Gunrunner

Are you really missing the point ? Do I really have to explain why choosing the wrong tool for the job at the cost of procuring less of them is not a good solution (in the F-104 case, it was the wrong tool but at least it was compensated by the fact A LOT of them were procured). The less aircrafts you have, the more crippling a loss is. The less aircrafts you have, the quicker it will age and/or the less training your pilots get. The less aircrafts you have, the less aircrafts you can get in the air at any given time. The less adapted to it's main mission an aircraft is, the more planes you need in the air to fulfill the same mission. Norway and the Netherlands are placing themselves in a situation were it would be simpler and less costly to simply abandon their air force altogether, with their current plans in a decade they'll be where Switzerland currently is, forced to operate minimal hours, reduce training and be on the verge of not being able to fulfill its mission in a credible manner. Of course some would say that the F-35 is more survivable and less maintenance intensive than alternatives, increasing its availability and thus making fewer planes as efficient, and that is partially true, however there is little chance that the increase in survivability and availability are in the vicinity of what is needed to compensate for the very small fleets (by some estimates the F-35 gains make it up to 1.5x as efficient, but they cost 2x to 3x time as much...). Now, concerning Australia and Canada, it is true that it has indeed better range than the Hornet (and AFAIR the Super Hornet), however that range increase comes at the cost of a smaller air-to-air payload in air defense role (which would mean the need for more planes etc...). It is also true that for decades Canada made do with planes falling very short of their needs anyway. The curse of the F-35 is that its cost progressed faster and further than its gains in operational advantages, making it a poor choice for anyone not being able to afford a large fleet and intending to use it as their main or only asset. Is that so hard to understand ?

Indeed, suppositions, and what do you think the optimistic estimates are ? Suppositions as well... No one ever got the best result by just assuming that everything will be rosy and work as expected, always prepare for the worst-case scenario, and in that worst-case scenario the F-35 is simply NOT the right tool for the job for at least a third of the buyers... It doesn't matter that a Bugatti Veyron is the fastest and most luxurious car money can buy, when what you have to do is haul a family of 5 and their luggage, there are cheaper and better alternatives.

Yes, because it's so much better to assume success based on gross exaggerations from the manufacturer and a government desperate on selling the plane to lower it's own unit price... Look, for what it's worth the F-35 is a great choice for the US (inflated cost and teething problems notwithstanding) , it will be a great asset for Israel as well (they intend to use it in a manner well suited to its design), Italy, Japan, South Korea and the UK should have no real problem with it either (they'll use it primarily for its VSTOL features and/or as a primarily strike oriented asset, it might be overkill for Italy and Japan, but still, these countries will use it as one plane among others). For Canada it's a stupid choice, it lacks the endurance for its main air defense role (but that's been a constant for Canada), and the benefits it brings in its secondary strike role are too small and come at too high a price considering how little (if ever) it will be used in that role. For Australia, again a lacking choice, it is barely adequate in its air defense role and lacks range in its long range strike role. For Norway and Netherlands, it's an inferior choice for it's main role as an air policing asset, which costs forces them to have a smaller, less competent force, all this for a theoretical advantage in its secondary role that will materialize only in scenarios those countries almost never participate... For Turkey the plane itself is irrelevant, the F-35 procurement is above all a political status symbol and as such will perform admirably, politics is the only dimension that matters in that particular case. Any country buying the F-35 as its main air defense asset is making a costly mistake, it's not a fault of the aircraft though, it's not the hammer's fault if its owner's using it to hammer screws.

I think you are all missing the point about the F-104 (and possibly F-35) shortcomings, it's not about being a "bad" airplane or being a dangerous one to fly. I once had an interesting discussion with former MFG F-104 pilots, to them, once you got the hang of it, it was a wonderful aircraft, when asked if it would have been able to perform it's task in combat situation, the answer was that, of course, it would have performed its duties, but the answer were already a bit less enthusiastic, and when asked if it was the plane they would have chosen for the task, none of them would have, one emphatically stating it was the last plane he would have chosen, and THAT is the damn point... A combat aircraft that is considered by its pilots as a great aircraft but the last COMBAT aircraft they'd chose for the task at hand is certainly not a wise choice, a combat aircraft is not meant for being a joyride for pilots (not that it's how it was viewed by the pilots) but as a tool to fulfill a mission. I feel the F-35 is the same thing, a compromise aircraft that is, indeed a great aircraft, and great in the limited role it was designed for, but a piss poor choice otherwise. Let's see, in the US case, the use scenario in high threat (modern SAM, true C3I and a networked AF) scenario for the F-35 is the following : Step 1 : The F-22 go in, get rid of scary SAM sites, C3I infrastructures and the bulk of the opposing Air Force. Step 2 : The F-35 finally go in too, as a bomb truck and airspace policing plane, protected from the few surviving SAMs and lone enemy aircrafts by their limited stealth and number, still having the F-22 to cover the most dangerous tasks. In that role the F-35 is perfectly adequate and will probably perform admirably. Now, let's take a typical foreign customer which will use it not as the Low component of a High-Low mix, but as the only plane they have and for both air superiority, air policing and strike tasks. As long as they face a low threat environment (little to no SAM, non-networked opposing air force, technologically inferior opposing aircrafts), they'll be king of the hill, nothing will touch them... just as would happen with modern F-16, F-18, Gripen, Rafale etc... for a fraction of the cost. But low threat environment is not the reason why these countries buy the F-35, they buy it on the promise that it will perform in high-threat environments, now let's see how it performs in that context without US support... Step 1 : The F-35 go in against modern SAM sites, a networked air force. The limited stealth is mostly irrelevant against modern SAM, making the F-35 pay a high price to get rid of them. The frontal stealth is next to useless against a networked enemy, making the F-35 no more dangerous to enemy aircrafts than an F-18 would have been, you don't obtain air superiority because most of your technological advantage is negated and you have less aircrafts than you should because of the unit cost. Step 2 : There is no step 2, the F-35 is the only plane you had and you already lost most of them in Step 1, if you survived you don't have enough planes to pursue operations efficiently in an environment where you didn't get rid of SAMs entirely and never achieved air superiority. The real operational danger of the F-35 is that it will give a sense of false security to the politics, to whom the plane has been sold as a golden bullet, and on that impression they might end up cutting military budgets to a point where a country is basically defenseless, or approve military interventions that puts them at a disadvantage, on the faith that their wonder plane will simply dominate the skies, when it will not.

I'm just waiting and grinning, the Lockheed bribery scandals will seem like the jolly good old times... I'm not saying the F-35 is not a decent discrete bomb truck, that it is... but that it can fulfill effectively and cost-efficiently the air defense role for which most export customers intend to use it makes as much sense as using the F-104 as a fighter-bomber. Oh right, "but it has a super secret feature that makes it a super weapon, it's so secret we can't even hint what it is", yeah riiiiiight...

TLDR; For God's sake, what are you trying to do ? Could you be more specific as to what your problem exactly is ? The more precise your question, the more useful the answers. As long as you are not precise enough you are condemned to get irrelevant answers and by multiplying similar posts you'll start pissing people off, learn that the best way to get an answer is to ask an actual question. From your two threads I'm left wondering which of the following you are trying to do with the F-16 : 1 - Manually load another existing weapon than the ones automatically loaded (hey, some people don't get that there is a loadout screen ingame). 2 - Change the default weapons automatically loaded for a specific mission type. 3 - Add an existing weapon type that is not available for the F-16 yet, if so, which F-16, which weapon, for which nation in what timeframe. 4 - Creating a non-existing weapon from scratch.

That's because you're not thinking in Russian. Oh wait, wrong Firefox...

Thanks Eric, I apparently missed it, C6 is such a mess, I'll check it and ask Rhugouvi then.

Long ago, way before Julhelm's there was an early RA-5C with a recon canoe implemented as a weapon, it either never had a readme or I lost it, does any old hand remember whose it is and under which licence it would fall ? I'm specifically interested in the canoe for use on the Arrow and TSR.2 and eventual bundling for release.

Nice FC, and here I was working on your Arrow (and wondering about the F-108 Rapier *cough, cough*). @Stratos, stealth is implemented simplistically through a global RCS modifier, it doesn't simulate directional stealth (you can't have the F-35 be more stealthy from the front than from the back) or restricted to a specific radar band (but I can't remember if stealth is hard-coded to apply only to certain radar bands or all of them).

Thanks for taking the time to check that, I hope you'll find a solution, in the meantime I'll try my hand at USAF skins.

Another vote for "No, wingmen are dumb and suicidal", the AI is decent in BVR and dogfight now (if somewhat too tenacious at times, taking too long to decide to switch to boom and zoom, and still prone to maneuvering kills during low altitude dogfights), but for interception it's still pretty stupid, it's routine being "Getting into the bomber's six, getting closer and closer without maneuvering much and dropping speed to match the bomber's", it's a sure fire way to be shot down if they only have guns.

Thanks, on my end it seems a dead-end, maybe I missed something.

Is there a version of the CF-105 with both the wing pylons of CF-105_RAF.LOD and the use of specular map of the most recent CF-105.LOD ? I was working on silver skins for the RAF but used the original LOD to tweak them, heavily depending on the specular maps, only to find out later that they weren't supported by the RAF LOD - at least not under any name I tried (and I intended to use it in order to mount Red Tops). It's a shame because I was becoming quite fond of the result and many of the other skins for it I was working on (black/red/white tails on silver, dark green+silver and a few more) don't work at all without a specular map.

First off, none of what I said is an excuse... Second, ghettos lasted longer in eastern Europe and previously Ottoman regions than in central and western Europe, that doesn't mean they didn't exist, you should also consider that even in countries where they disappeared, the major portion of the lower middle class of the jewish community STILL lived close together, that's true for at least France, Belgium and the Netherlands (to varying degrees)... True, the upper middle class and higher were entirely integrated, but sorry to say that is wasn't true of the poorer and less educated of the jewish community. Indeed that's not true for most of northern Europe or the Iberic peninsula, but they also where historically REFUGES for the jewish community. I also specifically state nothing against Germany itself, anti-semitism was a European disease, not a specifically German one, it just happens that Hitler took power in Germany, but given time and a different set of circumstances it might have happened in France (even though the Dreyfus affair did seriously defuse the worst of French anti-semistism by becoming a focus point for both sides, Germany never had that).

Ok, I had to google it to learn who they were, I guess I'm officially old (and damn glad of it). Oh, and what does that tell about me that I find that MUCH better than the real, auto-tuned one ? Since when are boys bands back in style ? Is that what male escorts turn to when Craigslist closed adult services listings close ?

The majority of european jews were as poor, intelligent and normal looking as the average german, there are however multiple reasons why anti-semitism in the early 20th century had profound roots and managed to convince people, part of it are because of specific characteristics of what it was to be part of the jewish community at the time but most of it was simply the consequence of Jews making the best of anti-semitic policies throughout Europe, starting from the Middle Ages. Anti-semitism appealed to some Christians because Jews were the God-killers, and not only did they kill God in the person of his son, but also they failed to recognize the errors of their way for for 19 centuries, to some Christians that made Jews unsavable and an abomination unto God (believers, of any faith, never were the sharpest ones). It was also true that at the time, much of banking was in the hands of members of the jewish community for a simple reason, from the Middle Ages and until fairly recently (in the history of the jewish community in Europe), it was forbidden, or at least considered a disgrace to be lending money, since in the same time periods jews were often forbidden to practice a large number of professions (remember how Nazis love to wax poetic on how the jews never worked the land ? Guess what, in many countries they had been forbidden to do so for centuries), jews became money lenders and some became very good at it, leading to their near domination of the sector at the start of the 20th century. The same was true for many professions seen as being "dominated" by jews, the truth is that in most instances anti-semitic policies forced them into that spot (or prevented non jews to compete), and instead of shrivel and die, they worked hard, thrived and were resented for it. In the early 20th century, most low-middle-class and lower-classes jews were still living in ghettos (whether historical and litteral, or of their own chosing), part of it originates once again from the Middle Ages, but many jews also lacked the money to get out of the ghetto (provided they found someone willing to sell, rent to a jew), plus having been persecuted for the better part of a millenia, they favored the tight knit community of the ghetto as a form of protection (plus it made following religious prescriptions easier). However that played against them, because it felt to the masses to confirm the fact that the Jews felt to be different, better, that they didn't even deign frequenting the rest of the world, that they were shadowy secretive people... of course that was a load of balls, but still it worked, especially when they were associated with the Freemasons (the Judeo-Masonic plot). It is also true that there was (it's less true nowadays) a specifically jewish intellectual approach which made some of them more inquisitive, more forward thinking than most of their christian contemporaries (and somewhat close to the Freemasons, hence the link probably) which in turn separated them from the rest of the population and made them better suited to some posts, leading to their "over-representation" once again "justifying" the anti-semitic theories. They were no more or no less corrupt than any other European, they didn't suffer less from the Depression, they weren't, as a people, wealthier, healthier, more intelligent, they just had been scapegoats for centuries and despite our best efforts, we never got rid of them, they took the discriminations, the restrictions, the expulsions and they survived or even prospered... and it made us even angrier... until some nutjobs decided that to get rid on them, there only was one final solution... Nazi anti-semitism and the Holocaust are not accidents of history born ex nihilo, they were the culmination of more than a thousand years of discriminations and persecutions. It's a sad tale of jealousy, ignorance and stupidity...

Oh wait, written and directed by J.J. Abrams ? Damn, that's gonna be a piece of crap, I'm not even going to watch this train wreck...

Can't end up worse than the prequels...

Because even with material proof there's enough people denying the scale and reality of deportation, forced labor and holocaust, so imagine what it would be if there were no evidence left. The camps are what made the West grow into the modern era, it's what made us finally realize that war and genocide were not desirable, it was a defining moment, it's were the European ideal was born, it's where western Europe nationalisms died. It is the second most transforming moment for western Europe in the 20th century. So yes, we need something to remind us where we've been and where we never want to go again.

It costs money to store things you have no chance of getting rid of, or move them to the distribution channel when there's little chance of selling, plus there might have been contractual gotchas due to licensing and destroying units was the way to avoid paying higher licence costs for an unsalable product, so it might make sense in a twisted way.

Nah, it's just the Q-313 activated it's top secret optical stealth.

Yeah, riiiiiight.... *walks away slowly*

I think the problem with Europe is that we worked hard to make it a gigantic consumer and financial market, but have done nothing to make it a political and defense entity, we all had budget cuts to our defense, but had we worked a european defense scheme we wouldn't all have to pay redundant things and end up with a stronger, credible, more efficient military, of course that means a stronger political union to wield that power, but no, we just abandoned the European dream because local politicians never wanted to compromise "sovereignty" (translation : I want to keep as much as my power as I can, regardless of what is best for my country and its citizens).