Vigilant

I have a really strange problem with my WOV Air & Ground War Expansion Pack Gold installation. When squadron should upgrade to a new type the upgrade doesn't happen, only the squadrons current type is reset to default skin. Also you don't get any "yx squadron will be reequiping with.." note in mission debrief. This happens with all squadrons in campaign (Steel Tiger or Rolling Thunder). My installation stock with few aircraft added (Razbam Skyraiders + some customized weapons and loadouts).

I've just read that it suffered and engine failure during the flight...

In the Czech Republic the absolutely average guy would be "Honza Novák". Simply because Honza (Jan(John) in formal usage) is the most common name and Novák is the most common surname. To describe the average pub regular - older, low income worker, drinking beer, maybe playng cards with similar characters and definetly swearing about politics, prices etc. - in the same context as the French "Bidochon", you could use name like "Pepa Vomáčka". A guy from Bavaria told me(long time ago), that in Germany "Hanz" is the term for blonde "poster" german and "Helmut" is the average german in general. Can our German members confirm this?

Not completely. Today, most of these problems are only annoying. If there is nothing done about them, then in time they will become very real. There are many different tensions here. Between the old western members and new eastern. Between the small and large members. The mediterranean members want different things than Skandinavian ones. The British are always at the bring of "lets blow that tunnel and be done with it". The problems I wrote about simply don't help make these tensions go away. And politics aimed at average center voter make the parties somewhat bland. Whenever support for extreme parties rises (like in the last European parliament elections) it is correct to assume that the "normal" parties are doing something wrong. I know that I am probably too pessimistic about it, but problem with pessimism is, that sooner or later you are right and s*** really hits the fan. Anyway, was there any new development on that P-3 incident?

if you use a really big saw and a lot of rope...

Just Could Not Resist By the way the launch was wery smooth

Why not call it operation Skyshield? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Skyshield

Yes, this has someting to do with sarcasm and number 13...

And you don't know, that Czechoslovakia made good socialist ruble by selling AA guns to North Vietnam and good imperialist dolar by selling agent orange to USA. Call it socialist friendship.

There is a saying about neigbor's grass being always greener. From the other shore of the pond it seems reversed . First you have to understand that in political sense there is no EU. The European parliament spends most of it's time arguing about what is the "standard European banana", "English sausage" (if you know Yes, Prime minister ) and so on. And the standars they produce usually create only obscure loopholes for European industry(that then must spend money to meet these standards, increasing the already high cost of labour), rather than standartising anything. For example there is still no common standard for something that simple as a electric socket. Or a single European patent registry. And this process is under strong lobbing of NGOs that are best described as Red-Green guerrilas. The actual great internal or external matters (like "let we Greece hang because they can't get they fiscal policy under control?") is always a contest between Prime ministers of France, Germany and the country that currently holds the chairmanship, Barroso as the chairman of European commision and with strong nod of respect towards the opinions of Spain, Italy and Britain. So there is no real decision making process and more inportanty on responsibility. Everything hides behind vague "it has been decided" or "it is essencial that" phrases. In the US you can pin such decisions to people - President xy decided that zx. And there are videly known speeches about it. That is all missing here. If you say "European federalism" you don't remember that is is Mr. ab's idea and his speech where he so well explained his goals. The multi-party system also has serious flaws. It ineviteably creates coalition goverments that can't get anything done because coalition partners don't like it. It also creates the "small party fenomena" - party with about 10% popular vote that allows one of the major parties to create a goverment. This tipping of scales gives the small party influence that is completely out of proportion to it's actual support(and if you take into account the low number of peple that actualy vote it's even worse). And the parties by themselves are nothing spectacular either. From left to right you have different communists, Greens (that focus more on protecting nature from capitalism, rather than on protecting nature), Social democrats, that combine naive believe in "all men are good" (that takes phrase "wishful thinking" to a new level) and ruthless vote buing by social spending (with "after us the flood" as a motto), the right (usually Christian democrats, but not always), that in actual policy look like social democrats light with the difference only in scale, reather in intention and finaly the nacionalists, that live on shouting "France to the French!", "Germany to Germans", etc.. They don't get much support, mostly because strong believe that "nacionalism"->"fascism"->"Hitler"->"Evil". But with immigration, intergation of immigrants and apparent total failure of multiculturalism becoming the strong undercurrent of politics across Europe (that is ignored by the mainstream parties), there is IMHO a large risk of the new unified Europe falling into the hands of another Austrian painter by popular vote.

If you get into subsonic trainer derivates, then you must include the l-159. Although the actual integration did not take place (money, money, money,..) the plane is designed with BVR missile capability. As it already has A2A radar probably the only thing not done was firing a few missiles to "certify" it. In simulated combats with Netherlands (don't remember for sure) F-16s, with the type in service for about two weeks, it was quicky found that it is a bad idea to allow the ALCA to close... Also back during the Cold war the Czechoslovak airforce had excelent results with using l-39s against low and slow intruders. With price of modern fighters steadily creeping beyond 100 000 000 USD such designs may come as good solution for smaller/poorer nations as a way to maintain adequate force levels. Oh, and I am not making this up, it was all written in official manufacturer documents (that meanwile dissapered form their web).

Many fine points were raised in this topic. The biggest problem in my oppinion is that the "War on Terror" is more of political nature, rater than military. Simply, there are two objectives 1) destroy existing terrorists 2) prevent creation of new ones. The first objective is mainly military matter and the other is a political one. While the military is more or less succeding the politicians are not. It is questionable if they can. Eraser's simpler method of "get in, kill everything that moves, find the locals a new dictator and get out" would work unless you have to do it every five years (and it simply ignores that at least part of public back home doestn't like the "he is a dictator, but ours" part). At this moment withdrawal may result in worse conseuqences than staying. It would be interpreted as a great victory by the Jihadists and what that would do with stability of the region (where fanatical theocracy is in most countries one assasination away). Compare with consequences of Vietnam war on SEATO or SEA in general. Back then Soviets won, but in the end it gained them nothing. What will the Jihadists gain is unknown. I am not sure how much of classical works on warfare (von Clausewitz, Sun Zu, etc.) can be applied on current circumstances. If you look at them more closely you'll find that they all originated in remarcably similar circumstances. They were written in times when war was common, but mostly on relatively small scale (Napoleonic wars are a exception to this, but Napoleon's introduction of decisive warfare was an exception to the rule). They were fought between highly organized states and governed by generaly accepted rules (law of war if you'd like). This is both background of these books and also of modern western understanding of war (with the exception of small scale) - "War is continuation of politics by other means, conducted in a manner dictated by generaly accepted law and custom". The other side doesn't do it this way. You don't have a state to fight and neither there are accepted rules of war. This will in time result in the brutality Gepard talked about. Another example from history - firebombing during the second world war - in the end anything that reduces the enemy capability to fight was acceptable. Was in brutal? Yes. Was it necessary? There was war. So there is no simple, clean solution. Interesting times are probably ahead...

USA threatened by EU? Sorry, I almost fell from my chair laugting. All that you wrote about US - broke, etc. - applies to EU in far greater degree, though economy is not the greatest problem, politics is. If EU would be unified under a centralized, transparent and representative government then you would not be too far from truth(and of course if it can be achieved, a big if). But as it is today (and in foreseeable future) you are completely wrong. The politicians sitting in Brusels are mostly people that in older, more civilised times (if you know Serenity) would be made governors of the Farthermost Far Easter Pacific Ocean Territories(no pun to anyone who lives there, it's just on the other side of the world) - or any other "out of sight, out of mind" exile. And even if some of them are not that bad, they exist in completely virtual reality of "compromises". Like the recent election of "president" and "foreing secretary" - their selection was primarily ruled by a)small x large member state represantaion, b)left x right, c)don't interfere with Merkel&Sarkosy. And in the end it was criticised from all sides (left, right, federalists, skeptics, etc.) because an oportunity to give the EU a clear vision by electing a well known representative(and thus a strong policy) was missed. In situation when EU is governed by treaties hundreds of pages long, incomprehensible for anyone except the most hardcore lawyer-masochists and containing a lot of "may" and little of "must" or "must not", when it is not clear whether it is European Union, French Empire or Grossdeutchland (whether it is represented by Brussels, Paris or Berlin), when most citizens have no idea why it exists, then it simply can not formulate any policy and become in any way powerful.

The mission with the Victorious is earlier in the game. It begins as a fighter sweep, then you get ambushed by those cloaking russian fighters, while they destroy the Reliant. You are then ordered to defend Victorious. It is a nasty attack as four russian bombers jump in very close to the convoy and fire all their torpedoes and a moment later (when you are fighting the fighters behind the convoy) another wave hits the other side. If you'd like i send you a pilot profile with this mission completed.

Thanks for clarification. I thought that it will be something like that. I played this mission about two weeks ago and there weren't that many torps or bombers (three IIRC). It is a bit chaotic, but if you launch, stay on afterburner and concetrate only torpedoes (targeting them with T key) it is doable (at first try, two missed torps). IMHO there are several more challenging anti-torpedo missions - the defence of that passenger liner early in the game with cloaking bombers or that defence of the Victorious later.

On what difficulty? Try to take a fighter with blind fire capability (any US or the stealthy Japanese one). Select only one type of guns and they will automatically aim at the selected target's "to hit" point. Shooting down torps is really easy then.

I'd suggest Open Freespace as a spacesim. It uses modernized Freespace 2 engine, so the graphics/compatibility are relatively up to date. It's also moddable - WC, B5, BSG.... The original Freespace games are also good by themselved. Starlancer is also good, but the game engine is not futureproof, so it has significant difficulties with current resolutions and widescreen displays. Freelancer is also not bad. It can be regarded as space trading sim, but mostly because of static universe it probably doesn't compare to the X series(don't have those, co can't compare). As you can see, all those games are about 5+ years old. At least the freespace has been kept alive by online community. It is sad to see the space sim slowly die out... If you want a hardcore simulation, then Orbiter is the way to go. It is completely free and with tons of addons and mods (ranging from Mercury capsule to X-wing). But learning to fly in space is really difficult. Among other things you don't have 40+ guys in Mission Control to help you. Many things including interplanetary navigation are still beyond me. For me it was X-wing, then WC3, then WC5 and then X-wing alliance. So I'd say both. Today I sometimes play WC games on DOSBox (IMHO far more stable than the Windows compatible editions). Have you noticed, that WC is the only sim in any category where badly damaged enemies try to disengage, rather to fight it to death? (Okay, in WoX they also sometimes try to run.. :-)) I also have the WC books, they are not bad, but I would not say that they are great either. If brought up to date both series would be awesome.

Myslím, že zrovna MiGu-23 na tom s výdrží nebyl nijak slavně, bez ohledu na výzbroj. Pokud vím, tak odpalování raket po salvách se používao už v 50tých letech (nezávisle na sobě) jak v USA tak v SSSR. Nejenom kvůli spolehlivosti, ale také se kombinovali metody navádění (tj. odpálila se jedna radarem a jedna infračerveně naváděná). Osobně bych odhadoval, že v těch prvních několika střetech to skutečně byly 4 R-27 na letadlo, později se to změnilo na dvě (je lepší mít 4 funkční R-73, než 4 blbý R-27). Ještě jsem náhodou narazil na tohle: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/5681051718/p/1 Tváří se to jako docela uvěřitelné porovnání MiGu-29 a F-16 (od pilota Luftwaffe). Překvapivě i diskuze pod tím je docela zajímavá (až tak na konci 3tí stránky se začnou hádat). Ale odkud to je a jestli to je pravda, netuším. Já používám Community Weapons Pack + lindrovy balíčky dalších zbraní (hlavně americká speciální munice a ruské "chytré" bomby a rakety) a jeho balíček zbraní pro migy-23. + pár dalších specialitek pro různá letadla. Několik zbraní v AI kompatiblilních verzích (hloupé GBU z Desert Storm modu, AA raketnice(gunpody), SUU-25 a CBU-25 výmetnice) . V každém případě v nastavení řízených střel bylo dost chyb. Tady je tabulka původních a nových hodnot. AAM.pdf Nejsou tam právě ty speciální vlastnosti, ale zrovna HOJ jsem si opravil. AIM-4 jsou asi trochu nadsazený, ale zase ty F-89,102 a 106 musejí občas něco trefit (stejně jako MiG-19PM). Noise rejection je taky asi dost vysoká (hlavně ty starší střely by měli mít proti zemi dost problémy..) V každém případě hezké svátky a štastný nový rok.

Merry Chrismas everyone.

I made a small mistake. The last batch was not delivered in 1978, but in 1975. So the greys can be MF-75s. But I am mot familiar with this designation, so I don't know what were the differences. I've looked up some information on Czech 21 and here it is. In total CSLA(Česoslovenská Lidová Armáda - Czechsolvak Peoples Army) used foloving MiG-21 variants: MiG-21F-13: few delivered from Soviet Union in 1962 for military trials and aditional as kits to help start local licence production. Localy build aircraft differed by having the rear canopy made of metal rather then plexiglass. Initial deliveries to operational units in 1963, but real reequipment started in 1964. Production ended in 1972 with about 200 aircraft build. About 30 were delivered to Egypt in 1969. Other 12 (taken from active units) were transfered to Syria following the Yom Kippur War. The radarless F-13 served as fighters up to early 70's. After that they were used primarily to train new pilot in MiG-21 flying and weapons delivery. Most fighter regiments had a F-13 squadron for that purpose. Also many F-13 were modified to carry daytime photoreconnaisance pods on wing stations, giving the type a secondary reconnaisance capability. Retired in mid to late 80's. MiG-21PF: gunless interceptor armed with R-3S or RS-2US missiles (RS-2US was used in poor weather when the R-3S seeker may not lock). Not exceptionaly liked because of poor armament (only 2 missiles) and very high landing speed. 40 aircaft delivered in 1964-65 and spread among fighter regiments. Retirement started in 1989 and quickly completed after the revolution. MiG-21PFM: although the version in game has the GP-9 gunpod only some planes had the necessary wiring. Also in it's role as interceptor the absence of centerline fuel tank cut into the already limited fuel capacity. I 've see exactly one picture of Czech PFM with the gunpod, so make your own conclusions. The blown flaps installed on this version helped decrease the landing speed, but there were some incidents when pilot set engine to idle during langing and the resulting loss of lift lead to a crash. 50 aircraft delivered in 1966-68. Service similar to PF. Retired in 1991. MiG-21R: replaced MiG-15R in tactical reconaissance role. 25 aircraft delivered in 1969-72. Served with 47th reconnaissance regiment. Retired in 1992 with few fometimes flying into 1995. Although it had similar radar and weapons as PFM it was seldom used as interceptor (probably only during annual pilot certification). MiG-21MA: as written earlier. They were refered to only as MA, regardless of upgrade status, so calling it MA (late) is probably more appropriate than MF(from MA). 24 aircraft delivered in 1969-70. upgrades to "late" standard carried after 600 flying hours or 6 years, so by 1976 all were upgraded. Almost all were transfered to Slovak Air force in 1993 and retired in 1997. MiG-21MF: 102 aircraft delivered in 1971-75. Served with fighter regiments and also replaced MiG-15SB in the 6th fighter-bomber regiment. Last aircraft retired from Czech airforce in 2005. The weapons used are a wery difficult question because many sources contradict themselves. From what i've found it seems that all 21s were armed with R-3S missiles. These were replaced during the 80's with R-13M (though this seems really late). First usage of R-13M in CSLA, known to me, is on MiG-23MF starting in 1978. The RS-2US was sometimes used on PF/PFM and MF/MA usualy carried combination of 2xR-3S and 2x RS-2US. I have no idea for how long it was so (as RS-2US was pretty obsolete at this time and the actual rounds were also getting old). With the R-60 family it is even more difficult. They were not delivered with MiG-23MF/BNs in 1978. Soviets even stated, that MiG-23 cannot carry the R-60. That it actually can be done was discovered during introduction of MiG-23ML in 1982 (probably an advisor was not briefed about this particular secret..). Also at that time CSLA introduced many new types (all in small numbers) - MiG-23ML, Su-22, Su-25 so I don't know with what type the R-60 was introduced. It was probably with 23ML, but I can not prove that. And I have no idea what actual version of R-60 was used. I don't think that any Czech 21 were modified to carry R-60 before the 1999 upgrade. Among other things CSAL was not very fond of "upgrading" stuff and it is also questionable if they felt any need for such undertaking during the 80's. Need to maintain large numbers of obsolete and old/worn weapons during the 80's - T-55s, early 21s, Su-7 and need to purchase new ones also limited funding for any upgrades. Total disregard of defence spending during the 90's also didn't afford much room for any upgrades (and on a type that was at the end of its service life anyway).

Hello, over the weekend i tried to make a simple standalone surface AMRAAM launcher(standalone because most modern planes have SEAD loads made only of ARMs). I am not at my computer at this moment, so i can't post the inis. what i did was: made a copy of the HAWK missile launcher adjusted dates, renamed inis, etc. changed type to static AAA (as most maps don't have western SAM sites) replaced HAWK missiles with AIM-120As (the version with engine start = 0 sec.) replaced [DetectSystem] with the one from the HAWK radar (HIPIR? the one that is classified as SAM radar) now it should work (the setup is similar to Pasko's(?) SA-3 quad launcher - the one on tank chassis, though that is set as mobile AAA) but it doesn't. the SLAMRAAMs appear on the map, they have missiles and they try to lock you up. But they don't get a lock on (the inner ring on RWR) and i've seen only one launch - i flew towards it with a Su-24 at 10 000 ft (no ECM) and the launcher fired when i was directly overhead. Otherwise not a single missile was fired at any other eastern ac regardless of position and altitude... Does anyone have any ideas why it doesn't work. I'll post the inis when i get home.

A small update: I've made a plausible HAWK derived launcher with 8 missiles. I am still not entirely happy with the engagement parameters. During a recent test it nailed my wingman at about 10 km and low alt and ignored me as I paraded around at different distances and altitudes. I completely failed with the HUMRAAM. I simply can't make the missiles show on the wehicle. So a question for the more skilled modders (Yes, I am looking at you Wrench ) Is it possible to add parts to a ground object that are not represented on the 3D model (like a "virtual" turret and missile rails)? Any ideas will be apreciated.

What the Czechoslovak Peoples Army (and later the Czech Army) called MiG-21MF were 4 different types of aircraft. The initial batch were in fact MiG-21M model A - Izdělije 96A - (localy known as MiG-21MA). They were refited to MF standard during overhauls (after about 1976 they could be identified only by the smaller airbrakes). Installed radar was RP-21MA, intialy with R-11F2S-300 engines, replace by R-13F-300 during overhauls (in most planes). I haven't found evidence of radar update. Only that about 4 aircraft were modified to carry a SPS-141 derived ECM/Decoy disperser pod on centerline station. Majority of remaining aircraft were "standard" MFs - Izdělije 96F. In 1978 the last batch was delivered. These aircraft were somewhere between "pure" MF and bis variants. The differences were in different canopy periscope, radio, fuel system and a distinctive grey camouflage scheme (so they were localy known as "šedivky" - probably "greys" in English). Radar was probably the same as on previous versions. The integration of R-60M was included in the MiG-21MFN upgrade carried in 1999. 10 aircraft were modifed with new radar altimeters, IFF systems and radios to make them compatible with NATO air defence system. After this upgrade the R-60M was also integrated into remaining active MF's(again about 10 planes).

It is known that the AI cannot use the SUU-25 bomblet dispersers(as on Vietnam era A-1s). As it turns out AI can use them The trick is simple: - make the BLU-24 bomblet a bomb - the SUU-25 becomes a TER - add TER as allowed weapon class to any weapon station that you want to use the disperser on - add similar lines to loadout ini Loadout[03].WeaponType=BLU-24/BB Loadout[03].Quantity=6 Loadout[03].RackType=CBU-25TER In all it took about 15 minutes addToWeaponsData_ini.txt

The weapons you get initialy in campaing are determined by whats written in campaing's _data.ini file. After some time (determined by WeaponResupplyTime= in the same file) all mountable weapons should be available.