Because it's a sim!! You'd obviously choose differently if your skin was on the line! Same thing with fights... if the aircraft can do it, you'd be pulling 9Gs all day everyday, but if you were in the cockpit, I doubt you'll pull 9Gs if you know 4Gs will do.

Here I fixed for you
Now really, this isn't a mater if the F-35 will eventually replace the F-16. This is a universal truth and inevitably such as death and taxes




What I found interesting is that I don't think that the scenario of the LM F-35 simulator and which I tried to replicate in BMS isn't a "stealth-required mission". This particular scenario can be done with the F-16 - Actually you experienced this, right? - however your tactical options are far more limited and far more dangerous with the F-16 compared to the F-35. For example with the F-16 you must destroy the Mig-29s first and quickly in order to be successful because there's no way to avoid being detected by them.
Now the F-35 presents far more tactical options such as evading altogether the Migs and thus it's far more survivable (even if fighting like the F-16) or from a PC simmer's perspective, much easier.
Everytime I learn something new about the F-35 and watch actual videos from the F-35 there's one thing that comes into my mind - It's like playing a simulator with cheats




But that's exactly the problem with the F-16 and with any other 4th and 4.5th gen fighter aircraft for that matter - With the proliferation of modern and advanced threats such as the S-400 SAM, PAK T-50, J-20, etc.. you won't survive even if you send lots of flights with lots of aircraft in order to "break down the door". Or at least you won't be able to perform missions without a prohibitive high number of loses, this again with the new and future threats emerging!

Look for example at the campaign mission that I also reported here in this thread:
- My package totalled 8 aircraft (all F-16s) and while the mission was a success (the target was completely destroyed) my package lost 5 aircraft (out of 8) and the target was destroyed because I pressed on the attack where in real life no pilot would have done which would means it would be a " mission failure" (and this despite the enemy having lost more aircraft).
And here the enemy instead of having S-400s (SA-21) it had an older and less capable variant, the S-300 (SA-10).
In the end such result is acceptable in a PC sim but definitely not in real life.
Instead if this mission was performed by lets say 4 F-35s (or even only 2 F-35) the enemy would have sustained even higher loses and most likely absolutely no F-35s would have been lost!




LoL. But don't forget that it was the "black magic" that basically helped the F-16s, F-15s, etc.. to "vaporize" the Migs that they encountered
It just happens that the F-35's "black magic" is much darker and far more powerful...




So in your opinion and using my previous Spitfire example, if we lived lets say in 1938 you would "state you bias" in favour of the Sopwith Camel because this one have been "baptized in fire" while the you'll be skeptical about the Spitfire because it didn't? Doesn't make much sense, does it?




Tell me one aircraft what was designed to become a main fighter for any US Armed Service (USAF, USMC or USN) that didn't "deliver"?

All I saw and know is precisely the opposite:
- Aircraft that were designed to meet original expectations but were harshly criticized and claimed by many that they wouldn't meet the original expectations but ending up surpassing by far the original expectations! These were basically all modern US fighter aircraft: The F-14, F-15, the F-16 (yes, the "lawn dart") and the F/A-18. The F-35 will be just another one. Perhaps this is some sort of tradition in the USA






The F-35 has a backup display on the lower and central part of the cockpit which shows the artificial horizon, plus basic data such as speed and altitude.
The main display is also divided in two independent parts (two left and right halves) so if for example the left part of the main LCD display is damaged the right part still works and performs the intended functions.





No way that an A-10C turns its nose faster than a F-16 and much less than a F/A-18 or a F-35!

Besides the F-35 agility is not only about turning/pointing the nose fast. The F-35 also has an impressive acceleration. For example you can read the following quoted part in the article that I previously provided you above:

"On the positive side I would like to highlight how the F-35 feels in the air. I am impressed with the stability and predictability of the airplane. Particularly at high AOA and low airspeeds. It is a peculiar feeling to be flying the F-35 at high AOA. I can pull the nose up to where my feet «sit» on the horizon and still maintain level altitude. I’m also impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the AOA."

Well a F-16 pilot saying that it's impressed "how quickly the F-35 accelerates" says a lot about the acceleration capabilities of the F-35! This opinion is also echoed my many other pilots, many of them F-16 pilots (or former F-16 pilots).

Actually the F-35 is said to be in terms of agility a combination of the F/A-18's quick and high AoA quick turning/nose pointing capabilities with the F-16 impressive acceleration and energy maneuvering.


And yes, that "But me quoting Top Gun does not make the movie a documentary." sentence what a masterpiece




Thanks for the feedback Ice

Yes, I know that. Note the LoL and the smile at the end of my sentence

Basically it was a "rhetoric question" with a funny twist (at least that's what I hoped for).

Sorry, for some reason, I missed reading the end bit. Silly me.




I guess I don't really count my chickens until the eggs hatch.



Single aircraft, no AWACS support, wing bags and two big bombs? You better find a back door or bring the invisibility cloak with you! While it can be done with THE F-16, it was difficult to do with A F-16.
Sure, stealth isn't required, and that's when you throw 2x 4-ship flights at it... but if you just throw ONE aircraft? He better have some tricks (stealth) up his sleeve!




It's not a *problem* with the F-16 or any 4th/4.5th gen fighter, is a problem with the threat environment. While I'm sure there are ways around this with the current-gen aircraft, sure, the F-35 can bring more options to the table.... until the threat environment catches up... and the cycle begins anew!



I would not attribute anything in the sim to be representative of real life. You losing 5 aircraft may have more to do with AI than with actual tactics.



Quite a big jump between a Sopwith Camel there and a Spitfire and I don't know much about WWI-WWII aircraft to give a better analogy.... let's just say I'd be biased towards the Tomcat until the Hornet has proved it's worth. **THAT** makes more sense, doesn't it?



I remember this from a few years ago when I was playing DCS A10C. Basically, if the Hog is going head-to-head against a fast mover, if he times it just right, he can turn around, be pointing at the enemy's exhaust, and launch a Sidewinder, but he better make it count. I think it was being debated whether the Hog can then survive another head-on pass or if it then becomes a sitting duck, losing speed from the high-G turn and not being able to recover it before the enemy aircraft turns around and kills him. "Rate kills."



But is the combination enough to be useful? Sure, something may accelerate like a bat out of hell, and others may be able to turn quickly... angles fighters vs. energy fighters are the proper terms I think. Are you saying the F-35 is both? I don't think so. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Again, my skepticism is in place until proper tests are made.



My pleasure and thank you for the interesting scenario and for the interesting discussion! I look forward to more of both!

Hmmm... I wonder if the AI units in this mission needs some "warmup time"? I was tweaking my HOTAS setup and decided to give this mission a go again but this time, the MiGs did not engage and there was no -17 spike on the RWR, so I thought I'd take it easy and next thing I know, BOOM! SAM hits me. I look up and there's two other smoke trails coming towards me... but nothing on the RWR at all and no missile launch warning. Odd.

Yes, while I found the scenario "doable" with the F-16 it sure isn't "realistic".
Or resuming, this scenario could be a bit more realistic with the F-35 (although I doubt that even the F-35 would fly alone in real life) but it certainly isn't realistic for the F-16, here I agree with you namely for the reason you mentioned (Stealth) and also because the F-35 carries all its fuel and weapons internally which not only contributes to stealth but also to much less drag and thus better performance and on top of that you have the already discussed superior sensors/capabilities.





The problem with any 4th/4.5th gen fighter against emerging threats is the same/similar as if you put old cold war fighter aircraft such as the F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom, etc.., against current threats. You could devise tactics that could somehow allow these aircraft to perform missions but the risk would be so high as such as their loses that this would be prohibitive even if for some "miracle" they managed to accomplish their assigned missions. And then we also have human lives (pilots) in stake.




Note that the AI skill or on this case the lack of it doesn't only effect "my side"! It also affects the enemy side as well. For example and perhaps with humans in command (or more competent AI) those SA-10s could have managed to shot me down even with me flying at low altitude "tree top".
Or with the same/current AI I'm 100% sure that this mission would have gone much smoother (much easier) with the F-35 - An this is basically what's all about the F-35: making things easier and thus much more survivable.





Yes, I'm aware that from the Camel to the Spitfire it's quite a big jump, it's just like I'm aware that from the F-16 to the F-35 is also a similar big jump - just look how surprised or even "astonished" were you when you learned how the F-35 is capable of 360º detection and present all of it in a simple TSD (for example without any radar scopes, etc...).
The difference is that between the Camel and Spitfire the jump was done in terms of aircraft performance, namely speed while between the F-16 and the F-35 the jump is done mainly thru the "Black Magic" (as you call it ).
Also note that the F-35 is NOT a F-117 with the capabilities of the F-16 - It's much, much more than that. And I believe that one of the main reasons for the F-35's criticism/skepticism is that this is something which is very complex to learn and understand about. For example knowing that one aircraft reaches 120mhp while the other 370mhp is easy to understand. Or that the X plane turns better than the Y plane is also relatively easy to at least get an idea. However the F-35's "Black Magic", it's something totally different to understand.

So no, my analogy or jump isn't a simple from the Tomcat to the Hornet, it's far more than that!
Besides despite the Hornet being somehow more advanced than the Tomcat remember that both belong to the same generation, the 4th fighter aircraft generation.






Of course there could be some "exceptions" where the A-10 could "turn faster" than a modern "fast mover" (like the F-16, F/A-18, F-35, Mig-29, etc..). Imagine if the faster mover comes head on at Mach 1 while the A-10 is flying at an "optimal speed" of 300+ knots than in this case in theory the A-10 could turn "faster" but this again is an exception since at lower speeds (for the fast mover) I strongly believe that any of those modern aircraft would turn better than the A-10.




Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying
The F-35 is both an angles and an energy fighter.
And it's not me that is saying this. The real pilots are saying this.

For example the F-35A has a similar drag (the other F-35 variants are draggier) as a clean F-16 (but note that in real combat you will never see a "clean" F-16) while the a fuel loadout (around 50% to 60%) that gives the F-35 a similar range as a fully fueled (100%) F-16 the Thrust-to-Weight Ratio (TWR) is basically the same between both aircraft (again note how that pilot which was a F-16 pilot before being a F-35 pilot was impressed with the F-35's acceleration). So for the same/similar weapon and range configuration the F-35 beats the F-16 in terms of energy since the F-35 doesn't need to carry external stores which adds considerable drag.
In terms of turns/angles well, that was explained very well in the article that I posted before.




You're welcome

I did read about this 360 degree thing of the F-35 or how the pilot can "look through" the aircraft but didn't know the details... pretty cool!

However, the jump between F-16 to F-35 may be big due to better electronics and sensors, I was mainly referring to the physical flight capabilities of both aircraft....



I think there's a video somewhere of the A-10 shooting down a MiG-29 or some other fast mover in DCS.... lucky shot, to be sure, but it's there!



I wasn't sure if the pilot was saying this in terms of a "snapshot" or a "sustained" capability of the aircraft. Damn, IMO the thing looks ugly but I thought the same of the Hornet and then learned to love the aircraft after playing Jane's F/A-18. I wonder if I'll change my mind about the F-35 and learn to love it after playing a sim dedicated to it? Heck, I didn't think much of the Warthog but DCS A-10C has made me love the aircraft as well!

While you keep on saying that the F-35 is the bees knees, I wonder about the 5th gen aircraft being produced/developed by other countries. Sure, the F-35 vs. 4th/4.5th gen fighters may be like seal clubbing (although I'd love to see a guns-only dogfight!!), what would be the outcome of a 5th gen vs. 5th gen fight?

Indeed the "quantum leap" between 4th and 5th gen is not so much about the "physical" flight capabilities of the aircraft as it happened with all and every preceding generations but it's instead a "quantum leap" in terms of electronics and sensors (like you say) and above all how these aircraft connect to each other thru advanced networks. A "small" example of these advanced network connections is the ability of the F-35 to provide guidance not only AMRAAM's fired from other aircraft but also to provide guidance to Missiles like the SM-6 fired from warships (such as Destroyers). You can read this here:
http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/sm-6_first_of_a_kind.html



Well, I didn't see that video so I can't comment but this is, errrr DCS. The game where a BMP-2 is more effective, precise and deadlier than a Shilka or where the AIM-9M and the AIM-7 are far more effective than AMRAAMs...




Well if you need more proof about the F-35A acceleration capabilities here's an image that originated in a document from the Norwegian Defence Ministry which compared the acceleration from Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.95 (subsonic) of all F-35 variants and the F-16C and you can see that the F-35A (with a tactical war load) acceleration in this regime is in pair with the clean and no external tanks F-16C, see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwK-B4mRQeNLTzFDWUVXNm9mWVU/view?usp=sharing

Acceleration of the F-35A with a tactical war load (internal load of 2xAMRAAMs and 2x2000lb bombs) from Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.95 --> 17.9 seconds
Acceleration of the F-16C clean and without external tanks from Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.95 --> 17.7 seconds

I would certainly love to have a F-35 combat flight sim for PC




It's curious that you mentioned DCS A-10C but do you know what was my thought everytime I did a mission in DCS A-10C?
"My kingdom for a F-16"

DCS A-10C is a good sim and perhaps the best DCS module but the limitations of the A-10 (even the -C) are apparent specially in a conventional warfare scenario (which is what is modeled in the DCS-A-10C campaign). Basically the F-16 can do what the A-10C does but better and more.

So it's with no surprise that the USAF wants to retire their A-10s (and this desire isn't new).




That's a very good question indeed.
However for a F-35 pilot things shouldn't change that much with those 5th gen "stealthy" fighter aircraft being developed by other nations and with this I will highlight two - The Russian T-50 and the Chinese J-20.
However these two aircraft (T-50 and J-20) should be a major and extremely dangerous threat to 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft.
For example and this according to the Russians themselves, the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the T-50 is around 0.5 square meters. About the J-20 I don't know but it shouldn't be much different from the T-50.
By comparison the F-35 RCS is lower than 0.001 square meters and thus the F-35 will still be quite more stealthier than those T-50s and J-20s.
This means that the F-35 will be able to detect (and shoot) the T-50 or the J-20 first than vice-versa.

Even modern 4.5th gen fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet which is reported to have the most extensive RCS reduction of all non-stealth aircraft RCS which is something between 0.5-0.9 square meters is at a big disadvantage against the T-50 and J-20 since as opposed to these later aircraft, the Super Hornet carries its weapons externally which will inevitable increase its RCS.

Bah!! You and your "black magic" again.... "You hold no power here!!!"


But yeah... I can still remember when I was dreaming about 3x CRT monitors as a multi-screen display, and now we have flat monitors and touchscreens and VR. I can remember when one of my buddies had his USB thumbdrive on a necklace around his neck and he'd wear it to show it off... I think it was 256MB capacity. Now 32GB drives are cheap-as-chips! I can't wait to have a "proper" sim for 5th-gen aircraft!!



HOW DARE YOU MOCK DCS!!! HOW BLOODY DARE YOU!! For all you know, that BMP was manned by a 5th-gen soldier with 5th-gen optics!!

But yeah... after I got bored killing Shilkas with the guns, I started going for BMPs for a challenge.



OOOoooo... interesting! So F-16 acceleration and F-18 AoA capabilities?



The A-10C has it's shortcomings... one of which is that it need proper air cover or air superiority to be established. The F-16C has it's shortcomings... one of which is that it's really thirsty. The F-16 can do what the A-10 can do, but it's a one-strike, RTB type of aircraft. The A-10 can't do everything the F-16 can, but it can loiter all day long and bring 6-10 Mavericks and then plink more targets by spreading 30 mike-mike love.

When I'm winchester in an F-16, I miss my 30mm.



Talk is cheap. Let's take this up in the sim... oh wait... we don't have that yet

Any chance you know what the RCS is for my beloved Turkey?


EDIT: Sorry for the thread derail. Feel free to tell me to stop, but I really find the discussion interesting. But I guess I'll stop. You wanted feedback for your mission and we've taken it a bit further out from that!

Just wait until I come here with some real Voodoo magic (that one with dolls and pins)




LOL, I still have one of those 256MB USB pendrives (which was my first USB Flash memory) which I still use from time to time which by the way also came with a necklace (and NO I don't put it around my neck anymore)
Of course I also have 16GB pendrives, 32GB SD Cards, etc...





Yup, I bought a fire extinguisher just because of this comment alone in case someone decides to burn me at the stake...




LoL!
I guess that the next move could be going after A-10s (instead of F-15s and F-16s) while flying with a Mig-29 for a challenge in DCS




Exactly!
Actually this is mentioned across a few places and by actual pilots.




Well, the A-10C may have its advantages when fighting Taliban-style enemies (under-armed insurgents) due like you say to longer loiter time, yes that's a fact.

But once the enemy starts coming with stuff like SA-15 SAMs things will inevitably go south unless like you said there's some proper cover with SEAD flights and/or top cover (in case the enemy has fighter aircraft) like happens in the DCS-A10C campaign (hence "my kingdom for a F-16" comment ).
Even if the enemy has some old stuff like SA-6 SAMs the A-10 chances of survival quickly become slim.

The F-16 for its part can do both conventional warfare and counter-insurgency warfare missions.




To be honest with 4 (four) AGM-154A JSOWs I don't miss a gun at all (either being 20mm or 30mm) for those ground targets! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA




And what would be your favourite "Turkey"?
Honestly I first suspected that it would be the F-16 but the name "Turkey" doesn't seem to fit the F-16 (The F-16 can be everything but definitely not a "Turkey" ).
The A-10C?? Other?



No, you don't need to apologize for this. I also enjoy talking about these subjects and actually one of the points of my scenario was to make some sort of comparison between the F-16 and F-35 but by doing it differently - instead of using "public data" alone by also using what is IMO and by far the best Modern Fighter Combat Flight Simulation for PC (Falcon BMS) or resuming doing it resorting to a more "interactive tool" if you wish.
So please feel free to continue the conversation

In the meanwhile, if anyone else wants to share some feedback please fell free to do it so.

**cough!**Kulam**cough!**
n00b! This may be a fight you cannot win...



Is it wrong that I still think these things are cool?


The last ones in particular, I used to store Magic: The Gathering cards and other cool stuff!



I dare you to make that statement again on the DCS sub-forums here... but call the fire brigade and the waaaaaaaahmbulance first!



And there are others that say that these pilots have been TOLD to say that. What I'd really like is something to put all of these to test. A proper Red Flag exercise or something.... I remember there was a "competition" and the 5th gen didn't do so well and the excuse was either "not all toys are installed yet" or "we didn't want to give away our full capabilities yet." I'm a skeptic... show me something that's undeniable. Something like the winner **AND** the loser praising the 5th gen's capabilities.



The A-10 really fits that current role, yes. I shudder to think how it would fare if the enemy had more shoulder-launched IR missiles. A lot of wounded Hogs would be RTB'ing. The F-16 could avoid this simply due to it's better speed and maneuverability. However, take something like AFAC roles though... NOTHING can beat the A-10 at that due to loiter time alone!



What was that Dos Gringos song again? Something about dropping bombs from Angels 30...



Isn't the Tomcat also called a "Turkey"? Here and here. IIRC, also "aluminum foil" due to it's very big RCS.



Enough talking and more mission building!

Nope. Personally I have still have some getting dust somewhere
Magic: The Gathering cards, jeezz I didn’t hear from that from a long time ago. Personally I never played with Magic: The Gathering cards but I have some friends of mine which were "addicted" to that card game.


LoL




Yeah and who are those “others”??
From my personal experience those "others" are for the most part “basement dwellers” that hardly know the difference between a wing and a landing gear.
Personally I also don’t think that pilots need to be TOLD anything. I would say that if pilots are indeed told something, this something would be about refraining from mentioning some details about classified information on the capabilities of the F-35.

In any case let me see – In one side we have these pilots who will eventually take these aircraft (F-35s in this case) into harm’s way by risking their lives by facing enemy forces which are willing and eager to kill them and yet they have full confidence on their aircraft (F-35) and clearly state they wouldn’t never want to go back (F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, etc…). One the other side we have the “basement dwellers” who will never fly these aircraft and for all that I know they would even believe if they were told that “pigs have wings” without checking out for proper facts.
Jezz, who should I believe?? Humm let me see…

Regarding that supposed "competition", “mockup dogfight” or whatever which pitted the F-35 against the F-16D (you’re talking about this one, right?), these are the facts:
1- This wasn’t a "competition", “mockup dogfight” or whatever.
2- This was a simply a test flight with a F-35A prototype (number AF-2) whose objective was to test the limited (at that time) flight envelop. Remember that the F-35 flight control system (as well as most other modern fighter aircraft nowadays) is controlled by a computer – The so called Fly-by-Wire (FBW) system – so this means that the F-35’s flight envelop was very restricted (i.e. didn’t allow certain “hard maneuvers”) and the objective of this flight test was exactly to certify and expand the F-35’s flight envelop. Even now the F-35's flight envelop is still a bit restricted where for example the F-35A is currently limited to 7.5G maneuvering but when Block 3F enters in service later this year the F-35A will be cleared for attain its designed and intended 9G maneuvers/limit.
So basically that F-16D which supposedly “won” against the F-35 was only there to provide point reference to the F-35 AF-2 prototype during that test flight.

Current F-35’s are flying with the Software/standard Block 3i which is basically in “computer parlance” a "Beta software" which doesn’t allow for example the use of the gun or like I said above 9G maneuvers. However once the Block 3F software enters in service which is the “final version” or more precisely “Full Warfare Capability” these and other “locked” features will become available (or “unlocked” – also using modern computer/smartphone/Tablet parlance).
So far the F-35s have been flying with the following software/blocks:
- Block 1A/1B, Block 2A, Block 2B, Block 3i and Block 3F
Basically, each following software/block version adds new things and “unlocks stuff” (such as more unrestrictive flight envelops, etc…) compared to the previous software/block version.
More info on the F-35 software blocks here:
https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/software

Moreover if the F-35 with a "beta" software (Block 3i) was already a massive success and a "game changer" then imagine what will be Block 3F? Or in the future Block 4?




Well a Drone/UAV beats the A-10 in terms of loiter
I admit that I’m not a fan of Drones/UAVs even because they are also very vulnerable in “conventional wars" against well equipped enemies. However for counter-insurgency warfare they sure seem to be a good alternative to the A-10.




I admit that I’m confused (I believe that I’m not aware of that song)



Ah ok, the F-14!
I admit that I completely missed that one. Perhaps because it wasn’t previously mentioned during our conversation.
Well I haven’t found any RCS data for the F-14. My speculation (note this is a speculation only) is that the F-14 RCS should be in a similar class as the F-15 RCS which from what I could gather it could go as high as 25 square meters.




Not feeling inspired right now, sorry

I used to have to save for a month and a half just to buy ONE booster pack with 15 cards in it. Now, I can buy the whole set as it comes out. I think that took a good bit of the "magic" out of it... or maybe I shouldn't be thinking of being too competitive. Either way, more hobbies, less time.



I'll take that as you chickening out of the dare?



IIRC, Sprey or whatever his name is... stumbled across some YT videos where he was talking about the F-35 (or was it F-22?) and then just links from there. Again, if things are still "locked up," then I'll remain skeptical until the actual results are out. It's like you're asking me to decide which sim is better, DCS 4.0 or BMS 4.33... but with DCS not even releasing 2.5 yet!



Let's just hope it's not ED that's in charge of the Beta!! Hahahahahaha!!!
Also, can we speed up the unlock process with microtransactions? Or maybe more "likes" on Facebook?



There was a book just released where the writer/Viper driver mentioned what he thought of drones...



What? I just brought it up to your Camel/Spitfire analogy!!

Nope, I'm just waiting for the next DCS module or patch to screw up a bunch of current DCS features that somehow still works ok




No, no, no! Please don't come up with Pierre Sprey. Really you certainly are way smarter and more intelligent than that!

Pierre Sprey is the douchebag that criticized the F-15 Eagle as being a "garbage" or more precisely that "they" (USAF and McDonnell Douglas) put lots of "garbage" in the F-15 (he was referring to the avionics and sensors such as the radar) but he instantly "forgets" that it was this garbage that made the F-15 Eagle the best air superiority fighter ever designed until recently and it's still by far the fighter aircraft with the best combat record of all times!
On top of this Pierre Sprey presents himself as an aeronautical engineer who "designed the F-16" when he never and ever even designed a single bolt for any aircraft and much less he never worked for General Dynamic (the company that designed the F-16). All he ever was, was a Defence Analyst working for the DoD which helped drawing the requirements (with the help of Major Boyd's E-M theory) for the USAF's Lightweight Fighter Program (LWF) which resulted in the YF-16 and the YF-17 (where the YF-16 emerged as the winner and thus becoming the F-16).





Things "locked up" is more of an expression which I used for the F-35 maneuverability but I ended up generalizing "too much" (which perhaps I shouldn't). During the design stages of an aircraft, specially nowadays you simply don't want to take unnecessary risks. While in the past it was somehow acceptable to lose aircraft and (test) pilots in order to speed up development (for example this happened with the F-14) today that's simply not acceptable!
So what happens here is that while the aircraft (F-35) is capable to extreme maneuvers (for example 9G for the F-35A) the computer limits the actual manoeuvrability capability of the F-35 (for example 7.5G for the F-35A) or most of them for that matter.
And this is not a matter if the F-35A will for example attain 9G or not - it will attain 9G with a 100% confidence since first, it was designed for this and second a few F-35As already attained this in a few tests. However you'll want to play safe and perform a considerable number of tests in order to assure that its safe to operate the aircraft in these extreme conditions and thus before you clear the entire F-35 fleet for such features.
For example we all know that the F-35 program have been subjected to an immense scrutiny - Imagine for example if one of those F-35's crashed and even worse, if the pilot died as a result??

So playing safe and adding (or even in some cases "unlocking") things during the aircraft's development stage is perfectly normal and this is a standard not only for the F-35 but also for all other aircraft development nowadays.
Even in the past we had examples of such "unlocks" - for example lets look at your favourite fighter aircraft the F-14:
- When the F-14 entered in service it was quite underpowered with the TF-30 engine but it was only during 1987 that improved variants of the F-14 received the more powerful and improved F110-GE-400 engine which solved the underpowered problems of the F-14 (which obviously hampered the aircraft's performance). But does this mean that TF-30 equipped F-14's weren't great fighter aircraft? Of course not!

The same also currently applies to the F-35 as well. The F-35 is already an awesome and a "game changer" combat aircraft well superior to any 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft (Red Flag proved that). What happens is that with Block 3F and further block upgrades such as Block 4, the F-35 will be even better

Also your "DCS 4.0 or BMS 4.33" analogy doesn't fit well as an analogy for the F-35 program. A better analogy would be asking you to decide which sim would be better, Falcon 4 1.08 or lets say a future BMS 4.5 (while BMS 4.33 being the current version)?





Fortunately for LM and all the F-35 users and future users (which are already quite a lot, specially when compared to more modern 4.5th gen fighter aircraft), LM is definitely NOT ED.
I would even say comparing anyone who makes working software with ED is almost an insult to the former

So no, LM (as opposed to ED) are professionals and things will become "unlocked" or "added" when they actually work well (again as opposed to ED, which constantly adds broken new stuff!).





And what book would be that and what was his opinion?





Yes indeed. I just didn't notice that the F-14 was your favourite aircraft, this despite the analogy.

Unfortunately, that seems to be a given. New patch is out!



Hahahaha... I expected that reaction!



Don't worry, I understood what you meant. There was no way to "lock up" aircraft capabilities in the past short of not installing the actual hardware, but obviously things are different now with more electronics in the aircraft.



Why not? BMS 4.33 is the best simulation to date, whereas all the Pro-DCS fanboys seem to want us to judge DCS based on DCS 4.0 (or whatever future iteration number will be).



This one, I think.



Um, my forum name not enough of a giveaway?

Oh really?? Guess this is clearly a sign that I'm completely losing my interest in DCS.

By the way, what features did it break this time?




Yup, and above all don't forget software. Today technology trends to be more based at software level where in the past it trended to be more Hardware dependent (such as electronic circuits/chips, etc...).




Exactly because of that or because current DCS is not only broken but outright inferior to BMS 4.33. So unless I'm mistaken and something really changes within ED (which I doubt) I even dare to compare a future DCS version (lets say 4.0) to one of those (also Russian) PAK T-50 or even the Chinese J-20 once they reach "full service" - they promise to surpass the opposing technology namely resorting to a bunch of propaganda but in the end they simply won't! Besides nowadays both PAK T-50 and the J-20 are only barely functional prototypes (just like what DCS 1.5/2.0/2.5 or whatever mess currently is).

On the other hand the current version of the F-35 (Block 3i) is already superior and more survivable than everything else in the air. So I would compared it (a F-35 Block 3i) to BMS 4.33 while all other 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft (such as the F-16 and many, many others) I would compare them to Falcon 4 1.08 and/or with Jane's F/A-18.
Both Falcon 4 1.08 and Jane's F/A18 are also great aren't they?? However independently how great they are or were they simply can't compare with BMS 4.33. Heck, they hardly can compare with current iterations of DCS.
As well as I'm pretty sure (like 100% sure) that a future version of BMS, lets say BMS 4.5 for example will be superior to BMS 4.33. And I would compare a future BMS version (lets say 4.5) with something like a F-35 Block 3F or even Block 4.




Thanks Ice. Let's see if I can get my hands on that book. Looks interesting!




Ok, and now we're playing "Cluedo", LoL

Sorry mate. Too busy testing out the new YAME features to be wasting time with testing DCS. You'll have to ask someone else. I've not touched DCS in YEARS.



Pilot tries to fire a missile... Sorry, you've used up all your AIM-120Cs. Wait 10 more minutes or buy a pack of 6 for £2.99

Crew chief wants to load GBU-31s... Sorry, that feature hasn't been unlocked for this pilot yet. Buy a premium account for £9.99 for 1 week and gain XP faster!!



Ah! I get your analogy now! Shame on me for putting DCS in my analogy!!



I have the iPad version which is cool because at the start of the chapters, there's a little video by the author. I don't think we've developed the technology to put videos in books yet, no matter how much black magic your beloved F-35 has.

Now you're talking about DCS, right?




Ah ok, now I know why I can't insert videos on Microsoft Word documents