JediMaster

You want Spam with that???

Might that not be perceived as over-indulgent?

No...more...brisket...*burp*

I don't know how much a Chinook costs, but it has to cost more than smaller helos. I'd think we could get more for the same money if we went smaller.

I have my TV control mapped to my Ant knob on my Cougar. For every other sim out there, keeping that in the middle is appropriate for controlling radar azimuth and/or scan bars. But for TVC, it means I start a mission with the nozzles at 45 degrees. That can be a problem!

I'm having spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, and spam.

You can build the airframe any time you want, sure. Maybe even the engines, which usually stay in production longer than the plane itself to satisfy demand for spares.

The issue is the avionics and to an equal extent the suppliers. Since aerospace production lines last so many years, they wind up using parts ONLY there. If the line shuts down, the suppliers stop making the parts. The F-22 uses processors that are obsolete now. They were top of the line when production started 10 years ago, but they're still using the same ones today! The F-35 will use current processors, but in 2020 when they're out in force those things will again be very obsolete.

Suppliers keep making things if there's a market for them. Shut down the line, no demand, they stop making them and throw out/convert the tooling to make them. Come back in 5 years and want more? Nope, sorry, we can't make them anymore!

Under the best scenarios you get things like the B-1B, U-2R/TR-1, or C-5B programs where a new variant of the plane based on the old design can be built years later. However, while the B-1A program was never in production, the other 2 had very simple avionics and such that were far more easily replaced than todays integrated designs.

So, to "restart" F-22 production would result in

1) the F-22B because it would be very different from a parts commonality standpoint and

2) extra costs for development and testing to get the new parts certified to work as well as the old, better if you're lucky

3) just plain higher costs because parts and labor will go up

In short, we can buy more F-22s now, or we can restart later, pay more for fewer, and take quite a while to get them.

But the F-22 CAN do A2G work, and as time goes on they'll be able to do more and more as the software gets upgraded.

The main thing to remember is right now the F-22 costs LESS than the JSF will. The first 2-3 dozen F-35s will likely cost $150m+ each because there will be no economy of scale. Not until we've already got hundreds in the air will they drop below $100m.

Also, the F-35 isn't in service yet! We've got what, 4 flying, 2 A's and 2 B's, of which I think only 2 of those are "production representative" at all?

While building 240 never looked like it would happen, I think we should have at least 200. As mentioned with the B-2s, if your "silver bullet" force is too small you risk losing it all in accidents like takeoffs and hangar fires.

The biggest issue is the F-22 is the only fighter we have right now, and the only plane other than the B-2, that we can send into SAM "hot spots" without fear of losing them all. FORGET enemy fighters, that's NOT the threat that will shoot them down, that's just the threat THEY shoot down.

No F-15 or F-16 or Super Hornet, no matter what upgrades it gets, is going to get as close to an SA-10 or higher as an F-22 can.

Jets don't fly formation with little planes like that. They make passes back and forth, circling it and crossing it.

I saw that happen here in 2004 when the President was in town and some shmo flying VFR along I-95 passed within 1/4 mile of the stadium he was in. Watching a little tail-dragger doing no more than 80 getting buzzed by 2 F-16s was quite a sight.

They better rethink their strategy for their engine because no matter what you thought of the 2 Crysis games, the performance was woefully lacking on current hardware.

Hopefully they'll be able to get some better results from this one than on the Caylee Anthony case where the long passage of time has hurt the investigation.

I think they were waiting to see if debris was heading towards them, and only then would they have fired.

Of course, even if it broken up already as soon as they fired the NK's would accuse them of shooting it down.

Not the place one would expect an earthquake...

Last Thursday, we had a bomb threat call at our Custom's building. I was one of the first responders and had to setup as a counter sniper (uber cool). Then I got retasked to provide armed escort for the evacuees. After that I had to stand out in the cold for about three hours and miss a meal break. Anyways. It's the first bit of "action" I've gotten to deal with since going AGR. I also just got that new G1 phone from TMobile so I now have constant internet access.

One of these sentences is not like the others.

One of these sentences just doesn't belong...

Well it launched and nothing happened except for claims and counterclaims about whether or not it was successful.

I can't imagine it would help them as much as the TVC engines would. Even the Flankers have dropped using them again.

Those missiles are far too long to be R-73s, just look at the shot above it.

Anyway, the Su-34 looks like the winner of the "can you make a Flanker look ugly?" contest. Interesting that it has an external fuel tank, I didn't think they'd ever need one with as much internal fuel as they can hold.

It's the whole "which threat is worse" scenario. Sure the country could collapse, but it could also get in a fight with Iran again and this time get overrun...would that be better or worse?

Why don't we just do what Dr No did 50 years ago and beam bad radio waves at it to make it crash?

Blowing it up is so 80s...just hack it down!

He obviously chose the right weapon the first time, the AT rocket.

However, you never attack a tank inside an enclosure! You have to get it out in the open where you can get a solid lock and the missile can attack the lightly-armored upper deck! Duh!!!

The press never reports things accurately. That is total program cost, including I'm sure things like some extra engines (so you can in theory have all birds flying with a couple of engines out for repair/overhaul), other parts and services, possibly weapons, training, and maybe even lifecycle costs.

It's all about who's doing the accounting. The REAL number is usually referred to as "flyaway" cost, also known as plain parts and labor for the plane. For instance, the flyaway cost of the Raptor is down to under $140m now, but in the early days it was well over double that. Add in the R&D and testing and such and divide by the number of planes built and it goes up a lot more...but it's all about the accountants!

That will likely be in the inevitable expansion, Farmer's Gambit.

Biggest issue with the Russian planes is usually small ammo load. You get maybe 10 seconds of continuous firing max and you're out, while the cannons seem to last 1/3 that. Every plane has less cannon than MG ammo unless the plane is cannon only, but the Russian ones seem very stingy with it.

I found a used copy of Over G for $18 at Gamestop, and picked up AC6 new for $20 at Walmart. For those prices, both are worth it.

I should clarify, I ONLY fly co-op MP! I have no interest in H2H because I also have little time to practice and I play a ton of different games so when I do fly I don't want to be killed in 30 seconds by some guy who does nothing but fly THAT sim for 20+ hrs/week!

There are a lot of Samsungs on the base here. Every new one that comes in it seems.