JediMaster

I had a 1/72 Bone and an 1/72 B-52D and those things took up way too much room as it was!

Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.

There's more to a nuke sub than a working reactor. Sound suppression is very important and that's not the kind of knowledge that's going to be easily available. You figure it out by trial and error.

The Su-24 is the same age as the F-111. Long out of production, it will be replaced by the Su-34. No one is buying Fencers anymore.

The technical issues largely resolved now, it's quite simply the world's most overpriced F-16 upgrade. I don't know how it will fare against the (projected) performance of the F-35, but other than the stealth aspect which is obviously lesser I don't know how close it will be. The Japanese basically got far less than they paid for, or paid for far more than they actually got, depending on how you look at it.

Interesting. At my wing the cmdr is an O-7 with the larger squadrons headed by O-6s and the smaller O-5s, with only the smallest O-4s. Seeing as this wing has a nuclear tasking, I thought it would be important enough for an O-7.

From what RB said, I think it's the guy's girlfriend that's the problem. He wants to join, she's flipping out, he's asking if there's something he should do that will help assuage her concerns. My guess is he's afraid of losing her if she joins. Given the higher-than-average divorce rate in the armed services, he's not wrong in that. With the number of people today who can't make a marriage work, having one person deployed for long periods and possibly in a combat zone is only going to make that worse. I also agree he should not join if he's concerned about this, but I don't necessarily think he's cowardly. We're only getting RB's take of the situation, the guy didn't post himself. If you take physics in college BTW you can get into the USN's nuke engineering stuff for subs and carriers. That's about as "safe" as you can get nowadays. Just have to worry about non-combat accidents for the most part. Of course, if you're joining to get the money for college, that path is obviously out. I never joined for 2 simple reasons--1, I hate travel. Short distances, maybe go across the country for a week a year, but that's it. 2, I have a problem with authority.

Yeah, some of the names they ignored as being unflattering at best. The Fulcrum one, however, is actually rather complimentary when you think about it, and Flanker works just fine. I still don't know who in NATO came up with "frogfoot." Why not just frog? I guess it's like "fishbed"...what is THAT supposed to be anyway??

The funny thing was Pacific did one thing very right--the abolition of health packs and replacement by the medic with a limited number of healings. Then Airborne goes and dumps that.

I didn't because I never went there! Between the disappointment of the bots/SP/coop (after they said prerelease they were going to make it "a lot better" than BF42) and the irritation with the unlock thing I never got BF2.

Oh yeah, I forgot about VC1! That game oozed atmosphere and had great voice acting. The coop reminded me the coop in the first AvP game where you could play Marines or Predators and fight waves of Aliens. I've not touched VC1 since before VC2 was released, though.

The Camel 130 I'm sure will be hotfixed, as will other stuff. That's why I have my pre-Exp modded version still as well as my non-modded Exp install.

The only known instance of a T-6 catching a T-38 in the air?

The wing cmdr was only an O-6?? For a nuke wing? That seems unusual, unless he was an O-7 select.

Communism was a great theory, but it goes contrary to human nature. You only want everyone equal when you're on the bottom. You always look for ways to move up, and if you do the last thing you want is someone who failed to make it up saying you can't have it because everyone doesn't. When PEOPLE change, communism may work. Until then, it can only work as a veneer on another type of system, usually a totalitarian oligarchy.

Most of what you described won't happen because it's not like a twin-engined plane, with each engine powering one prop. They're interconnected and one engine can turn both. Only with loss of an engine AND the interconnect could that happen. I'm sure it could with battle damage, but again no twin-prop helo can stay aloft with only one prop working anyway. While I'm sure in airplane mode it will fly fine, I don't know about hovering especially under max weight conditions. Hopefully they could dump fuel/cargo or at least land safely. Remember, it can't land in airplane mode, only helo mode, although the engines could be tilted forwards for a "rolling" landing. In airplane mode, though, the props would be slamming into the ground before all wheels touched down.

I think the F-15E would've been too pricey for the number of airframes bought back in the 80s when the Hornet won. While Oz is getting the F-35 (at least, that is the current plan) to replace the Hornet, there's no doubt it can't replace an F-111. I think right now there are only 4 choices for that category (discounting the F-22 because it's so costly and no exports have been granted yet): F-15E(A) -- for Australia --probably seen as too old a design for the price? Super Bug -- what they picked Mirage 2000 -- as mentioned, won't happen for political reasons Su-30 -- probably also ruled out on both political and logistical reasons The Typhoon isn't yet multirole enough and likely also costs a bit more. All other new-gen fighters have too little range/payload.

The problem is as always the law is worded inaccurately and it gets used for a purpose other than originally intended. Of course, without the internet we'd still all be using code wheels and manuals for CP on games and music and video would only be that which we or our friends own. I miss the days of that simple CP. I remember one that was my favorite--match the silhouette with its name! As long as you knew your airplane types you didn't need to open the manual.

If this is Brazil's first nuke sub, by defintion it's 1st generation.

It's all about budget and spending wisely.

It's perfectly normal banter, Timmy! Top-hole! Bally Jerry, pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birded, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.

I think an expansion should have either A) a lot of new airplanes and campaigns for them or B) a couple of new airplanes and a new terrain plus campaigns. In other words, a new terrain is worth half a dozen planes. That's mainly because we have many modders doing great work on planes, but very few doing terrains and only a small number of those are to the quality of the stock terrain due to the higher difficulty involved creating them. FE Exp 1 was a great addon, mainly because it offered MORE than the stock game came with! It more than doubled the number of flyables and added a terrain superior to the original. WOE is almost an expansion to WOV thanks to the integration. The pricing was the same as FE, too. The only difference is WOE is standalone while FE Exp 1 requires FE. I'd like it if WOI integrates with WoV/WoE and more FE expansion come to add on. That way, you'd only need one stock install of each (discounting the myriad others we have for mods ). Also makes those of us who play MP have an easier time as we could run WOI, choose from the 3 terrains, and then pick any of the planes released in any of the 3 to fly in or against. Anyway, FE Exp 1 is great and I'm on board for WoI.

The problem with the eels is communicating with them properly. When meeting an eel for the first time, you must use the correct banter, to whit: Top-hole! Bally Jerry, pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birded, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.

Wow, compared to those the US has some of the most boring paint schemes ever. Only the T-birds can come close to competing. LOL at the 21UB with "wooden" wings! Who came up with that idea?

I think 90% of all "official" aircraft names are cheerfully ignored by the crews and pilots who come up with their own names for them. The F-22 might be an exception as calling it the "Raptor" seems popular for now. I doubt the F-35 will stick with the moniker "Lightning" though, despite the P-38 and UK heritage. It just doesn't seem right. Actually, isn't the MiG-29 the odd case where another country named the plane? The Russians I think adopted "Fulcrum" as their name for it as they never really pick names for them officially, just what the crews hang on it. Like they call the Flanker the "crane" because of how it looks on takeoff (much as the YF-17 was called the Cobra and the F-14 the Turkey).