MigBuster

You would still need the specific Weapons editor exe for 2008 - are you using one that came with it? WeaponEditor_022008(SP5).zip

only £5.94 - assume Strategy First can still put it up legally ?

There is HUD symbology with either those or the firestreaks - been a while would need to check.

Heres how to launch a paper plane with laser guided precision

Deterrents don't do much in peace time either Its only a conventional deterrent though - In WW3 I expect it has the amazing capability to take off and fly away if not caught in the blast.

JAS-39 is a good aircraft and countries will obtain jets like that who cant afford or don't have access to the F-35. Aus/Canada feel the F-35 is the best for them and it will allow them to integrate easier with close allies such as the UK & US.

I just love public perception - remember a time when we sent a force to the South Atlantic that included slow, heavily outnumbered short legged SHARs that could only carry 2 x AIM-9s each. - not saying it was ideal - but that aerial combat includes a lot of factors. From Block 4 the F-35 is supposed to be able to carry 6 x AIM-120 internally - will see if that happens......

If you actually look and compare the shaping on the 35 to the 22 there is actually quite a bit there - even the cylinder nozzle has LO properties ( See F-16 LOAN) - so I would happily say its true Stealth Fighter - considering 80% of VLO is supposed to be shaping. You are way off - lets look at potential range shall we F-35A internal fuel = 18,250 lbs USL Thrust Mil = 25,000 lbs F-15E Internal fuel = 18,642 lbs (with CFTs) USL Thrust Mil = 35,600 lbs Now consider the 35 can be clean and still be useful - please tell us how you are coming to the conclusion of poor endurance!! If you had done any research into the F-35 you would see how ludicrous the above statement is - trust me its more than adequate for A-A. Potentially true on cost grounds - but debate-full as the costs are rarely clear or known. You could argue whats the point of wasting money on an air force if it retains obsolete aircraft with outdated tactics - for one thing the pilots would drop a legacy for F-35 without blinking. btw both of these countries have contributed to international conflicts recently (not air policing) - so you have no argument.

Its probably not best to assume total doom based on wild speculation of RCS figures. I would agree an F-35 might not be the first in on a DEAD mission - but thats not related to poor stealth - more to do with maybe using some tactics to negate the opposition for example. http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/mald/

Looking at the manuals - The A-D does have mechanical linkages that provide backup control yes. The E/F does not have mech links though - that relies on quad redundancy and distributed cabling & actuators to get by. Actually not too sure on the F-35 regarding mech back up - last I saw it was just using a triple redundant network based on a 2008 variant of Firewire

I wouldn't worry about how it flies - from what is publicly available the F-35 is very close to the FA-18 regarding flight performance. Like the FA-18 its only pitch unstable (not the case with the F-117) and is also dependent on computers to keep it flying. Getting hit by a bird - well it would do damage depending where it was hit - be no different to any other Jet - apart from damaging any coating. Could it survive damage - e.g. getting hit by a MANPAD? - sure depends where it hits not just the A-10 has made it back - but its also proven it only takes 1 to down any jet.

Last message I saw was they hadn't given up - even though LP don't exist anymore as of about 2010 - but they could have put about 4 years into what ever it was they were doing - wonders what happened to that...........

Nearly right - Lead Pursuit went the commercial route with Allied Force - although not sure if any of their work ever made it to BMS - ED-1 sometimes posts but that's about it. DCS A-10C was also off the back of an ANG contract AFAIK - which is why I am thinking FA-18C might not be to the same level unless another C operator has asked for a desktop sim.

People always want more and push and push - that's why you end up with Hardcore. Where do you draw the boundary?? well TK was happy where he was which was understandable - but for those who have been flying years they often want more of this and that. FC3 is exactly the level you need - about Falcon 4.0 1998 level The BMS Falcon F-16 and DCS A-10C are almost pure simulators regarding avionics and flight model and you can learn so much if you want - also its a great challenge having to deal with setting up avionics on top of everything else in combat scenarios personally.

Flying into combat with Nav lights on? - something I do rather well in DCS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v8mPGBpw1M

Interesting piece thanks for posting. And a Homage to public perception of WW1 I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

BeachAV8R made them - hes the guy who's done a few AARs lately.

You could expect Boeing employees to try and save their jobs despite sounding a tad desperate - "ours has a HMS too" ! Australia has actually committed to 72 - probably because after seeing the far superior capability and relative combat performance over the SH you would never go back. http://https://airforce.gov.au/Technology/Future-Acquisitions/F-35A-Lightning-II/?RAAF-ZRnYQhJUh1u0e44uR32olOT1rt+Ym4K3 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-23/australia-commits-to-buying-58-more-f-35-joint-strike-fighters.html

CAT file ext: http://www.thirdwire.com/downloads_tools.htm

Baltic Police 2014 NATO Near Edwards AFB 2014 Lockheed Martin

If you mean add new avionics - well that should be simple once we get the source code and some programmers. What avionics would you want in SF? - DCS type ones?

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/04/hamburger-chef-jamie-oliver-proves-mcdonalds-burgers-unfit-human-consumption.html Hamburger chef Jamie Oliver has won his long-fought battle against one of the largest fast food chains in the world – McDonalds. After Oliver showed how McDonald’s hamburgers are made, the franchise finally announced that it will change its recipe, and yet there was barely a peep about this in the mainstream, corporate media. Oliver repeatedly explained to the public, over several years – in documentaries, television shows and interviews – that the fatty parts of beef are “washed” in ammonium hydroxide and used in the filling of the burger. Before this process, according to the presenter, the food is deemed unfit for human consumption. According to the chef and hamburger enthusiast, Jamie Oliver, who has undertaken a war against the fast food industry, “Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold in the cheapest way for dogs, and after this process, is being given to human beings.” Besides the low quality of the meat, the ammonium hydroxide is harmful to health. Oliver famously coined this the “the pink slime process.” “Why would any sensible human being put meat filled with ammonia in the mouths of their children?” Oliver asked. In one of his colorful demonstrations, Oliver demonstrates to children how nuggets are made. After selecting the best parts of the chicken, the remains (fat, skin and internal organs) are processed for these fried foods. In reply to all of the bad press this process has received from Oliver, the company Arcos Dorados, the franchise manager for McDonalds in Latin America, said such a procedure is not practiced in their region. The same, it should be noted, applies to the product in Ireland and the UK, where they use meat from local suppliers.In the United States, however, Burger King and Taco Bell had already abandoned the use of ammonia in their products. The food industry uses ammonium hydroxide as an anti-microbial agent in meats, which has allowed McDonald’s to use otherwise “inedible meat.” Most disturbing of all is the horrifying fact that because ammonium hydroxide is considered part of the “component in a production procedure” by the USDA, consumers may not know when the chemical is in their food. On the official website of McDonald’s, the company claims that their meat is cheap because, while serving many people every day, they are able to buy from their suppliers at a lower price, and offer the best quality products. But if “pink slime” was really the “best quality” that McDonalds can muster in the US, then why were they able do better in Latin America and Europe? More to the point, why can they apparently do better now in the United States? These questions remains unanswered by the franchise which has denied that the decision to change the recipe is related to Jamie Oliver’s campaign. On the site, McDonald’s has admitted that they have abandoned the beef filler from its burger patties.

Interesting........