Posts by Gman

Bastard!

Amazon?

storch wrote:

Every democrat in congress and in the senate.

Every leftist governor.

Pffft gone.

To the island camp with those proved guilty of treason. All threats, foreign AND domestic. The ones guilty of the most serious charges - to the wall. Have it next to the water on the island, so they can just be pushed into the sea afterwards, as there would be a lot of them.

Hoping for a miracle - AMD has dropped a few cryptic tweets about this in fact. Something to the tune of "don't be so sure" when a reviewer said there was NO chance that BN could top the 3090 or even 3080. If AMD brings a GPU to market that even equals the 3080 performance, cost be damned, I'm buying at least one of those, and if the price is equal or better than nVidia, I'll be going all red for this upgrade cycle.

They've done the same for me several times, I have 3 accounts set up for 3 different desktop PCs, and have bought extra modules when the old super sales were a thing too. Sometimes I accidentally bought a module too many (4 instead of 3) as well. When I asked ED to transfer these to friends, both times now they've been very happy to do so - costs them nothing balanced against the high chances of getting a new customer and player into the fold.

I also don't get the whole "trainer" thing either. I have every module, most campaigns, all the terrains, etc, with the exceptions being the trainers and civilian stunt plane. I bought the Hawk trainer though, the air base 2 miles from one of our farms has a load of them, and figured if I was going to buy any trainer module, it'd be that one for this reason. The Hawk turned into a bit of a debacle for ED. Like Gscholz said, I could see them maybe being implemented in some sort of campaign or scripted missions based on a poor country or once most primary air assets have been exhausted. I liked the idea of the Hawk as well for the 2 seat component at the time, but never did get into that, at all really.

There are SO many combat capable modules, and many, many more coming, that the time that needs to be invested to learn a new one, for me, isn't well spent on trainers. Some guys spend dozens of hours weekly on YT/Twitch flying all kinds of goofy stuff though, so to each their own.

Pretty much same deal here Gscholz - if I didn't have a long time contact at a shop I've used since 1997 or so, I wouldn't even have my single 3080 inbound next month. And it's just a Zotac bottom end card (not that there is anything wrong with Zotac, of my 3 2080ti my Zotac surprisingly o/cs and performs the evga cards I have, hah). I'm not expecting to build my new systems - Intel OR perhaps a couple AMD (praying that the new Ryzen outperform the single core gaming performance of the 10900k) or at worst 2 more 10900k to complement the single one I have already, until Jan 2021 at the earliest as well, due to waiting on nVidia.

Who knows, maybe for once AMD will build a gaming GPU that beats the 3080 or even 3090 (possible on former, highly unlikely on latter, but again, it's a hope). I'd love to build an all AMD machine that outperforms the 10900k/3080/90 platform.

Bright side, at least I'll have time to develop some good performance numbers on the G2 VR headset with the 2080ti cards and the 9900/10900k systems.

Iron, you or somebody (not me ie) should try and organize a weekly FW DCS night - we have lots of guys here into it right now, could be some good times, even if we only did stuff like practice a2a refueling. Some heads up gun duels could be a lot of fun too, good learning experience as well.

We can agree that this pic is "a" loadout, one that might be used in a 0 threat/complete air supremacy conflict with a nation near an ocean. Maybe even a "standard or optimum" loadout, but that optimum situation would only ever occur in an environment where there was 0 threat - which is very unlikely in any near-peer fight, one that is looming closer on the horizon with China daily.

CW Lemoine and Gonky, 2 former Hornet drivers I know from DCS have specifically said that the SH with that single tank/max a2g loadout has a max unrefuled range of at best 350nm radius, maybe pushing out to 390nm under certain wind/etc circumstances. The A6 could carry a few thousand more lbs than that loadout, and had nearly triple the unrefueled range. That's my only point, and it's accurate, CW Lemoine has answered a ton of my questions for the 2nd book I've been working on (South China sea conflict), and my USN characters have very specific conversations about how the USN didn't replace it's long range strike capability due to cancelled programs even after the retirement of the A6 and A7. Yes, any non low observable platform is going to have to be used very carefully in a very contested environment like around China with the various threat platforms like the HQ9 and HHQ9 naval missiles etc.

The SH despite the stuff done to it, isn't a L/O platform, and is just as vulnerable as the past airframes, so it's an apples to apples comparison IMO. Again, my point is just that the USN lost the ability to hit out at long range and keep the CVN group further away from threats, as the stuff that makes a high threat environment contested would have to be destroyed by means other than bombs from strike fighters (non stealth ones at least) anyway first, as Storch has said.

The block 3 upgrades to the SH will improve things a bit. The centerline IR target pod will lose 150 gallons, but conformal tanks will make up for that and also free up a couple pylons, which will have a neutral effect on range capability, but gain 4000lbs+ of missiles and bombs.

Iron wrote:

Was hoping for the A-10C II tomorrow but there was an update yesterday so I'm thinking next week.

Matt Wagner said in his most recent video a couple days ago that the A10 update will happen at the end of the month.

storch wrote:

The solution to china is dropping infected livestock

The filthy chinks eat anything.

I remember when the Queen's husband, Prince Phillip was in Hong Kong for some thing, this was back when I lived there in 1996 for most of that year. At some event there he said something to the effect of "I love the Cantonese, if it has 4 legs and isn't a table, they shall eat it". Pip Pip!

I laughed.

The F35C is a great a/c - it's still a limited range strike fighter though, even with the large internal fuel fraction it carries. Again, range issue for the USN. One of the reasons the stealth drone tanker exists, and is important - to refuel the F35C and F35B somewhat as well. The combat radius with 2 2000lb bombs and 2 Aim120s internal is 670nm - still requires refueling in order to hit Chinese targets from a CVN battle group standing off at safe distances outside of the land based anti ship missile threats.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the SH is an incredibly capable multirole fighter, very very good at low speed angles BFM as well (there is great video of former Navy pilot Gonky from DCS flying his SH vs Malaysian SU30s that were clean, and he had 3 tanks on board, and still beat their ass in low speed BFM and got 3 good clean gun shots in the vid).

It's the range and somewhat the payload (payload as it relates to affecting range) issue that I'm comparing the retired medium strike A6 with.

GScholz wrote:

Real world you rarely need the A6's range, and when you do the 18E can get there with a reduced bomb load. Single bag is the 18E's normal bomb-truck load.

Here on it's way to Syria back in '17...

The same article that a friend of mine wrote (Tyler Rogaway) with that very picture, stated that this was a very unusual loadout. The actions that the Carrier battle group could take vs Syria is one thing, but vs China for example (this is the entire point about range), there is NO way that a CV would get so close to land/targets as was able to be done in Syria. The range of their anti ship cruise and ballistic missiles means that the strike range of the SH is critical. Nearly every video you see of ord'd up SH they have 3 bags and 4 pilons loaded, plus the fuselage Aim 120s and wingtip Aim9x's. And even in that config they can barely hit out to 500nm without tanking -and tanking right now means eating up other SH at a rate of one tanker per striker. That loadout in the pic puts the radius range for the SH into the high 300s nm range without buddy tanker support. Range is at least as important as loadout vs China, probably more. The SH doesn't have the range that retired assets have, which is ridiculous IMO.

The on paper max loadout weights for the A6 and SH are close, but the real world loadouts are not. The SH with 3 bags of gas which still doesn't come close to matching the A6's range, has only 2 harpoints left per wing, and IIRC the 2 outer pilons, stations 10 and 2, can only support 1000lb ord. So SH with 2 2000lb weapons and 2 1000lb weapons, vs the A6 which can easily haul 13 1000lb bombs, 28 500lb bombs, or 5 2000lb bombs - again, it's double at least what the SH can carry with the pretty much mandatory 3 bags of fuel (that'll be reduced to just 2 as well with the new centerline IR targeting pod - sort of that pod does carry some fuel IIRC, but not nearly as much as a regular centerline tank). The A6 has 12,000lb more max TO weight than the SH, while they are almost identical (A6 is a bit lighter, couple thousand lbs I think) empty.

Right now the SH with 3 tanks isn't even hitting 500nm combat radius, while the A6 could do close to 900nm with no external fuel at all. Some of the new mods coming for the SH will give it topside comformal fuel tanks which will be slightly larger than external gas bags, and will give it 510nm radius range while giving 2 more external weapons stations of 2000lbs ord carrying capability. Even then, it may come closer to matching the A6 payload, but still far, far from the range.

The A6 was designated a medium/heavy attack bird for a reason, the SH will never be in that category. Range is a critical issue with the USN carrier air wings, the new tanker drone is coming, but when they retired the KA6D and S3 tankers ,they've had to eat up half a squadron doing buddy stores just to be able to hit out to ranges that are still shorter than what the A6 and somewhat the A7 could do (F14 as well).

storch wrote:

The ghost of McNamara

Heh, yep - on top of procurement nonsense, that man was responsible for so many US casualties in Vietnam with his stupid ROE and policies (LBJ too). Both should have been put on trial for treason IMO. Mark Berent's Vietnam books are great on this subject, as are his interviews.

storch wrote:

The A-6 with an expetienced crew could hit a truck with a practice bomb. Not a near enough hit. Actually hit the truck.

I'll find the YT video of this - A6's doing attack runs on targets using dumb bombs, and shacking pretty much every target with every type of bomb they were using. Really impressive.

Those airframes are/would be tired by now yes, but there should have been replacements designed which at the very least replicated their capability, better yet exceed it. That never happened, the Superhornet is deficient in both range and payload to both Navy attack planes that retired (A7/A6). It's also no F14 either in the a2a role, which it also replaced. Right before the F14Ds were retired, their tour in Afghanistan, they could do their loiter/bombing missions without even hitting a tanker, while the Superhornet had to tank twice to accomplish the exact same mission, there's a great article about this I'll find and link. And that's just the range issue, the SH can't replicate the F14 capability in many a2a facets as well.

Storch, I have 3 extra sets of CH Fightersticks/pedals/throttle (well only 2 pedals). One set is brand new, I got it for $50 CAD from kijiji.ca last year. I've been collecting hotas since the early 90s, have dozens of sets, plus all the new Virpil/VKB stuff, every stick/base/pedals/etc from all the "new" makers as well, excepting just a couple which I think are blah (WinWing for example). Anyhow, I'll hook you up if you decide to build a machine and get back into this. I have 4 TM Warthog setups as well, 1 is like new and my show piece for my collection, the rest have all been restored/repaired for sticktion with new rings/grease/etc, and work great - so if you're into those, I have them too.

The A6, A7, and F111 are incredible aircraft (or were). Range was at least double what the Superhornet and other USAF attack assets are today. The A7 had that incredible a2g attack system that was incredibly accurate, even by today's standards, and that was with dumb bombs. It had great range, and 1030 rounds of 20mm as well.

The A6 could carry huge loads, far more than what the Superhornet does, probably 2x I think. The A2G radar/attack system was great too, Tram it was called. Had a gimbal rotating targeting system, Flir/etc, it was controlled by a pretty decent computer system for the day. Crazy range too.

Cobra is from Heatblur, blurb on A6 development here, there are lots of model/screen shots on their FB page as well. https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggi…oulder/e57a5xn/?context=3

We had an A6 pilot and B/N stay with us during an Airshow at the base my mother worked at back in 1992 after the first Gulf war. Dan "Buster " Brown was the pilot from the Silver Foxes, gave my a bunch of hats/shirts/etc from their Squad. He let me into the cockpit on the "family and friends" show the day before the official air show, and showed me the systems/trams/etc. I've got pics somewhere, it was right before I left for air traffic control school when I was a kid. Anyhow, loved the Intruder ever since, shame they retired it with no medium/heavy attack replacement. Dumb.

This AM, tried for a 3090. SO fucking close, I got one into my cart, but it froze, and it's still in my cart, but when I click checkout it still just freezed now 1.5 hours laster. Close, but no cigar....

Linus built some of my gaming systems years ago, back when he worked for NCIX and had a tiny Youtube channel. He used to sell components for large discounts on the side (he had free reign in the stock rooms at NCIX) - wonder how he got a hold of those things?