JediMaster

Yup, they wanted One Plane To Fly Them All (types of missions) hence the projection for 2500 planes. It's just bizarre that everyone today talks of when "production ends" as if that's some big cost-saving measure. I bet if you looked at how money was spent on the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 programs since they started it's easily many times the original esitmate...since we kept building them! The question isn't just "what does it cost" but "what would the alternative cost in comparison"? You could just scrap the entire fighter fleet, that would be real cheap. No need for training pilots, maintainers, spare parts, fuel, weapon development, that would save MEGAbillions! Or we could just keep building the planes we have now, the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, and in 20 years when advanced ground defenses swat them from the sky because they're just too old to be effective over enemy-held territory, we can just keep churning out more to replace them! Take all those illegal immigrants and give them yet another job no one will want...US fighter pilot! We can save money by not training them in how to land! They'll never live that long anyway...

At this point most of the money has been spent. All that's really left is the money to actually build them which is far less by comparison. The other thing is the Harrier is a dangerous plane. Lots of accidents on takeoff and landings over the years. The F-35B is FBW and many times easier to fly, mitigating the risks to both pilot and ground crew. The search for a replacement for the Harrier has been underway for 25+ yrs, to stop now is short-sighted. The final point...creating a new plane to replace either the F-35 (and that means it also will have to be in 3 versions) or to separately replace the planes it is meant to (F-16, F/A-18, AV-8) will result in yet again a large bill for R&D before we can even start rolling any off the line. If you think they could be cheaper than the F-35, you're dreaming. There's no going back to $20m fighters/bombers. The gov't literally is incapable of running a program with that focus.

Pretty much the only alternative spot for B-1 engine mounting is on top of the fuselage where the engines are now, mounted more Blinder-style but still in front of the tail, not on it. The problem with that, of course, is the aerodynamics TOTALLY changes. The thrust line is now above the wings instead of below so increasing thrust would push the nose down, the weight distribution would change, etc. It would make the plane more stealthy to have the intakes on its back, of course. I think it boils down to "how much can you change the base design before the costs increase to the point you could just start from scratch anyway?" Look at the Super Hornet...despite claims of being based on the Hornet, it's really a brand-new design from top-to-bottom with its own set of unique problems that decades of Hornet operation neither foresaw nor aided (wing drop?) Planes like the C-5 and U-2 that had their lines reopened had minimal changes compared to when they were shutdown, which is why they were cost effective. Besides, the B-1's engines aren't outdated, and the plane has massive range. It's one of the few planes out there I'd say is NOT going to benefit from a reengining, unlike the C-5, B-52, E-3, E-8, etc. What gets me is that it looks like the F-15 will still be rolling off the production lines after the F-22 line shuts down. Granted it's the Strike Eagle variant, which replaced the air superiority variant in the late 80s on the line and haven't been built since, but we're not going to be having "F-22Es" replacing the A on the line either. F-15's in continuous production for over 35 years, F-22's for barely a dozen. Frankly, if we're not going to buy enough F-22s to replace all the F-15Cs, which are starting to have serious problems due to their age, they should just buy more F-15s with AESA to replace the F-15Cs.

I don't think TK did, or ever planned to, patch that Wright Bros sim. That meant he could indeed do a simple "control input" recorder. I don't think there were any other planes in the air with you, either, it was just free flight in a non-hostile environment. As for pause, have you tried mapping a stick button to that command? I doubt that the sim itself would let you, but the stick software might.

It looks like it works for the ground units, too. Notice the line attached to the tank icon on the map? I'm just not sure if the directional arrows take you to previous/next waypoints or units. As for campaigns, it's easy to just make a set of single missions as a campaign. Sure you don't get previous mission results carried over, but you could always set it up so they assume any target you fail to destroy in a mission is taken out by a follow-up flight between missions. TK has never had a scripted campaign in the TW sims and I don't think it's starting now.

You got your FLCS to work with USB? The reason I bought the Cougar in the first place was the loss of the gameport in my SB Audigy years back. I LOVED my FLCS/TQS/RCS combo, with Bob Church's digital chips upgrade, but it wouldn't work via USB. I think I finally dumped my FLCS when I bought the G940 for space reasons, it was still sitting in the closet till then. The Cougar worked, but it was never as good to me as the FLCS/TQS was.

Bizarre, it's working fine for me. It shouldn't even matter which Logitech software you're running, 5.08, 9, or 10. Ok, I admit I've not tried it with the 5.10s yet, I just installed them last night.

I heard November for its return, but nothing solid about day or time.

You couldn't put 777/787-style engines on a B-1, there's no clearance under the fuselage for that. Besides, size considerations would mean only 2 engines instead of 4. Using the F119 or F135/136 could work, however. Frankly, if you're going to make a missile truck that never overflies the target then a 747 Freighter mod could well suffice. It has the payload and range requirements. I can't imagine wanting to fly it over a target to drop bombs, though, even in so-called low threat areas because you never know where a SAM might be hiding. The B-1 has agility that no airliner can match and is useful at low level as well as normal operating altitudes, something the Buff can't match nor could an airliner.

Some games with replay abilities, like LOMAC/FC/DCS and Il-2, are basically useless thanks to patching. Anything portrayed in the playback that has been altered thanks to a patch/update, such as FM, damage modeling, AI performance, etc renders the previous one broken in some way. They use the deterministic way of recording missions to keep file size down, but that makes the patching process ruin it. It's such a big factor that the 1.0 release of Black Shark had training missions you could watch and then take over and fly yourself that were ruined by 1.01 and then 1.02, so they were removed! Now you have to go to their site/YouTube and just watch videos of the missions.

I have a Cougar and G940, and I mostly just use the G940 now. The centering issue in some games can be annoying, but overall I prefer it. Plus my Cougar is 6-7 yrs old now and the RCS pedals are over 15 yrs old!

Is it unnamed, or is it just SF2: Tomcat? I know TK said it would integrate with the previous SF2 titles, so that name would make sense.

You'd have to redesign it. There's no way anyone would approve an 8-engined plane today, and it's unnecessary. They've only talked of re-engining the Buffs since sometime after the thing enetered service, but it gains no ground. Besides, the thing shows up on radar like another radar dish mounted a foot away...you need those extra 4 engines just to power the ECM to keep it from being swatted by SAMs. I'd favor reopening the B-1B line with some changes here and there and I think it would make a pretty good low-cost B-3, albeit never as stealthy as a B-2, but you could make it better.

I really liked the first, can't wait for this one.

No, they're looking to finally replace the B-52s.

Oh, is that going to be located next to their aerospace center of mediocrity in Mobile, Alabama? I just love the superlatives that press releases can use.

If another country drops nukes first, then I'd say all bets are off. I can't imagine strategic nukes being used, though, because of how many civilians would be torched. Using them in the old WWIII/Central Europe way, with kt-yield weapons dropped on their forces, perhaps. However, in a conventional battle going south I don't see the US being the one to take that route first unless it was an invasion of our borders that we were failing to repel. A nuke on the rear lines (away from our soil but hitting reserves/logistics) to cut off their thrust then would be conceivable.

Oh yes, Looney Toons ballet.

Yes, if only because neither of them are willing to spend money on the military any more than yours is. No, the growth area is in south/east Asia when it comes to countries capable of having global effects. They as of yet are still little capable of operations away from their borders, but they're heading that way. You know, I was just thinking the reason countries like N Korea, Pakistan, and Iran all look to get nukes is because of what they saw happen to Russia in the last 20 years. Its military really did turn into a shell of its former self that was capable only of self defense. Yet, it is still a word player that is ignored at a country's own peril because of its large nuclear arsenal. With nukes you can hold a country hostage without even having the ability to attack it directly with conventional weapons. The reason the US is attacked anyway is we've shown an unwillingness to use them after WWII, so it's only what our conventional forces can do that is taken into consideration. After all, N Korea talks about nuking US forces that may attempt to fight it, but it makes no acknowledgement that we can nuke it back 10x over...because they know we really won't unless they're a LOT more powerful than they will be in any near future.

Harriers are a 40 yr old design, there's little more to be done in upgrades for them. You can give them a better radar and weapons, but things such as range, stealth, payload, speed...none of those can really be changed much.

What?? When the 3rd part ZIL-157 is HUNDREDS of times more accurate and can do the proper 50km/h over gravel roads and not the ridiculous 75km/h of the stock?!?! I say good day, sir!

My wife had flown up to RI the night of the 10th for a days-long training course at her company. I was at work (a crappy place I left only a few weeks later) and we had no internet or TV, so our news was all based on people calling in. The first plane was reported as an "oh wow, can't believe that", but as soon as the 2nd plane hit everything changed. I remember the rumors running around that morning after the reports that the Pentagon had been hit and 93 crashed in PA. I heard that both the Capitol bldg and the White House had been hit among other things. After the 2nd plane, I got on the phone to my wife in RI and we agreed she needed to come home. Her father, who was not yet retired as the head of EMT in Broward County, had called her and told her the airports would be shut down soon and there would be no flights back for who knows how long, so she convinced the people in her class who lived down the east coast to rent a car with her and drive back. They got the LAST car from the rental place. She told me she saw the smoke from the south end of the island as they drove thru NY. She had to take a train back from TN to FL since the guy who rented the car had to drive further west, and I was very anxious until she got home.

Which part of ballet has you driving your body head-first into the ground up to the torso?

Besides, is the Typhoon as capable in the ground attack role as even the Su-22, let alone the Gripen? The Typhoon is more impressive from some aspects, but I don't know if it's what Poland needs.

Not really, aging fighters cost more to run than newer ones as the number of things that break on flights go up. That's why the US retired the SR-71, EF-111, F-14, and F-117 when they were still very useful....they just cost more than we were getting from them.