FastCargo

Almost everything I've read finds water cooling superior to air cooling in performance and noise. Makes sense, considering how most modern internal combustion engines use water cooling. Usually, it's just more a matter of cost, complexity, and a certain concern of running liquid inside your computer that keeps water cooling from being used more often. The 'water inside my computer' thing is what keeps me from using it myself in our HTPC. FastCargo

You tease! Anyway, being that the LOD file is good, I'm sure plenty of people here would love to help with the tweaking part! I volunteer for weapon stations! FastCargo

I'll be the first to chime in. Edwards replacement tile set for the stock Verdun terrain: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...p;showfile=3943 It may not be necessarily accurate...but to me, boy does it really improve what you are looking at! FastCargo

No worries, I had to look it up myself to make I had it correct in my head. FastCargo

No. Classicial definition: 'The law of inertia states that it is the tendency of an object to resist a change in motion.' A inertia cancellation machine is designed to remove that 'tendency of an object to resist a change in motion'. The idea by removing this 'tendency', is that any force acted on that object after the inertia is 'cancelled' will not be 'felt' by the object. FastCargo

Did you try adding EOGR and CGR to the weapon types at each station? That might work. FastCargo

Good experience? HA! I have to deal with one of those too. A new company recently took over HOA duties (our neighborhood isn't completely built out yet). We get a letter (polite) saying that our bushes were a little too high obscuring the house number. Never mind that the front gatehouse STILL hasn't been fixed from the last time a truck ran into it (jeez, people, what exactly does 10 foot clearance mean...moron). Way to keep your priorities straight! FastCargo

Let me think about that...mmm....no. Wrong aircraft. FastCargo

And I flew an aircraft (in real life) that carried 84 bombs and did Mach 1.2+. Doesn't mean it turned like a F-16. FastCargo

Ezlead, you should know better. First, and foremost, military objectives are ALWAYS subservient to the political objectives. War's ultimate aim is to fulfill the political objectives. Period. The minute they are not, you are setting up a military coup. Does anyone like the idea of a military junta running the country? Didn't think so. Now, the idea that the political arm should give the military it's marching orders, then let the military carry it out as best it can is essentially correct. Successful CONVENTIONAL conflict prosecution typically works well this way. As for the statement in quotes...wrong. The CONVENTIONAL, big tanks, massive rolling ground formations, etc, etc worked as planned in Gulf War I and II (which, btw, 'Mission Accomplished' refered to in the speech, if you bother listening in it's entirety). That's where air power is very useful...clear targets, clearly marked combatants, 'force on force', conventional land warfare old school style. Where air power is a lot less useful is in the sub-conventional, insurgent, guerilla, unconventional, whatever the hell you want to call it, type warfare. Warfare where the targets are not clearly marked (until they shoot at you or try to blow you up), alliances flow and ebb like water, targets are usually NOT military, and organization is loose at best. Where the objective is not to take out military targets, but to take out the political will to fight. Air power has a lot less utility here. Prosecution of an unconventional conflict by conventional means may in fact hurt political objectives (taking out a whole town because it's riddled with insurgents, as an example) in the long term. Sub-conventional conflicts are long, bloody, hard, and often demoralizing. You can either steel yourself for the long fight...or don't bother. Refering to Vietnam, there are a lot of opinions that bombing the snot out of the North early on would have brought a end to the conflict in our favor, sooner. Usually, this is based on the results of the Linebacker operations in the closing days of the war. Perhaps. The reason I say that is an analysis that I read one time of the air campaign the essentially brought up this point: In 1965, what the North had to face was non-existence from a bombing campaign. In 1972, what the North had to face was loss of bargining position. In other words, they had a lot less to lose by that point in the war. A Linebacker-type campaign in the early stages would have maybe driven the conflict into the sub-conventional range, but may not have stopped the war...because they were fighting for their very existence as a Communist entity. And so would have been willing to endure a massive air campaign. But by 1972, enduring a massive air campaign would be for very little gain...bargaining position at the table. Does McNamara get a pass? Oh, hell no! There were so many things he did wrong, they WAY overshadow any thing he may have done right. As far as other, current events? I will say this ONE more time...considering how often media gets aviation things wrong...what makes you think they are accurate about ANYTHING else? I don't know how many times I hear from buds back from the sand telling me what you hear and see is NOT what it is. FastCargo

Storage. You can load down an aircraft with storage and it will still fly. Unless you build an interia cancellation machine, you can't get a B-52 sized aircraft to fly like a fighter. Check that, you CAN...but only once. FastCargo

Oh yeah? Check out this OLD video done by now General Redden... FastCargo

Looks like he already did. FastCargo

Yep, my wife's side of the family all live in the Vancouver, BC area. Speaking of which, while out in Richmond yesterday for (what else) Chinese food, saw something unusual coming into YVR... If he's here for the Abbotsford Airshow (this weekend) he's at the wrong airport... :yes: . FastCargo

Woohoo! Was going through serious withdrawal... FastCargo

Awwww yeah!! Hey, we got some F-2 guys going through training right now...I will have to ask about the differences. FastCargo PS I will not have normal access to my stuff for a couple of weeks...visiting the in laws in Vancouver, BC.

I know exactly where that field is! I used to fly out of Beale AFB from 1999-2001, so I know that area pretty well. In fact, they've had airshows there, haven't they? EDIT: They have had airshows there...I did a flyby sometime while I was there at Beale.... Anyway, congrats again! FastCargo

Congrats! You never forget your first solo...you start hearing all these new noises you never heard before! What airport in Northern CA...I've flown a LOT around that area. FastCargo

If he's in the desert...there are already plenty on station... :) FastCargo

And THAT's what I meant...the USN can keep their F/A designations... :) . FastCargo

Example of surviving (and winning) a double disadvantage fight: While in my 1993 WOE campaign in a F-8FN (French Navy), guess what I get jumped by - I get lucky though...he blows a bunch of his airspeed attempting a rapid nose track convergence to the left. Meanwhile, as you saw in my shot above, I stay near corner speed and head downward to keep him near the top of my canopy. What eventually happens is that his AOA is so high, and he's so intent on staying INSIDE my turn circle, vs getting ON my turn circle, that he can't gain airspeed, and his nose is stuck aft. I realize he's new enough that I unload while keeping the left turn...letting him try to converge his nose, then do a 'rope a dope'. I barrel roll (using rudder, aileron, and a whole LOT of pull) and suddenly generate a TON of angles on him to the right. Pretty desparate move...if he was smart, he would have simply quarterplaned upward, waited until I spent my energy, then gunned me from above. Instead he attempts to continue his turn to the right, doing a quick gun shot (surprise!) and then sliding below me, with full elevator deflection (yeah, THAT close). I continue to roll right in a full barrel roll to end up behind him, blowing all my energy...but... Again, I'm now spent on energy...but I have a shot (and in this case, a kill). If this didn't get him...I was going to do a hard descending turn left and down...and RUN! Taking on a Su-27 in an F-8 is suicide if the Su-27 is a decent BFM guy. Note the airspeed of Su-27 just before he dies. I'll put money that guy after his initial convergence pull on me, he never got above 250 knots in the rest of the fight. Why? Because he was stupid! He did the typical new guy trick of thinking I've got a hot fighter, I can just pull and pull and pull.... And I wasn't too smart either...I decided to fight a Su-27...what I should have done in the initial encounter was pull hard toward him to make as much of a head on pass as I could...then assuming he waited until after 3/9 line passage, decided to turn, I could have unloaded and blown through...give myself max time to escape. This was fun though! FastCargo

There is no F/A-22...puti! :) FastCargo

Folks, please don't misunderstand us. We're not bragging, or trying to be cool, or anything like that. What we are trying to do is apply real world experience to the discussion. The USAF and other services learned some very hard lessons in Korea and Vietnam...namely, that technology isn't enough, it's how you train. So as much as you hear about military spending debacles, failures of tech, etc, etc. be aware that the operators do get it done. If a system has limitations, we either fix them, or change our tactics to minimize them. We constantly evaluate the state of our training and change programs to fix them. It's the new blood, the young 1Lts, Capts, Majors (in the pilot field) who constantly challenge the status quo and make a difference to adapt to new threats. Also, when we train against other countries, if we're getting training, the countries imitate the main threat we face. If we are helping them train, then we imitate the threat. Example: In 1995 I played with the Canadian CF-188s up at Bagotville CFB in Quebec. We were helping them work on their intercept procedures. I was in a B-1B...but I wasn't playing one in the field. I was playing a 'threat bomber' using specific 'threat procedures' and techniques. Another example: People make a big deal about the Indian exercise with Su-30s against F-15Cs. What you don't hear about is the ROE the Eagles were using. They were most definitely NOT flying as USAF Eagles. That kind of training doesn't do as much good as flying against what you might actually face. So when you hear the results of an exercise...context is everything. Unless you know the exact ROE, results can be meaningless. No one is harder on our tactics and our machines than ourselves...sit in on a fighter debrief and you'll see what I mean. FastCargo

If you think about it, a cluster LGB is sort of a contradiction in terms. An LGB is meant for pinpoint destruction, a BOOM at the weakest point. A cluster bomb is an area attack weapon...the more area covered, the better. Now, though with the SFW in combo with the WCMD, we can have a little of both. FastCargo

There's an old joke cartoon around somewhere. B-2s retirement ceremony, a general is giving a speech. Which gets interrupted by a B-52 doing touch and goes. Substitute F-35, and A-10 respectively, and the cartoon still works... :) . FastCargo