 4 missiles for 1 kill. Rhen didn't go into Showers' second engagement - but in terms of the first engagement, the number of missiles match up, just not the missile type. False. <deleted by mod>