kct

Speaking of the canards, can the Su-35 be had without them? (But with the additional pylons.) Since that would effectively recreate the Su-35BM (aka 'The Final Flanker'), and similar the ones the Russian air force are ordering.

Meh, if you were to talk about Jeremy Clarkson and co, you watch Top Gear for the sake of laughs, seriously (JC's obsession with Toyota Hiluxes as the toughest form of transport will still bring the laughs). And that considering that his Toybota failed the last time they had a 'convert a car into a boat' challenge. Then again, they have the best car filmography. Anyways, good work on the model, it's coming out nicely.

Try getting the F-15E from the download pages, it would support LGBs and Mavericks right away with its MFD. Dropping LGBs from aircrafts with them are more accurate.

Don't think there is hope for any true realism, since this game was also targeted specifically at the console crowd. The moment a game is targeted at consoles, nothing but lose hope for any decent sense of realism. Majority of these are the group of people who are NOT going to spend hours learning just to take-off (something some of us have to do in other games like LOMAC, Falcon 4.0 and stuff).

Bikini Atoll. That was one scary nuclear test (and probably a way to test how tough were the ships of the Axis). The ONLY surviving Axis ship (as in, continued floating by the end of the tests), the German CA Prinz Eugen (renamed USS Prinz Eugen, which was also the only major German WWII warship still intact by war's end), was so contaminated that repairing it would be pointless. And no, I am not giving out ideas of a blast on an island to see what happens.

You mean an F-14D? Hopeful, but with a list of probably 50 pilotable aircraft (which is probably more than some Ace Combat games and the like), it could be possible. If the F-14Ds can appear in games set in 2015 and beyond, why not here?

Actually, it is rumoured to be part of the GRAW timeline. Something like in between GRAW and GRAW 2 or something. In fact, they said it was somewhat linked to Endwar.

At least for the export market (not sure about the USAF, it is known that they already shut the door on new F-16s for themselves to concentrate on the JSF, while the Block 60 F-16s remain export-only). Singapore is getting BRAND NEW F-15SGs (F-15Es with even more advanced features, probably to the same level as the Koreans' F-15K).

Well, someone should tell Chavez to shut up. Again.

About the fact that the pilot is flying a Rafale: The pilot could be random mercenary, since this game is about them.

Careful, the lightning might get you.

That said, strapping a huge Kh-41 on a Su-33 is a way to get some insane fun.

You forgot this. The reason the US planes are not modelled correctly is because Ubisoft (who was supposed to be the ones in charge of the US planes) wasn't giving 100% of their effort into this game, since they were being too busy with some of their other games (stuff like Rainbow Six games comes into mind). That said, the developers are not able to get much of the data they needed to be able to properly simulate even half of the US planes. Not to mention, the advantage for the Russian planes stems from the fact that ED was already making sims about Russian aircraft before LOMAC (the Flanker series comes to mind). The Russian aircrafts come into LOMAC with the advantage of having as much development data as possible (spanning back into the 90s, when the first Su-27 Flanker game first appeared), while the US planes jump right into LOMAC with almost no proper development data to speak of. Of course, things points to the amount of development and coding the team had for each side.

Same here, I could barely remember what happened in the 1980s cartoons. But then again, the 1980s are the era where cartoons = big market.

I am not pointing any finger at any particular party over this, pardon me if I have offended anyone. Of course, most of the problems these days are matters which would start debates in the Congress >.> . I personally would want to know what could happen after this, since the pilot apparently filed a lawsuit against Boeing (this was discussed in the other thread).

Lawl, the 1980s. Love it or hate it, some of us went through that stage. I used to watch it a lot back when I was a kid >.> .

If there is something wrong you should be merging your posts into one ;) . Well, I am not putting the blame on Boeing over this, the problem is, the first thing that will usually come into your mind in the case of a defect is putting the blame on the manufacturer of the product. Which, in this case, the blame usually goes to Boeing first (although it is technically the fault of the person in charge of maintenance of the birds, or those finding out about the cracks for NOT informing Boeing in the first place). Another factor that went into this is the age of the birds (this was discussed in the other thread, related to this). How many of them went way over their expected flying hours? Not to mention the age factor (some of these birds is way older than some of us here).

Which is actually the higher cost option. Believe me, when we decided to have a pair of new-generation frigates built by the naval division of BAe, the costs went up because we wanted the frigates to be built here. Part of the UK's Type 45 destroyer's technology went into those frigates though. Everyone, especially the opposition, was questioning about this decision, however beneficial it is to our industry (we have branches of some major companies in the civil and military transport established here, like Eurocopter, Lockheed-Martin, etc.). Of course, the biggest hulaboo was the purchase of a pair of USED submarines from France (removal of Israeli electronics from the Su-30MKMs was a small issue, because some of them politicians wanted to stick to the policy).

Ouch. No wonder the pilot wanted to sue Boeing over this, if this is what happened. Chances is that anyone sane enough would be scared if his aircraft broke this way. Seriously, THIS is scary.

Er...can anyone explain to me what happened to the Sidewinder rails? The fix worked fine for the other Tornados, but not the IDS. Is there a value that needs to be changed to correct the position of the Sidewinder rails?

Yeah, tweaked some of that values (along with the pylon), now it is at the best possible position.

Most DVD burners come with multiple-format capability, so you will not be THAT out of place. However, it is always, always a good thing to ask the person in charge about which brand of DVD burner to buy, because there are a tendency for some of them to fail. My own LG burner worked flawlessly so far at the moment, so I can't give my judgment.

That is the problem when sales of military hardware to foreign customers were decided by the government (specifically, the US Congress). In fact, the Americans were reluctant to sell us some of their military hardware (like AAMRAMs and even the M4A1 carbine). Well, it was pretty obvious that we are not on exactly "friendly" terms with the US Government at that time (post 2003), especially the way we criticize the Iraq War when it was started. Not to mention the Super Hornets were an afterthought (planned procurement of the Super Hornets were announced AFTER we are planning to get the Sukhois). Another reason for this was the current Hornets were designed to perform all-weather missions, the purchase of the Sukhois (being MRCAs) meant that the Hornets would be placed in a supporting role. Also, they were considering buying the Super Hornets as MRCAs too, so we would have a mixed fleet of MRCAs (Su-30MKMs + Super Hornets). It would be rather insane from a cost point of view to buy both, in the economic sense (although diversity would be good, but at these times...). Another factor that came into this is that our government insisted that anyone that sells us military hardware MUST be obliged to perform technology transfer (believe me, this is the single most important factor in purchase of military hardware over here) so we could at least perform maintenance on the aircraft ourselves. This was the biggest factor that favoured the Russians, they are more than willing to perform technology transfer than US, who were afraid that some of their technology might fall into the wrong hands (ala Iran, but anyone would know better). The reason licence-manufacturing of the M4A1 carbine hit a snag was because the US Congress wanted a change in our foreign policy.

Seems that lots of Earl Grey do help the Brits.

The canopy screams...VF-1s from Macross.