Typhoid

its working just fine for me (other than P-51's flying for the Luftwaffe.....) But I put it into my WWII folder since it appears to be a WWII terrain with U-boats and Kriegsmarine cruisers and such. So I've haven't tried flying a Bear or a BUFF.

lets toss a little more gas on the fire, shall we.............?

runs great, very nice terrain. it appears that the "friend" and "enemy" are reversed, so that the allied aircraft fly for Germany and the axis aircraft fly for the allies. nice convoy! did you remember to readdres the cat file?

SF1 or SF2?

nice plane! seems a bit oversensitive on the controls. Did you tweak the FM for SF2?

you think the UN is going to slap down a socialist dictator with ties to communist terrorists? to many within the UN are made up of such nutjobs. They would never take action against a fellow despotic dictator. for any embargo to get a chance, the regional organizations would have to lead the charge.

well - WE certainly aren't selling him any weapons...................

Back then we use the same mark number and so far as I recall the bombs were the same. We didn't use the MK81 or the MK-117 but otherwise they were same up through the mid-80's later the BLU-111 series did change the composition and external casing for those reasons and the MK 80 series were so changed and designated. ----------------- Since the Vietnam War United States Navy and USMC GP bombs are distinguished by a thick ablative fire-retardant coating, which is designed to delay any potential accidental explosion in the event of a shipboard fire. ------------------ Description: The BLU-111 is a 500-pound class steel casing warhead designed to fit into low-cost JDAM bombs. The main purpose of the BLU-111 is to penetrate hardened targets, bunkers or concrete walls while minimizing collateral damage because it carries only 500-pound of high explosive. The BLU-111A/B designation refers to BLU-111 warheads thermally protected to withstand fuel fire on an aircraft carrier. The BLU-111/B designation refers to a warhead filled with a less sensitive explosive resulting into a safer weapon compared with baseline BLU-111s. The US Navy seems to be clearly the main customer for these specially modified BLU-111s. ------------ the USN also shifted to JP-5, not sure when, in order to reduce the fire danger aboard ship. A JP-5 fire doesn't spread as fast as a JP-4 fire. We also went to extensive use of foam for fire-fighting.

the series of carrier fires led to huge changes in training. On the way to my first ship, also Independence, I went through one of the best courses that I have ever gone to then and since. Flight Deck Fire-Fighting was required for all who went to the airwings or worked on the flight decks and the lessons learned from Forestal, Enterprise and Oriskany were taught to all of us with some real, hands-on practical training. When GQ sounded for "Fire on the Flight Deck - this is not a drill" one's heart rate went though the roof but we all knew what to do. Those lives lost were not lost in vain.

"Maybe it wasn't time for a dedicated air to air fighter that advanced." which is why it was modified for air to ground and the Small Diameter Bomb was developed to go with it. fact is, the F-22 is a much better strike aircraft than the F-35 will ever be. that is why its cancellation is an Obamanation that I hope we never have to suffer for.

and be jammed out of the sky by a geek on the ground....................

BS!! there is no way that was done at Mach 2!! although, impressive enough at any speed!

true enough, its all relative. But the fact is that the F-35 will be more detectable than the F-22 and will be tracked by fire control at greater ranges than the F-22, but less than the F-15, F16 and F-18. The F-35 will take losses that the F-22 will not. question - how many F-35 shootdowns will it take to justify further F-22 fielding? --------------- I have tracked B-52's before and thought my radar receiver was going to be driven into overload.....

not quite. The F-22 has about 1/10th the signature of the F-35 (at the unclass level) "eraser_tr - Did a tiny bit of research. They only made 64 F-117s, compared to 187 F-22s. And with less than 100 airframes the nighthawk had a ~25 year service history. It was a very specialized aircraft, but then again, so is the F-22. If only used for what the F-117 was, we've more than doubled the inventory of aircraft with stealth capability and can operate in the day without sticking out like a sore thumb." completely different mission. Although the USAF expanded the F-22 role to include strike and developed the SDB (right decision in trying to expand the airframe count to lower the unit price to something pallateable), the F-22 primary mission is still air to air. With the reduced buy, the USAF will likely not be able to afford to task the extremely limited number of F-22's in air to ground missions. The F-117 only had to do selected strike missions on a very limited target set. So we will end up tasking, and losing, greater numbers of F-35's (and their pilots) with ten times the signature on high value/highly defended targets. (Or use greater numbers of cruise missiles or eventually UCAV's).

good luck and hope to see you again soon.

that's awesome!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!! say good bye to sleep for awhile

wrong question, which is why I didn't vote. UAV's absolutely can, should and largely have replaced manned aircraft for certain missions. The question should be more along the lines of; what missions can UAV's replace manned aircraft? and what are the key technological breakthroughs needed to be able to increase the mission set? what key policy issues need to be addressed in order to expand UAV's in certain mission sets and within specific geographic areas (UAV ops within the National Airspace Systems of various countries/regions)

very bad mistake and an extraordinarily short-sighted decision. I pray we never pay for this idiocy.

these are VERY NICE planes!

Very nice!

I thought a Light Sabre was an F-86 that hasn't been fueled or loaded yet?