Typhoid

I think the key point is that she carried VTOL aircraft, whether Harrier or Helo's. It would be real, real tough to make it CTOL jet capable. As a frame of reference, the Argentine carrier in the Falklands and that class of ships all (barely) operated A-4's and were not quite twice as large. A pretty signficant difference. Our own Essex class ship at roughly 3 times as large could operate A-4's, A-3's and F-8's (and the earlier jets). We (USN) never operated jets on anything smaller. It might be theoretically possible to operate an A-4 class of jet on such a small ship, but you might have a tough time finding aircrew both technically savy enough to fly the planes and at the same time dumb enough to try to launch/recover on such a small ship.

i've done it by doing what I stated above. You can add all kinds of stuff onto a single aircraft from all sides of the spectrum. works just fine.

if the aircraft weapons stations have that included as allowable weapons, yes. If you are modding an aircraft, say an Iranian fighter to take both western weapons left over from the Shah and current Russian weapons, just add USAF, USN, and WP as allowable weapons and you can mix and match all kinds of stuff.

I'm not an admin, but it looks like its gone.....

don't know how I missed that the first time, but by all means count me in. All I do is pretty basic ini modding and packaging/repackaging but happy to be part of the bigger group.

you can if you claim its yours. Particularly if you turn around and sell it.

actually, I agree with you up to a point. My earlier comment was based on what we had in the NEACP for our high level group. There is none higher than who were, and sometimes did, pick up. We had very nice accomodations on the aircraft for them, and for us for those very, very long missions. I know of what you speak and agree with you. Where I break is just how nice they have to be and at what cost. They should be comfortable after several days of flight ops. But more importantly, how much is to be contracted for. The suite cited above seems a bit further than needed. The accomodations on the NEACP/NAOC for the President are not as good as what is being laid out above and the cost seems out of line. My earlier comment that we should be able to get off the shelf stuff is that should be the benchmark for cost. The bit about changing the color for 80k is not reasonable in my view even through our broken aquisition system. That really is what is behind my earlier comment. --------- On the parachute question. That is a Red Herring and really not a valid comparison. The survivability of bailing out of a 135/707 airframe has long been questioned and the AWACS, just one example, removed the parachutes for that reason long ago. I am quite positive that no one is taking the cost of the executive suite out of the survivability equipment for other aircrews nor out of the hide of enlisted support accounts. That really is not a reasonable conclusion or valid comparison.

very interesting, thanks. an early report that I saw reported Marines there, this rather clearly identifies them as Army paratroopers. Not really a significant issue, but interesting.

HA! After the meltdown of nuclear surety standards the rate of rotation should be enough to power the nation's electrical needs if we could him up to a generator!

the evils of military procurement run amok. I'd like to see the JCIDS documentation for that junk! If we could only just go out and buy commercial off-the-shelf executive transport aircraft...... waaaaaaay back when on the old NEACP (still hanging in there) we had the executive "Gold Room" on the aircraft which we all thought was nice, comfortable stuff. If that was good enough for Regean - why wouldn't it be good enough for the top brass now?

with wooden decks? "the smoking lamp is now - uh - burnt to a crisp!"

"of course, we all just just s**t-can the package...and give up ' NO!! we'll all figure it out.... after all, the best of the best modders are on the job! I actually have no problems at all with the original file. Its all the fixes......

"Hopefully one day every last one of these terrorist scum will either be dead or in a prison camp." don't put them in a prison camp, you can see what our courts are doing about that............

ART?

the first version worked great. the first update broke the gun but my radar still works I haven't loaded the latest yet. Interesting progression....

what about Spain trying to reclaim her former colonies while the US is otherwise engaged.........

that is very, very true!! in EUCOM back then, we faced roughly a thousand Floggers. But we understood that number meant that a couple hundred might actually get into the air. In that respect I would have to change my earlier comment and agree that in large measure the Flogger was an operational failure.

about 45. Roughly half US Marines and half Afghan Army. and of course our aviation.

maybe an A-4, but that's a stretch. prop job In Spanish service what did it operate? wasn't it mostly just S-2's and helos?

works just fine in both WOE and WOI for me with an nVidia card. you have to be careful, as noted above, that you use a terrain that has a large base for that side. Otherwise it will CTD. The fix is also noted above.

yup. I wouldn't call it a failure. It was roughly comparable to the Phantom although with some significant limitations uncovered by the Constant Peg effort. (When I sat in the cockpit it was my impression that the last plane I would want to fly into combat would be the Mig-23) combat performance tended to validate that, but remember that unlike most of the other Migs that came out, the Flogger was introduced after the Phantom and faced for the most part the next generation of fighters and was therefore signficantly outclassed.

here is the key phrase; "So went the Challenger launch disaster that Lockheed and NASA officials negligently and intentionally executed on the morning of January 28, 1986." the contention that anyone intentionally launched to an intended disaster, and then covered up anything is an abhorent, disgusting and utterly deranged and delusional viewpoint. The facts were covered in exhausting detail in the commission report on the disaster. The contention on that deranged site that anyone tried to cover up anything, but in particular the fact that the boosters happened to cross paths as the vehicle broke up is utterly ridiculous since that was quite clearly noted in the video on the day of the disaster. Those nutty fruitcakes had to intentionally ignore the data available and then fabricate a conspiracy. anyone involved with that conspiracy site is in desperate need of psychiatric treatment and continuing medication. In my own view, having been accused before of other conspiracy involvment, is that those deranged and delusional idiots should be prosecuted for slander and libel by all of the dedicated NASA and contractor personnel. I have, as noted previously, a very low tolerance threshold for such back-stabbing traitors. I remember that day very clearly. We had just launched on the NEACP and were linked into the LCU as the launch went up. So we heard it all live including the launch of the SAR until the conferences all shut down. exactly!

kill records are always tough to reliably determine. In the middle of a swirling dogfight the best report by the most honest pilot is subject to significant misinterpretations of events which are then magnified through the debriefing process. With the exception of some obvious propaganda efforts by various dictatorial regimes of questionable veracity, most accounts by professional forces have tried to be close. but its tough. an example from the WWII Battle of the Atlantic when our ASW aircraft would bomb U-boats caught on the surface which promptly "sank". needless to say the reports of sunken U-boats by aircrew were somewhat at variance with the German Naval records. so such efforts towards confirmation of kills has been an ongoing and difficult effort. now - any account by a dicatorial regime that engages in overt propaganda and support to terrorist organizations is obviously suspect. Syria does not exactly rank high on the scale of truthfulness.

and a Badger regiment along with a squadron of SAF Floggers for cover. I had played with a Vietnam terrain and got it to work which covered all of Vietnam on the Red side with the Blue Team confined to Thailand. It worked pretty well for single missions but I could not get the campaign to work. But while playing with it I could fly the Badgers out of Cam Rahn Bay for strike and ant-shipping missions.

yes, if I select an air to air mission......... seems odd that if I select an air to ground mission then I can only get A2A weapons, but if I select an A2A mission I can also get A2G stuff. have been playing with the loadout ini but so far no luck.