macelena

I will share later some info on the Matador, standard loadout is a little bit different than what they carried in RL

Yep, she already mentioned the Op going fine, did you already have that chem class? Did they say anything about when you start chemo?

Orbital bombing. It is the only way to be sure. BTW: JSF becomes self-aware, has to be put down

You should check the radar range indicator lights, they show the next setting. When set on 35nm, the 60nm light is on, when set on 60nm, the 7nm light is on, and so on.

http://www.gonavy.jp/ ModexSquadron Aircraft 100VF-102 Diamondbacks F-14A 200VF-33 Starfighters F-14A 300VA-46 Clansmen A-7E 400VA-72 Blue Hawks A-7E 500VA-34 Blue Blasters A-6E/KA-6D 600-603VAW-123 Screwtops E-2C 604-607VAQ-135 BlackRavens EA-6B 610HS-11 Dragon Slayers SH-3H 700VS-32 Maulers S-3A (JQ)xxVQ-2 DET.A Batmen EA-3B (RG)424VRC-50 DET. Foo Dogs C-2A

good luck man, stay strong!

If we are settling for using SCB-125s as some sort of second line-complementary carrier to bulk out the fleet, it is acceptable to use A-4Ms while it would be desirable to solve the weight issue. Of course, we can´t add antiship missiles, wich would mean both more equipment and facing the possibility of bringing them back aboard. A mix complement with Dassault Etendards for that role would be fine. Having the carriers full of Etendards may be too much for Dassault to make in a short term, however. A-7 Corsairs were employed aboard Essexs, so we shouldn't forget that possibility. Jaguars Ms would be perfect, however it may be too what if, so depending of what you want DA. About an air defence fighter, either using Harriers or Skyhawks would be not effective enough, either would mean needing to resort to a redundant air cover by heavier carriers. Crusaders would be ideal, while they would have a hard time against missile carriers, and we have the issue of depleted airframe life. F-4Ns could be the best solution performance wise, but operating them from carriers that size would be pushing too much. My solution would be an SCB-125, with A-4Ms and Super Etendards to boost attack capabilities, maybe , a lot of SH-3D for ASW, and if possible, Crusaders. Should the Crusaders be ditched, they could operate under the air cover of supercarriers as ASW platform and to perform missions like CAS for Marines, and adding sorties to bombing campaigns or Alpha Strikes against enemy surface fleets.

En el inventario de armas, solo aparecen aquellas que puede llevar el avion que originalmente llevabas. Y los depósitos de combustible son especificos para cada tipo de avion. Por ejemplo, si llevas una variante de Phantom o de Mirage para escoltar a otra igual, (por ejemplo, F-4E escoltando RF-4C o F-4G, o Mirage3EA escoltando Daggers) llevan el mismo tipo de deposito, pero si no, es que no hay

Well, it was already widely known how did the F-5s look like with Red Star roundels lol

That´s another point i found weird. By that era and area (southern coast of Spain), reconaissance flights by Algerian based MiG-25RBs were a quite common issue, however the fact that the object was described as very agile and bright would dismiss that possibility, along with being painted by the unknown aircraft wich was heading away from the Phantom. There was no info on wich type of signal did the Phantom recieve, and i don´t know what kind of aircraft could have done that. I guess they knew what was it or at least had a close idea about it, but it remained undisclosed.

Pues si que se podia, si. Una mision de reconocimiento turístico...tuve que bajar la calidad de los gráficos, habia problemas con los FPS cuando usaba el empuje vectorial. Hasta ahora, lo habia usado sobretodo para maniobras como el viffing y apontaje en portaaviones, que mas bien era como un CTOL con más control, pero he podido usarlo con una maniobrabilidad que no habia visto hasta ahora

Yes, last flights were in 1989, only that they had been withdrawn with the arrival of Hornets, with pilot training stopped and such, being cannibalized for spares for the RF-4s, later preserved as gate guardians, sent to museums or expended as targets. Also, while the last RF-4Cs were oficially retired in October 2002, when the Moroccans occupied an Spanish deserted Island in the Strait in July, the recon flights were performed not by them, but by Hornets fitted with pods. Sometimes we keep aircraft in service for some time while replacement is being introduced in the same unit, probably longer than other services if procurement of the new aircraft-system and training is not at 100% completed. Some contemporary example would be Ala 14, wich received EF2000s but kept Mirage F1s flying for a while until they were finally preserved for sale.

Actually, it was an official report declassified by the Spanish Air Force, and it was more concerned about foreign intruders than extraterrestrial activity. I think it is a reliable source...despite the dubious show i first heard about it. However, as you say, i find it quite weird, since i couldn´t find a picture showing any dispensers, or in any case i missed them. There were other reports of them carrying chaff, but this is the first instance i heard of them being employed. If Torrejon USAF Phantoms, also Cs at the time, didn´t have them, i think you are quite likely to be right on the airbrake theory. The only reference i had was a passage of Ed Rasimus in an exercise against MirageIIIEEs and didn´t mention anything related to that. As a side note, Spanish F-4Cs (fighters) weren´t retired until 1986, when F-18s replaced them. An small new batch of Phantoms, including the first RF-4Cs, was delivered in 1978-1979. More Recon models were purchased until the last RF-4Cs were retired in 2002. The little information about their service is due to an apparently overzealous reluctance by our government to report on their service, something wich has already made it a bit difficult to research for modding Spanish aircraft.

Anybody can tell me about the use of Flare-Chaff dispensers in F-4Cs? I watched a TV Documentary about UFO intercepts by the Spanish Air Force, and on such an encounter in 1977 the pilot reported the bogey painted him on radar and he dropped chaff to avoid it. I have been unable to see further indications on the dispensers employed by the Spanish Phantoms, and having searched for photos of them i didn´t get anything showing the ALE-40s wich other late Phantoms carried. I play SF2, and the most advanced C variant, vintage 67, didn´t have them. Does anyone know anything about this? Spanish Phantoms were based at Torrejon AFB, where an USAF Phantom Wing was based at the same time. Being refurbished models, specially in the electronics area, they could have undergone the same modifications as their USAF counterparts. Does anybody know if there was such a feature retrofitted to USAF F-4Cs in the post-Vietnam era?

Then we should reconsider their role. Tomcats can handle cruise missile strikes, Phantoms have trouble doing so, it is quite hard with Crusaders, but with SeaHarriers or Skyhawks, it is almost impossible to even think at intercepting, just a matter of speed. They couldn´t do much against Argentine Super Etendards, imagine how could they do against Backfires...or even Badgers They would be bound to operate under the cover of a Supercarrier. Probably the CVS role, with a capability to provide air cover to ground forces would fit, also making the A-4s the way to go. I don´t know much about the maths, but i´m sure they could find a way to get those A-4Ms carrierborne, or even Super Etendards. Either of them would be a beast for any A-S role. If they cannot operate independently in the classic SF2NA scenario, they could provide a well needed support both for engaging the Soviet fleet and their forces in Iceland. Could still use something for A-A

That´s the issue, there is a need to define the kind of ship we are trying to get: Some sort of CVE-CVL-CVS, with an air defence fighter like the Crusader (wich would take, if possible at all, refurbishing at a probably prohibitive cost) or Skyhawks, wich would take many modifications as well, let alone how did that work for the carrier capability of A-4Ms. This way you will have just a less capable CVA wich would be expensive to get into service and operate, with overused airframes in an overused ship (SCB-125?) Or some concept closer to the SCS, wich would imply a Harrier air wing. Something like the Spanish Navy and maybe later (depending on the timeframe) the British Navy had. This would mean either USMC Harriers readily at hand or the more capable Sea Harrier. However, ship wise, it would mean either using LPHs, LHAs and others to fulfill a role they are not optimized to, or brand new ships, unless there were more WW2 Independence class CVLs around to put back into service, with the same issues as the Essex class, if not worse. Given that it is a What-If, i think it would be great either to have the SCB-125s service life extended along with the Crusaders and some other complement (either Skyhawks, Corsairs or...why not? Imported Super Etendards, or a purpose built ASW helicarrier fitted with Harriers

Stary, damn you peckerfish, you posted the files in Polish, i can´t understand shit!!!

I was about to say this is not related to the film, but then i took this outrage to the knee

maybe the title thing is not as important since annyways, it is a known story. Just like Captain Phillips (has anone else noticed the number of films portraying USN SEALs?) When i went watch it, i was shocked. I expected it to be worse, not such a big deal or something, considering the actors and director, i didn´t think it would be good enough to stand up next to, say, Black Hawk Down. Also, there are several things about both wich are eerly similar. Both are about a mission to get on/several senior enemy VIPs, in wich the forces sent face unexpected trouble, get overwhelmed, loose a lot of people as the helos coming to support them are hit, some events are watered down because real life was too hardcore for film, in the end some ally wich wasn´t expected to be there provides with invaluable help...both films were based on the accounts of survivors and made 8 years after the events portrayed, showing details about the life of the men who fought and died there...

It is amazing how everybody was so "aware" and enraged of the issues caused by piracy not too long ago, and now this kind of stuff is being seriously considered. I´m not anybody to lecture people on that, but you know, this is wrong. It seems clear that TW has neglected the PC series, however, while they could have probably fared better with some decisions they didn´t make, in product development or specially in the marketing and distribution area, i think piracy itself may be a heavy reason as to why the PC series are not profitable enough. I guess they could probably solve both marketing-distribution and piracy with Steam, but the fact remains that, it is their stuff. I think it is better to move on if you don´t feel confortable with the current state of things than just hacking the $hit out of the job of such an small development team.

Regarding what von baur said, it is not the first time such thing happened in those circumstances, specially in the Philippines. After the Spanish-American war of 1898, the Spanish garrison of Baler, besieged by Moro forces, kept fighting for a year until relieved by the USMC. They didn't know the war was over, and the US Marines kept sending them newspapers the defenders believed fake until one of the officers noticed an announcement of a friend of him being stationed to his own unit.

Hey, they could use that port to give you that thing they did to Bane in the Batman film by George Clooney. I know it was a criminally bad movie, but hey, they had Arnie and Uma Thurman in it