Flanker562

Plus it sounds cool. By description I'm a "Joint Forward Observer", but that means I can work with Marine ANGLICO or USAF JTAC teams, i.e. I know what they can do, and they know what I can do. And it's a cool snazzy word that means after all these years of each service doing what they want, they actually work together. But back on topic, I bet Raytheon doesn't like the deal. And another thing... well yeah if AESA works out then it could be done, but seriously, you need AAMs and you need AGMs. Missiles can in some instances be multi-role, but seriously, if you are in a target rich environment, and go Winchester, and you gotta make it home, and you're deep in enemy territory...

Let's keep "Voodoo economics" out of this. Not that I disagree with you, but this isn't the place for PoliScience..

Yeah, even if EADS pulls something out, how they going to sell it? The Marines are crazy over it, so having them buy something that will replace the JSF is near verboten, so no, the US military is sold on JSF.

That is true though.... maybe it's just wingnut mismanagement that I don't employ them properly. Then again I think I should take off the AMRAAMs and let them stay with the stock weapons, then maybe he won't go to guns all the time....

I just don't take a wingnut man, that's been my rule of thumb. The few CAP missions I've played I haven't been too impressed. Besides it's another worry that I don't need, especially in the weeds....

To that I agree, the Super Hornet is a nice plane, but not the End All, Be All aircraft in the world.

I agree bro, column5 really did answer the question. Only in the future we can hope that TK will make the AI "smarter"

Ahh duh.. a bit too early in the morning...

Nice!

The Joint Strike Fighter program is facing $38 billion in cost overruns and could be delayed by more than two years, according to a government report urging defense planners to re-evaluate the program. The delays could affect the Navy’s schedule for the carrier variant of the plane. The service is already facing a fighter-jet gap with F/A-18 Hornets projected to die out before they’re replaced by the JSF. Service officials say they plan on buying more F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to bridge the gap. The almost $1 trillion program — the largest in defense history — has already ballooned more than $23 billion during the past year of development because of changes in procurement costs, according to the Government Accountability Office’s March 11 report. Additionally, three separate defense offices found that initial cost estimates for the program were understated by $38 billion and that development will be delayed by 12 months to as much as 27 months, the GAO said. It’s a red flag warranting an independent, life-cycle cost-estimate review of the entire program, the GAO said. Such a review should come before a review already planned for 2013. Shift from testing could create problems Last year, program managers put into place a Mid-Course Risk Reduction Plan, since they feared almost-certain cost overruns in the plane’s development phase. That plan shifted money away from testing and toward management reserves, which cover expenses related to technical issues that can emerge in development — engineering drawings, production materials and labor, for example. But the decision to put that plan into place came with a consequence, the GAO said. Moving the money increased the risk of not completing testing on time, and not finding design problems early enough to prevent them from becoming costly, the report states. Furthermore, the report says the plan did not take up the issue of why the cost overruns were occurring in the first place. “Two-thirds of budgeted funding for JSF development has been spent, but only about one-half of the work has been completed,” the GAO reported. Concerns such as these in early government assessments could spell trouble for the services counting on the aircraft in the long term, said Bob Work, a defense analyst for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The JSF program’s reach across the services is wide. The fighter’s F-35A version, which will perform conventional takeoffs and landings, and the F-35C carrier variant are favored by the Air Force and Navy, respectively. The Marine Corps wants the F-35B short- takeoff/vertical-landing variant. The Navy Department plans to buy 680 F-35s, which covers both Navy and Marine versions. The first operational Marine version is scheduled to join the fleet in 2012, and the first aircraft carrier version in 2015, Lockheed Martin spokesman John Smith said. Smith said he didn’t have a Navy/Marine breakdown of the total 680 number, but Marine Maj. Eric Dent said the Corps plans to buy 420 aircraft. Delay may be disaster for Corps Delays with JSF delivery will exacerbate the problem of aging aircraft, Work said. “How the JSF goes will really have an impact on all the services’ plans,” he said. Furthermore, significant delays could threaten the Corps’ STOVL version, already under the gun because of disagreements among Navy and Marine leaders as to how it should be incorporated into the fleet, Work said. “The Marine Corps has pretty much bet the farm on JSF,” Work said. The magnitude of the JSF program prompted a congressional mandate that the GAO review its progress incrementally. The attention could be just beginning. “Any hint of an overrun is just going to raise the level of scrutiny and interest,” Work said. Despite the findings in the GAO audit — one of about a dozen assessments the program undergoes each year — the JSF program remains on target, countered a project spokesman. Even if the total cost for the F-35 over its planned 35-year service life does adds up to $1 trillion, as the GAO report indicates, that’s still less than the total cost for operating all the varieties of aircraft it’s replacing, Smith said. The F-35 Joint Program Office prepares an annual Selected Acquisition Report, which estimates the procurement cost, Smith said in an e-mail. The next report will be issued “in the near future,” he said. “The bottom line is — and I’m not being flip about it — we have to take a step back and, if you remember our job is to produce all these things we described and do it in a responsible manner, this is one of the most cost-effective programs out there.”

Yep, it's a new concept for NVGs, so when you drop or fire an IR Illumination round, there will be a slight glow, but makes NVG use much better...

Been having a blast with the Sufa (or blasting things) and was wondering if there are any floating around?

Well that's a good point, but given the way the site is setup, sometimes it's a good point to let people know that it won't work for WoI, hence the notification that it's not compatible.

True... was a great book, still is a classic.. Problem is the campaign idea... possible?

Actually I try not to admit ever playing ATF, but I did..... and don't look upon it as fun times..... was okay due to the variety... but that's about it. Then again, The SF series would benefit from an in-game mission builder rather than a seperate utility. While the utility is pretty cool, it's better incorporated into the sim, along with an Encylopedia too But back on my topic, slight update from AmokFloo, seems the doors aren't sized right, as he found out when mucking with the gear area... more to follow..

It's an okay thing to post things WIP in the Screenshot thread, as it's a place to advertise as well

I've been flying a few Single Missions so far... and yeah, its a different feel. Even the Kfir felt different as it's more analog, while the addon Sufa is a dream to fly. However the recce mission I posted the screenshot from... yeah it's much more than WoE, as I felt a dribble of sweat as I was hightailing it out of there after completing the objective...

No... it may be just downright incompatible for now. It'd help if Talos specified the version for which it does work, such as WoE/WoV/SF... if there's WoI incompatibility, then that's an issue that needs to be noted.

You going to offer PSD templates for this?

I'll be pleased as well when I'm flying it. Last simulated EF I played was DiD's EF2000, that was sooo fun

that's okay I'm sure a roundhouse to the face will teach you better!

Then model wings, and then apply a transparent texture over the geometry, and that should solve the issue of no wings and no repulsorlifts and you can have a TIE Fighter, least that's how I would approach it. But the Sylph (I'm tracking the right one, don't remember the configuration) would be very nice. Interesting design in itself as well...

Well... technically it's a smaller problem if you look hard enough. While yes the "not invented/built here" syndrome exists, I hardly think that it's good for the military. While foreign equipment is not as widespread use, here's a few examples of foreign equipment (least in the US Army anyways): 120mm Smoothbore M1A1/2 Main Gun = Rhein Metall: Basically there was nothing better on the market, and as the name suggests, license produced from ze Germans. Some British Engineer Vehicle = Alvis comes to mind for some reason, but is AFAIK a British design that is used in the Engineer Battalions, if my info is correct. Fox (Fuchs) Chemical Recon Vehicle, yet another vehicle from ze Germans AT-4 shoulder fired AT Rocket = Bofors Sweden, you can even find the FFV serial number if you know where to look XM320: Heckler & Koch design, replacing the M203 eventually. M240B/M249 Machine Guns: Fabrique Nationale, produced here in the good ol' US of A. Belgian design. M416: Heckler & Koch, basically a more reliable version of the M4, finding use among CAG (Combined Action Group, formally known as Delta Force). Thales, a French communications company, we use the MBITR Joint Strike Fighter: While yes, this is a multinational project, it's apparent that even US aerospace engineers need some Euro help, particularly of course since those European nations are wanting the JSF. AGM-142 Popeye... Not sure but is of Israel design or least produced for the Israelis, I'm not actually sure as my own info is really sketchy. Durandul: The wonderful retarded anti-runway bomb, French design. K-36 was tested for JSF, Russian ejection seat. Kh-31 missile shell considered for CIWS system development against supersonic targets, Russian design There's plenty more hanging 'round but that should be a good start.

Actually I do have a question regarding the Range and Red Range... is there a way with the Terrain Editor to make it more interesting? Like adding mountains and stuff? Yes I know it's supposed to represent the USAF range.... Or would I have to actually make a new map?

It is, however who has WoI? who has FE? Who has all? Who doesn't? I think that's what it's going to boil down to in the long run. Not everybody will have what's required per theme. In lieu of what Rambler 1-1 posted, it's pretty much what the Screenshot thread is about, given nothing of the sort of a "theme" we all try to show custom skins, action shots, etc. Besides if the community were larger, maybe, but on average only a few people post shots anyways, so it wouldn't do any good IMHO.