JediMaster

With all titles merged, SF has MiG-17, 17F, and 17PF. Don't ask me which ones came with which titles, I don't have any non-merged installs. I've got 5 already!

I would call that ejecting too late!

Like so many other things the DoD does, it doesn't matter that it's consistent with everything else, just that someone with authority was able to justify it in a vacuum.

Yeah, Frugal's was the F4 place like we're the SF place or SimQH is for a couple of the other sims. I must admit I rarely went and if I had a logon I forgot it LONG before the place collapsed.

Which is what the F-35 will have, and one of the things that's driving the cost. This is called sensor fusion, where the pilot sees it like you have Star Trek-style "sensors" that tell you everything. This is not the same as hyperspectral sensors, which the F-35 won't have, but which recon planes should get not too far away. The idea there being hiding facilities/units/movements may be possible in one wavelength (ie visual) but not in others (infrared, UV, radar). So you scan an area with all those wavelengths and hidden things will be revealed.

Yeah, I have the original Galaxy S and hope to get a 3 sometime later this year when prices come down somewhat (hopefully!) Anyway, my mobile phone gaming is pretty much limited to Angry Birds and Tetris, but I hope he makes good money off this.

Android only so far? Any plans for iOS? Not that I'm an Apple owner, more a general interest question.

Am I the only one who thinks the DoD needs to get itself a logic checker?? If HSC = Helicopter Sea Combat, why is Helicopter Maritime Strike = HSM??? That's the acronym for Helicopter Strike Maritime. What's wrong with HMS? If so, shouldn't it be HCS = Helicopter Combat Sea? So, in this acronym we'll reverse the order of the letters, but in this one we're going to leave it as is.

Yes, especially since in your case I'm guessing there MOST locals don't know Hebrew.

5.5 minute free fall I think they said?

That's now called the "swarm" concept and it's being implemented with UCAVs. Or at least, they're DESIGNING UCAVs for that purpose. If they follow true to form, the R&D will cost 2x what they expected, the early models will cost 10x more, and the "low-cost production model" that is supposed to be nice and cheap will be only 4x overpriced.

Well, while I can see there will be interest in this, I don't have any. As mentioned, the mission capability for this will consist of "what a Ka-50 with rockets and gunpods alone could do." Sure you'll have miniguns for attacking infantry/soft targets on either side, but how often do you need that? Also, I don't recall the large numbers of UH-1Hs used in Georgia...IMO it would've been more helpful to make a UH-1Y as least it's current. If not, an AH-1 would've been preferable. So, I hope it sells well for the overall health of DCS World, but I won't be getting it. Combined Arms held far more appeal for me even in its half-finished current form.

I believe it means the squadron will switch its focus from pure anti-submarine to dual anti-sub/anti-surface. I don't know practically what that means for the people involved.

Right, making a forward-firing missile so good it can hit targets behind you will ALSO make it much better for targets in front of or beside you. Making it rear-only limits what you can use it for. More likely to put them on bigger planes. Think how tough a Bear or Blinder with rear-facing IRMs would be!! You'd be forced to attack BVR only!

They're still trying to fund all the "add it later"s that they pushed out for the things before. In short, system procurement has become so unwieldy that IMO a large amount of the budget spent is wasted on reviews, oversight, and requirements changes that instead of making things better make them worse. Honestly, how far overbudget and overschedule could the F-22 have been if they'd NOT been watching it so closely? Stupid thing first flew before the fall of the USSR, and that was already after many years! Worst part really is they can get a prototype in the air after a handful of years but to get the thing in service afterwards takes 10-15+ years?? Really? How bleeding edge can it be? The F-22 had production problems because the computers were designed to use Pentium CPUs. Not Pentium 4, not 3, not 2, ORIGINAL Pentiums. Remember those? 60 and 66 MHz versions? Then the massive redesign to 75-120 MHz using a mere 3.5 volts instead of 5? That's how long ago the stupid thing was designed. We need smaller programs. Make 100 every few years of a new design, not wait 20 years and spend untold billions to find out "oops, we shoulda made that left turn at Albuquerque" and then spend MORE time and money fixing that. If there was some problem, oh well, we only have 100 of them and we can pair them up with another plane that doesn't have that problem. Then the NEXT plane you design that issue out from day 1. Supposedly that will cost us more in logistics, but will that extra amount spent there be greater than or equal to how much the phases leading up to initial service go over? Go ahead, spend a few more billion on the supply chain if it saves us DOZENS of billions just getting them in service.

Reminds me of model rocketry. Only a lot more money and a lot more dangerous!

No, relative stealth is all that matters. If I can see you and kill you before you can see me, I win. If I can see you and kill you after you see me but BEFORE you can kill me, I win as well. In other words, with identical radar missiles the stealthy plane will get the kill because he can launch at a farther range or be more assured of a kill while the other must close to WVR. Likewise if I can blow up your SAM site from range before you can launch on me, I win as well. Stealth does not prevent detection, it delays it so that the stealthy weapon gets first strike. Should the operator be a loon and miss or otherwise screw up said attack, naturally they could still get killed, possibly before striking a thing.

Not that you get that stuff on Discovery anymore! I remember the Wings of the Luftwaffe and Wings of the Red Star series with bitter fondness...for we will not see their like again!

Buffalo Springfield's lone lasting hit! Also known as "that song from the Born on the 4th of July" trailer from over 20 years ago. As for whether this is supposed to be single or twin-engined, I'm guessing what we saw in the video is correct and the .lua name is inaccurate because someone didn't do their homework before sticking it in. You don't totally screw up your 3D model with the wrong number of engines if it's supposed to be DCS! A simple labeling mistake I can buy.

The Blackjack has that odd inner wing fence thing when the wings sweep back. Any issues getting the model to do that?

So...are these new models then??

I don't think there's anything wrong with people wanting to be bilingual or multilingual. I do see a problem with people who think they should not have to learn the language of the country they're in because they can pretty much find people wherever they go that will speak their language to them. On top of that, they use it as a crutch or an excuse to break rules, behave crassly, or just do WTF they feel like because "I don't understand you" (even when there's a great chance they do). A perfect example was in college I knew a girl who worked part time at a department store. Macy's or Sak's or one of those. It was in Ft Lauderdale or thereabouts, I forget where, she commuted to school from another county. She was working the counter when these 2 middle-aged women came up to her and asked her where something or other was in Spanish. She replied in English "I don't speak Spanish." The women turned to each other and angrily remarked, in Spanish, that it was unbelievable they'd have someone working there that didn't speak Spanish. She then responded, in English, "I said I don't speak Spanish, not that I don't understand it." They turned to her shocked, proving they understood her just fine as well. They just decided they didn't want to speak English and they expected all the stores they shopped at to allow that.

The English translation is a bit off (which considering how well that guy is speaking English, you'd think he'd have paraphrased some of those broken sentences to sound more correct), but other than that the T-10 footage and comparisons to the final Su-27 seem unique to me. I've not seen them elsewhere before.

That's because they're using the manufacturer designation. Not exactly sure why, but whatever. A rose by any other name... "Based on the stretched fuselage Bell 205, the Bell 212 was originally developed for the Canadian Forces as the CUH-1N and later redesignated as the CH-135. The Canadian Forces took delivery of 50 starting in May, 1971. At the same time the United States military services ordered 294 Bell 212s under the designation UH-1N." It's not a D, it's an UH-1N. At least, that's what the internal usage of "AB 212" in the .lua files indicates. Problem with that is that's a twin-engine version, and the video shows a single engine...confused...