Combat Flight Sims

...

Yeah, I forgot to mention the Mavericks. People don't get that the gun isn't it's anti-armor weapon, those suckers are.

The gun really is for "troop morale" nowadays. Any effective CAS missions could be run more efficiently with an SDB against soft targets, and the GAU won't do shit against a hard target.

give the F-35A a speaker that sits where the hover fan would be and plays the sound really loudly while it drops bombs.

i'll take my millions of dollars in the form of onaholes, LM

You realize the A-10 isn't even that great right? If there's any plane you should be apeshit over its the F-16

I really hate all the overthought brrrt's.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

We need to bring Loud Hailers back

I was just dumping what I had.

There's a reason the F-5 will always be better than the F-20

If we only factor in the cost of the munition, and not the cost of maintaining and flying the plane attached to it, they're about even.

The F-16 is good in the sense that it's reasonably good at what it does for the relatively low cost per unit.

It's no F-15C, F-22 or A-10C though.

You'd likely know more about airborne logistical metrics than I would. I'm a grunt by trade.

if we can't agree whether the a-10 is or isn't shit it isn't, can we at least agree that the f-35 is the worst thing to happen to the air force since… well, ever

Definitely agreed. It seems like a never ending money pit that won't even shit out a decent platform at the end.

F-22's and F-35's cost a shitload to maintain simply because they're constructed of multiple dissimilar metals to help reduce radar signature, which makes them corrosion magnets.

To combat this they're covered in special coatings to help stop corrosion, but applying and stripping them for each maintenance action becomes costly very quickly.

I like how I'm the only one who has mentioned a game yet.

It flew without a wing once, has greater service life, more reliable, has more hardpoints in latest iterations, and has true multi-role capability.

DCS world is the only acceptable answer, there wasn't much more to say.

Also

Kill yourself

the worst thing that ever happened to the air force was when they stopped being the army air corps

only game worth mentioning tbh fam

Multi-role aircraft will always be shit.

Single purpose aircraft are what we should be using.

You can't design something to be great at everything simultaneously.

Since both operate in the area of air to ground missions, it's worth comparing them in that role.

Reading comprehension

Only commies support meme planes

the nigger only likes the a-10 because of memeshit, he has no idea wtf he's talking about

oh right

man, I miss desert combat. what a fucking fantastic mod. sad to see what's happened to DICE since then

The F-16 is shit for each of it's missions compared to single mission aircraft in their respective missions.

...

Yuo talking bout the f15 right? I dont remember the f16 flew without a wing.

Me too, bro.

To be completely honest, I played the shit out of this when I was a little kid, and just wanted to recapture that feeling. I'd keep playing it nowadays, but the graphics are dated and I pretty much memorized all the missions not to mention it's not easy to get it to actually function on an OS more advanced than Win2000.

I'll give DCS World a shot, though.

I know it isn't a sim, but is it alright if we talk about Ace Combat here? It allows for BRRRRRRRRRTTTTT.

Does anyone know if at what range the Machine gun fires at where the reticle is pointing? Seems like it's constantly undershooting it.

Also is your squad meant to be useless outside of banter? They never seem to take down anybody when I'm being chased and told them to cover me. Don't really seem to help out at all.

AC5's AI is shit, user, for both squadmates and enemies.

Zero and 6 improved AI immensely.

Have some of my old screenshots edited for a website I used to have for hyperlocal shitposting

F-15C: 104 kills to 0 losses

F-16: Depending on the source around 95 kills to 7 losses.

The A-16 was a look at replacing the A-10 with a CAS upgrade to the F-16, but it was scrapped because the F-16 couldn't fill the same roles as the A-10, or have any hope of surviving combat damage near what the A-10 could.

Modern Jericho trumpets when?

...

Do you have an actual argument or are you just going to keep on with your unfounded bullshit?

I'm not the guy you were replying to. And no amount of meme arrows will change the fact that the F-15C is not and never was even capable of performing ground attack missions, which is where every single F-16 and F-15E combat loss has happened.

HEARD YOU WERE TALKING SHIT, LIKE I WOULDN'T NOTICE

hey Holla Forums, what games let me use the Stuka horn?

bring back Stuka horn!

Lockheed can't into metals making electric corrosion? classic

Station 6 is missing.
No Lightning pod.
No Jammer pod.
Made up AA missiles on station 3 and 9.
The A10 can't take AA missiles on stations 3 and 9 at all.
The A10 can't take AGM-65s on stations 1,4,8 and 11.

theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wing/
usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/20/f16-jets-collision-wing-sheared-landing/23758769/

Forgot to mention:
>>>/flightsim/

The fuck is the point?

Aren't the DCS guys making an F-14 game? I need more Tomcats.

BMS 4.33 is an excellent modern sim. It's based off the Falcon 4 game (you need this to run the mod) but you can get it cheap from GOG or whatever.
The best F16 simulation and the dynamic campaign shits on DCS.
DCS is great though, especially if you want to brrrt some dudes

As far as I know the 3rd party devs behind the MIG-21bis in DCS are having a crack at the F-14. I imagine it will just be an added module.

The guys that did the mirage 2000 will be doing the harrier next so be interesting to see if there will be carrier take-offs/landings

...

For being such unstable things they're pretty damn lucky it even kept up.

Sage still in email field.

There's a game called Vector Thrust that looks pretty interesting. It's supposed to be like Ace Combat with modding tools.

It's shit, m8

Does anyone else play YSFlight? It has shitty graphics but its free and it's updated every once in a while. It's also the only flight sim I know of with a screen to review your landings.

no need for reviews if you arent a shitter

How do you know you're not a shitter if you can't review your landing?

did you crash? shitter
is your plane damaged from the landing? shitter
did you feel like it wasn't a good landing? shitter

did you land safely and successfully without damaging your aircraft or anything near the runway? do you feel good about that landing? not a shitter

Do you not care about approach path, crab angle, or vertical speed at touchdown? You're the shitter m8, you just don't know it because the game doesn't tell you, all you want is to "feel good" about your landings.

Pick one, or play as an F-35 instead.

pssst

the air force won't take you. let your games be games.

I know this isn't really a flight sim but if you want to kill ragheads in an A-10 just play Arma 3 with RHS and one of the middle East OPFOR mods.

I just end up setting up a small CAS mission where I strafe soft targets while making sure BLUFOR forces don't get over run. It's satisfies my A-10 needs.

pssst

I'm already in the navy.yes I'm gay

It's amazing how we have a BRRRRRRRRRT machine for morale but can't even into one of Germany's best ideas.

I hope they properly model the compressor stalls and hydraulics failures and shitty half-digital electronics.

how good are you at gay chicken

Are you implying the F-35 isn't a massive piece of shit and is only "untouchable" in the sense that there's no way it'll be cancelled like it should because it's such a sweet deal for the corporations that control the US government?

It can't fulfill it's original role but it's still a cheap way of taking out APCs / IFVs.
Modern MANPADs pose a huge threat but that isn't much of an issue as we rarely fight organized militaries anymore.
GAUtists are still fucking retarded

Don't listen to people like Pierre Sprey user. He's a hack who automatically criticizes any fighter that threatens the prestige of his precious F-16. He did the same shit to the F-20 and succeeded in killing it. The F-35 is more than capable enough to replace the F-16, AV-8B, and F/A-18.

Nigga the F-35 could shit gold and it'd still be a failure at this point. The F-35A costs a hundred million dollars per unit - and this doesn't even include the engine, or the $400,000 smart helmet, or the other shit that it needs. An F-16 costs under $20 million - and I have a feeling if I sent my five F-16s at your F-35A I'd come out on top

I didn't know Lockheed Martin marketing browsed Holla Forums

Not unless they were shot down beyond visual range by an aircraft they can't even see or detect.

a modern f-16 is more like $60 million

The F-35 is capable enough but it is drastically over-priced for what it is. For half the price you can get a Russian JSF with similar performance and you can't tell me the avionics package is worth the extra $50m.

Lots of people act like it's worse than it is but lots or people also act like it's a good deal when it really isn't.

Educate yourself on L-band and S-band radar, stealth isn't everything the marketers make it out to be.
Also read up on real world BVR performance, it's the F-4 all over again with many believing the missiles are much better than they actually are.

I once read about some mock dogfight where an F-35 could barely beat even one F-16.

It actually lost that fight, the F-16 was able to avoid the F-35 getting a good shot by climbing vertically and building up energy to maneuver. It then had no problem getting a AIM-120 lock.

Well damn. That's even worse.

all I can picture right now is that Kurt Russell movie Soldier, where the "obsolete" model of soldier is replaced but whoops new-soldier's asses by being the scrappy, resourceful underdog

Oh god, I hope soo.

The cat is a sexy, sexy, FAST and deadly plane.

It and the BRRRRRThog are my king and queen of airplanes.

The flightsim market is so strange nowadays, everything seems to be fan-maintained extensions of games that haven't had a new game released since the early 2000s, with every fan community or venue polluted by ARMA/Battlefield mods and delusional Ace Combat kiddies. Even the racing genre is healthier.

Get on my level, pleb.

Have I got the solution for you!

I have just the thing. Very cheap, no engines, much stealth.

It was a test F-35A intentionally limited to 4G maneuvers, which is a massive handicap. That test wasn't even performed to test its dogfight characteristics. Production F-35As have a limit of 9Gs.

While the F-16 has a better instantaneous turn rate, the F-35 has much better high-alpha characteristics, which means that it can sustain a much higher angle of attack.

In 2018 the F-35A will be $85-90 million including engines. Aircraft are always more expensive before they start full rate production. The F-16 is a spectacular aircraft, don't get me wrong, but it's time to replace them. It's an aging aircraft that is becoming outclassed by 4.5 and 5th gen fighters all over the world. Once it reaches full rate production the F-35 will be cheaper than the Eurofighter and Rafale.

You can't be serious.

The PAK-FA has vastly inferior stealth characteristics to the F-35 or F-22, that's why it's so cheap. Sukhoi focused on the frontal stealth characteristics and pretty much nothing else. Its engines are completely uncovered and likely shine like a lighthouse in infrared. It reflects radar like hell from the sides as well.

YOU should educate yourself about stealth, user. L-band radar is nowhere near accurate enough to provide targeting for weapons and S-band radars are far too large to be practically deployed on a battlefield in a way that would provide meaningful coverage. In actual combat, radar stations in these frequencies would be immediate easy targets and quickly destroyed.

Even before modern stealth technology RCS has been a consideration in aircraft design. It is widely acknowledged that the F-5 had a distinct advantage during dogfights because of its relatively low radar cross section.

This is nothing like that. When the performance of the F-4 was shown to be lackluster, the Air Force and the Navy had two different solutions. The USAF mounted guns on the F-4, and that definitely helped, but they never reached the K/D ratio that the Navy set after establishing their "Top Gun" fighter school. The Navy never mounted guns on their F-4s and yet they still managed to beat out the Air Force. The F-35A has an internally mounted cannon anyways so it doesn't have the same problem. The issue was that pilots weren't being trained in proper air combat maneuvers, which is an issue we don't have today. Also, technology has certainly progressed since the Vietnam war, especially missile technology, which has progressed hugely since then. During the Vietnam war missiles were inaccurate, unreliable, and relatively low range. Modern missiles have none of these issues.

w£w lad

But is it really shilling if he's right?

wasted dubs, what actually surprises me is that us army bothers to shill on imageboards, some new psyops?

That's a really big fucking "if".

Are you retarded or just merely pretending?

was just a shorthand, sorry autism-chan

user, what could possibly make the government give a shit about what anons on an obscure imageboard think?

Also, check em faggots

Sure. I'm sure you're gonna call the FBI if your house is on fire.

...

Solid digits of truth user.