Sgt Joch

when you go too fast, you miss things like the hamlet of Andale which is out in the middle of nowhere, serves no useful purpose to the story, but has its own finely woven backstory...of course, the way I play, poking my nose around and cross examining everyone I meet, it could take me a few more months to finish this thing...

I actually figured out another way after talking to Old lady Dithers..(got to keep my Karma up)..I am now chasing after Dad who insists on walking back to Rivet City. It would not be so bad if the old coot did'nt insist on fighting EVERY SINGLE creature we encounter...finally found a good use for the missile launcher though, great for brewing up Protectron Robots. .. That's what I love about this game, it is so deep and there are so many options.

...I am trapped in Tranquility Lane....that music is driving me crazy...:mad:

I would not read too much into the study. We don't know what its purpose was. Based on the title and subject, it appears to be more to test the validity of USAF assumptions about acquiring air supremacy in a conflict, rather than developping a defence plan for Taiwan. For that purpose, it is a very good overview of the current state of air combat.

DT, yes, the USAF does seem to be particularly obsessed with China in that study, but their job is to prepare for war. Russia and China are presently the only two potential enemies who could give the US military a real challenge and it makes sense to at least plan what could happen even though the current chances of an actual war are very low. It is also hard to justify an expense like the F-22 program unless you can scare Congress with an aircraft gap... things happen very quickly when planes are closing in at a combined speed of 1,000+ knots. I used to play Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4 quite a bit, which are good at giving you at least a general idea about modern air combat. I was always amazed that the bandit 40 nm on your nose and closing would, in the blink of an eye, be on your tail maneuvering for a missile shot and you were fighting for your virtual life...that is part of the reason I switched to more sedate entertainment like CMSF...

regarding the continuing relevance of dogfighting, look at this RAND study on "Air combat Past, Present and Future" http://www.scribd.com/doc/7774389/Rand-StudyFuture-of-Air-Combat pp. 19-28 deal with the effectiveness of air-to-air missiles. Since the advent of AA missiles, only 24 out of 588 kills were done by BVR (i.e. Beyond Visual Range) missiles, the so called over the horizon missiles. the rest were WVR (i.e Within Visual Range) kills by gun/missiles. Since the introduction of the AIM-120 in 1991, still only 20 out of 61 kills were BVR, so you still have a lot of close in fighting. incidentally, if you read the study, you will see why the USAF feels naked with only 188 F-22s.

I think we all agree that UCAV will eventually render manned AC obsolete, the only question is when. Air superiority is important, although Air superiority alone will not win a war without a solid ground or naval game. Regarding the effectiveness of air superiority, I had found this article sometimes back based on a postwar assessment of the 1991 Iraq war: from: "Desert Defense and Surviving PGMs: The new Russian view" http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Red-Star/issues/JAN95/JAN95.HTML#Desert

That is a hard one to answer. Before Vietnam, the USAF took the position that air-to-air missiles had made dogfighting obsolete. That turned out not to be the case. Now with the latest generation of missiles, it does look like dogfighting is less of a requirement. The F-22 was designed on that premise, although it was designed to also be a maneuverable dogfighter if the need arises. However, if you look at the air to air fights which actually occured since 1990, a fair bit were fairly close, so dogfighting is still not a totally dead art. You also have to remember that the 100% certain kill enveloppe of missiles is a lot smaller than the printed maximum range, so you still have to maneuver your aircraft and the target in the optimum position if you want to be assured of a kill.

agreed yes, the only advantage to manned aircraft is greater redundancy since even if they lose contact with AWACS, they can still use their onboard sensors, including the Mark I eyeball in a worst case scenario. In addition, you can't discount the advantage of having a trained pilot on the scene who can make quick tactical decisions. I understand, but missiles are subject to the same countermeasures whether they are land based or attached to an unmanned airplane. In additon, missiles, even the latest generation like the AIM-120 are not one shot, one kill wonders. They can be defeated if fired at long range or under less than optimum conditions. This is why pilots are trained to maneuver targets into the heart of the missile's kill zone before they fire. This is where a pilot's training can make a difference.

I also do not see UAVs rendering manned aircraft obsolete in the near future. Theorists have been speculating about the end of manned aircraft ever since Gary Powers U-2 was shot down by a guided missile in 1960. Guided missiles, since they tracked their targets, were supposed to wipe out all air fleets. Indeed, the first encounters of USAF/USN aircraft with SA-2 missiles over north vietnam in 1965 were a disaster. The missiles initially had a close to 1:1 kill ratio. However, countermeasures were soon developped to counter the missiles: dedicated Hunter Killer groups to hunt the SAM sites, early warning systems to detect radar lockon/launches, onboard jammers or dedicated EW aircraft to disrupt lockon, onboard chaff/flares and evasive maneuvers. These measures radically reduced lossses and until the end of the war, US aircraft were able to hit any target in North Vietnam, with very acceptable combat losses, certainly a lot less than what the USAF suffered in daylight bombing over Germany in 1943. Again in 1973, the IAF went up against the Egyptian SAM wall, which at that time had the most powerful antiair defences in the world. The IAF was shocked at their performance. They lost about 40% of their planes in the 1st 24 hours and were playing catchup during the entire war. However, the IAF carefully studied the soviet systems and in the 1982 war, the IAF took out the entire Syrian SAM network in less than a day. In 1982, the Syrian air defences were more powerful and sophisticated than the egyptian defences in 1973. You have had the same dance since aircrafts were used in war in WW1. The anti-air defences come up with new weapons/tactics and the air forces come up with countermeasures. Now UAVs are supposed to be the new wonder weapon, since they can be built cheaply in great numbers. UAVs however, suffer from the same weaknesses as a guided missile and can be subjected to many of the same countermeasures: bomb their bases to destroy them on the ground, bomb their arfields so they cannot takeoff/land, bomb the buildings housing their controllers to kill them, jam the communications between the controller and the UAV, spoof the UAV or its missiles. Plus since the UAVs fly like a normal aircraft, they can be engaged and shot down. The big advantage cited by UAV supporter is the fact that you can flood an area. Using a variation of the Jons example, if China is defended by 10,000 UAVs, is attacked by 1,000 US aircraft and you get a 10:1 kill, the strategy works. However, if the kill ratio is more like 100:1, you expend your 10,000 UAV to kill 100 aircraft, leaving 900. In air combat, you can easily get such lopsided results. In June 1944, the IJN launched 500 aircraft in a first strike against US carriers. Most of the japanese planes were piloted by rookies. US fighters shot down 90% of them with negligible losses. In 1982, the syrians launched their air force against the IAF. The syrian pilots were green. The IAF shot down 100 with no losses. There is no reason to believe UAVs would have a better score. Again, no one knows how the future of air combat will evolve, but I have not seen any argument by the UAV proponents which convinces me that manned aircrafts will be obsolete in the near future or that UAVs would do a better job.

follow the main quest and all will become clear.

Altough there would be advantages to not having a pilot, I think we are still at least 15-25 years away from an unmanned fighter plane. The computer hardware/software to pilot a fighter as well as a good human does not exist and will not exist for the foreseeable future. Remote control will only really be a viable option when it gives the remote pilot as much feedback as having an actual human in the plane. We are still someways from that. Who here wants to be on the inaugural flight of the first unmanned passenger plane?

all very valid points, but the USAF is competing against every other political priority from the Future Combat Systems to the financial meltdown to health care reform...etc, etc. The F-22 program, like the FCS program is one of the more likely to be trimmed, although I also dont think it will be killed outright. no doubt the F-16s design has been stretched to the limit (and it is not a challenger for the F-22), although I did see this interesting quote: http://www.f-16.net/news_article1002.html I also noticed that the F-16I has a very long combat radius of 2100 km which brings into range some interesting targets... but that is for another thread...

Yes good post BD. I have nothing against the F-22 as an airplane. It is a generation ahead of every other fighter. It is more the "cold war" mentality of pouring so much money into such a specialised weapon system, instead of figuring out what the mission is and building weapons to carry it out. A good example is the WW2 Sherman. The US knew in 1943 that it was outclassed by the new german tanks, but it fit into their global strategy since it had to be able to be shipped around the world and land on enemy beaches, so they kept building it.

Here is another example of what you can do with a limited budget: the F-16I Sufa. Israel ordered about 100 of these, brand new F-16s, but thoroughly modernized with the latest electronics and armaments. Unit cost: about $ 70 million each. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/f-16i.htm http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/f-16I-details.htm

you may also enjoy this: Super Hornet shoots down Raptor .... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread202946/pg1

The F-22 is the most advanced air superiority fighter in the world. The question is whether the cost justifies the result. The F-22 was designed as a pure air superiority aircraft. Although an air to ground role was grafted on, it is primarily a fighter. In that role, it is wasted in the current Iraq/Afghanistan conflict or any other conflict in the ME and would only realize its full potential in a war against China or Russia. The F-22 program cost $62 billion to produce 184 unit. The current per unit cost is $137.5 million. Contrast that with the navy's approach. To replace the aging fleet of F-14s and F-18s, they used the proven design of the F-18 hornet. They adressed all the known weaknesses by adding more range, more payload, advanced electronics, limted stealth capability and came up with the F/A-18 E/F/G Superhornet. This is a brand new aircraft which carries out many roles: fighter, bomber, tanker, EW, FAC, etc. As a fighter, it is not as potent as the F-22, but it can beat any enemy fighter which currently exists and it outclasses the F-22 in any other role. In addition, it is a bargain with a per unit cost of $55.2 million apiece. In other words, you can get 3 SuperHornet for about the same price as 1 Raptor. The US Navy has already taken delivery of 350. Plus, since it was based on an existing design, it had relatively few teehing issues, unlike the F-22. So again, the whole question with the F-22 is whether the cost justifies the results and whether the USAF could have achieved the same result at a lower price by, for example, updating the design of the F-15 and/or F-16.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15828.html Apparently even the Pentagon has soured on the new jets: of course, I always wondered about the logic of building a brand new air superiority fighter when the current fleet of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s can easily handle any potential threat aircraft which is already deployed or on the drawing board.

quite true, I finally scratched together enough caps to hire Jericho, but he politely refused because I had too much Karma..... I took it as a compliment, but I hope I will not be penalized for being a nice guy. If I replay this game, I will try it as a thoroughly evil character to see how the other half lives...

I bought the workbench!!!!???!!!...What a worthless piece of **** that turned out to be..... That Moira is just a scam artist!...although she does have a certain je-ne-sais-quoi.......

I picked it up last week. Not a big RPG fan, never played the previous versions or Oblivion, but this is addictive. It has more of a hybrid FPS\RPG feel. The PC version is rock solid on my system, beautiful to look at. I love the wide open map, the wide array of choices and the VATS. An instant classic... ...what I can't figure out though is where does the power come from to run the computer terminals and power doors in the metro system...200 years after a nuclear war...

check here: http://homepage.mac.com/gibsonm1/CMSF/FileSharing24.html not necessarely intuitive, but when you play around with the editor you get the hang of it pretty quick. do not hesitate to ask if you have specific questions.

****ing awesome!

why?, it pokes fun at the white politicians trying to portray themselves as mini Obamas.

Since the world has caught "Barack" fever, every politician is trying to get into the act. We have just started a provincial election in Quebec and all three party leaders are trying to portray themselves as Quebec's equivalent to Barack Obama...much to the amusement of local cartoonists...