SayethWhaaaa

My opinion... Totally. Without weapons and survival training and training to operate under pressure, we'll all be completely f**ked once the dead start rising...

In 1983, RAAF Victors over Malaysia support the government after separatist rebels seize strategic airfields and destabilise relations between Malaysia and her neighbours...

Oops... Just turn it upside down. We do things differently here in the Southern Hemisphere.

You can get the Su-27 and J-11 from here ds75. It was made before the second gen series were produced, but they should work fine. What you'll need to do is look at the method of adding these aircraft to the SF2 series here before you get started. Kowolski has taken the time to explain it clearly and thoroughly, so it should help you out.

It's a sailboat...

This is a bit of a random question, but aircraft that are classified as "Attack" or "Bomber" in their data.ini... Assuming they have the means to do so (ie, guns, AAMs etc), how often will they take you on during single/campaign missions. I know the AI has (had) a tendency to ignore incoming aircraft unless they're operating near their AO. But I can't seem to remember an occurrence where I was intercepting hostile A-10s/Su-17s/F-15Es and seeing them return fire with their AAMs. That said though, there's generally a lot going on when I play and the AOs are filled with large numbers of aircraft and I might lose track of what's going on; Or it might be relative to the difficulty settings and so on. But I'm really curious about it now. I figure the classification is based along the lines of: Bomber: Evasive manoeuvres only. Attack: Will tangle with me if it identifies me as a direct threat Fighter: Will go toe to toe with me because "He has the minerals". Am I on the right track. Most of what I know about this sim is relative to the aircraft themselves, not the makeup of the AI... or much else really.

Damn! How'd you get that to work??

Wait... Kei's a dude, isn't he...? Crap, now I'm all confused... :blink:

I dig the Euro Green!

Another thing I read about it was that there were specialised ISR drones/UAVs that were in development that could be deployed from the Commanche's internal bays. I think it could carry something like six of the things and they were supposed to have a duration of around 10-12 hours. That kind of ISR asset would be a big hand to those on the ground! The USD $113 million price tag per Commanche would have been a massive drawback though. I'm wondering if Stealth is the critical concept of the future that everyone needs to chase after all when conventional aircraft do the job more cost effectively. K, not the exact jobs that stealth aircraft do, but with the right weapons... I mean, what would be so wrong about having a mix of conventional aircraft along with stealth aircraft in a similar way to having tactical aircraft serving along side strategic ones. And I'm not talking about the specific roles here. I think the idea of having an all stealth AF at the pointy end of the service, at least now, is a pipe dream.

Yeah, but don't forget the weapons, weapons systems, targeting pods, countermeasures and electronic warfare package too. Not to mention training systems and hardware. That's gonna take a huge chunk out of the overall cost too. The RAAF paid around AUD $6 Billion (US $4.6 Billion) for a similar package, with a smaller weapons package and fewer aircraft.

Where did you get that figure from? I can't see any reference to it in that article...

Hah, I have shin splints (still ) and they still won't rule me out! Difference between us and you guys is that we have some serious shortages in man power.

Nice tie FC!

Good luck getting F-35s if that's the case. The reason Israel was kicked from the program originally was because of it's hard line stance against Palestine and how it ran contrary at the time to the efforts of the US of trying to establish some level of peace in the region, even if it was only a cease fire of sorts. The US asked Israel to fall in line just so they could get some momentum behind the cease fire, Israel said they would, but still pursed their own agenda anyways... We here in Australia started taking attitude from the US over the workload arrangement deal with the US manufacturers because our government's stance on Free Trade (particularly with how we were kicking up a storm about the US wanting Free Trade yet subsidising their own agriculture industry) and how we, along with the UK, Turkey, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark et al, wouldn't be getting the promised transfer of technology that was agreed to when we all joined up with the program. Things have since changed, but timing was the key. If Israel wasn't bombing the crap out of Palestinians at the time or Australia wasn't arguing about US subsidies on Beef etc when the JSF program's nuances were being negotiated, the US would have used something else to lean on us during the negotiations. I'm neither condeming nor condoning it, it's just the nature of negotiations within international relations.

To be honest, given all this, I'd be surprised if the F-15 production line doesn't continue (if it hasn't been stopped already) to produce advanced Strike and Stealth Eagles. Something's gotta be done about it due to the age of the existing aircraft. And producing more F-35s isn't going to fill the 'high' role in the US's 'High/Low' mix, especially when there's a viable alternative available.

That may be true, but it's not like we're talking about the RCS difference between a SAAB Gripen and a B-52 here. It's more like the difference between gnat and a small marble. And then it depends on what kind of radar is trying to detect them and so on...

It's issues like this that make the advanced versions of the Viper and Mud Hen seem much more attractive...

So are 30 year old Eagles with stressed wings... Yeah, Dave's right. During exercises with the RAF and the US, the MKI weren't allowed to use their radars, fire control and I think, their IRST, but I could be wrong about the last one. I don't have the article with me. There were strict parameters the MKIs had to fly in. It was in that context that the results were published, but this rarely got a mention in defense news.

Any White House administration, the US in general and especially LM would be in a much dire position should the F-35 program fail. The F-22 program gets terminated, yeah, that's bad for the USAF, government and LM in general. But there's much, much more at stake with the F-35 program. It involves more countries, more services and replaces more aircraft... calling it a disaster would be an understatement of epic proportions!

Is this one solely a multiplayer game, no bots or SP?

You mean Dolphin diving?

Jesus... Reads can't sue... is that because by being a member of the AF, he's barred from suing anyone in the US Military?

I feeling annoying you for that comment. That's all the motivation I need to finish off that USAF skin for that Su-27 I made ages ago.

That's a common, yet very uninformed stereotype the Chinese seem to get. From data I've seen when I used to work in the industry, the J-10 is a very solid, very advanced airframe. It's easily the equivalent of it's stablemates in gen 4.5 and more than a match for early generation F-16/F/A-18s that are still used my many nations in the West (including my own). This holds true for the J-11 family too. The production model J-11 is a vastly different plane when compared to the Su-27SK is originated from. Comparing the J-11A/B with first gen Su-27s is like comparing an F-15SG to an F-15A. Avionics, construction materials, engines, weapons systems and many other systems have been upgraded substantially or replaced completely (case in point, take a look at the extensive usage of composites in newer production models.) Yeah, historically, Chinese air power has followed a philosophy of 'quantity over quality', but that's certainly no longer the case. Regional developments, the balance of power with India, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have all partially dictated the technical evolution of the past 20 years given the access to advanced US arms. And don't forget, China is actively seeking to grab a piece of the international arms market away from players like the Russians and the US, so the quality needs to match. If not exactly or technologically, then cost effectively (proportionally between technical sophistication and cost). K, so Australia has a pretty neutral relationship with China (despite China's detention of an Australian businessman last week in what was believed to be an attempt to exert pressure on Australia), but if I were sitting in Taiwan, South Korea or Japan, I'd much more worried than I would be here. These three nations have all lost technical ground to the Chinese in the past 20 years and would be keen to regain that edge again; which is why all three are (not any more I suppose) keen to get their hands on the F-22 and/or F-35. I'm not saying that PLAAF J-10 or J-11 would sweep the sky of Taiwanese aircraft if they went down the path of hostile reintegration of Taiwan. But it would be a lot bloodier than if the RoCAF were fighting J-6/J-7/J-8s with low tech IRMs and SAHM. And in an era when the loss of one aircraft is a 'big deal' (in terms of cost, not including the pilot), I bet defense planners in these nations would be very concerned countering Chinese technical developments indeed.