I remember that Estovakia had an XB-70 in AC6--so at least that's been in a game. A prototype with two units used--meanwhile, no Tu-22M. My life is sadness.
Personally, I'm hoping for more appearances of variable-sweep supersonic bombers, Tu-22M, the B-1, and the Tu-160 which are frequently absent from the game series. Granted, like the SR-71 they really don't fit the profile for usable aircraft, but seeing a massive Tu-160 really is an event (like their appearance in Ace Combat 4 and Tom Clancy's Ace Combat). The B-1B had a similarly awesome, and very short-lived, appearance in AC4.
While the Tu-22M isn't the most awe-inspiring of the three (that probably goes to the so-called "White Swan", which is somehow absurdly graceful-looking for what is heavier than a B-52), it deserves mention for being the first of the three designs to appear, remains in service and influenced the design of the other two--yet has never been in an AC series game as far as I know, which is kind of sad. There's something gorgeous about that somewhat more simplistic variable geometry that does it for me, and the last 40 years have seen it pressed into a variety of roles it was probably never seen in.
But I just really like a lot of variable-sweep designs. The F-14, the MiG-27, the Tornado F3, the Su-24 and so forth are all old favorites of mine too. I still get a laugh whenever I see a Su-24, I invariably think of it as a chibi/super-deformed Tu-22M because of the similar low-profile light grey color scheme used by the VVS.
Of the three, it's the one where you can look at it and clearly outline what ever part does--something designed for pure, mechanical utility that manages to look both simple and aesthetically pleasing. Plus of the three, it's probably the closest one to being flyable in-game give the size, the amount of public information and photography available for it (particularly the cockpit, which you can find documented in photographs for both the original and later "digital" versions) , and the generally very good handling characteristics at high and low speed...especially next to the original no-variable-sweep, hard-to-fly, zeerust-as-hell looking Tu-22 that proceeded it--you can see why the Soviets manufactured it for less than a third the time they did for the Tu-22M by comparison.
Personally, I'm hoping for more appearances of variable-sweep supersonic bombers, Tu-22M, the B-1, and the Tu-160 which are frequently absent from the game series. Granted, like the SR-71 they really don't fit the profile for usable aircraft, but seeing a massive Tu-160 really is an event (like their appearance in Ace Combat 4 and Tom Clancy's Ace Combat). The B-1B had a similarly awesome, and very short-lived, appearance in AC4.
While the Tu-22M isn't the most awe-inspiring of the three (that probably goes to the so-called "White Swan", which is somehow absurdly graceful-looking for what is heavier than a B-52), it deserves mention for being the first of the three designs to appear, remains in service and influenced the design of the other two--yet has never been in an AC series game as far as I know, which is kind of sad. There's something gorgeous about that somewhat more simplistic variable geometry that does it for me, and the last 40 years have seen it pressed into a variety of roles it was probably never seen in.
But I just really like a lot of variable-sweep designs. The F-14, the MiG-27, the Tornado F3, the Su-24 and so forth are all old favorites of mine too. I still get a laugh whenever I see a Su-24, I invariably think of it as a chibi/super-deformed Tu-22M because of the similar low-profile light grey color scheme used by the VVS.
Of the three, it's the one where you can look at it and clearly outline what ever part does--something designed for pure, mechanical utility that manages to look both simple and aesthetically pleasing. Plus of the three, it's probably the closest one to being flyable in-game give the size, the amount of public information and photography available for it (particularly the cockpit, which you can find documented in photographs for both the original and later "digital" versions) , and the generally very good handling characteristics at high and low speed...especially next to the original no-variable-sweep, hard-to-fly, zeerust-as-hell looking Tu-22 that proceeded it--you can see why the Soviets manufactured it for less than a third the time they did for the Tu-22M by comparison.
Add in the F-111 Aardvark and I'm with you.
It's probably just because of the color schemes I've seen, but I always see the F-111 as a chubby, friendlier-looking MiG-23. Which is fine too! They're all lovely in their own way. But even the Su-24 got into Ace Combat Infinity (someone out there must have played it)--we need more supersonic bombers.
I love the SR-71. No one knew it existed until it was obsolete.
Fun bit of trivia, Marvel comics had some CIA/FBI types show up to their offices to grill them about the X-Men's Blackbird since the Blackbird looked suspiciously like a jet that didn't exist. They wanted to know where they got their information about a jet that totally didn't exist, but if it did and it's a big if, where they might of heard about it. Marvel was all, "Uh. . . our imaginations?".
edit- Funny enough that isn't the first time something like that has happened. During WWII DC comics (or whatever they were called at the time) had a Superman comic involving Lex Luthor building an atom bomb. Since the Manhattan Project was still super-duper ultra top secret G-Men showed up to their office and put them to the question. Unlike with the Blackbird though DC got their inspiration from science journals that had talked about the far future potential of an atomic bomb by science types that were unaware it was already in production.
Reminds me of that crossword puzzle a few weeks before June 1944 that contained answers such Normandy, Overlord, and half of the beach codenames.
3DS Friend Code:
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
0
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
I kind of love the fact that many engineers and flight enthusiasts hate the F-35 so much, they make a strong case that even a MIG-21 could take it so long as it could get within range. Stealth is apparently the only thing it has going for it, and stealth is one of those tech things that all it takes is one big detection breakthrough to render a whole generation useless.
It has a 15:1 kill ratio vs F-16s in it's most recent exercises, so it can't be that awful.
F-16s are dog fighters designed in the late 1960s, not long-range interdictors bristling with the latest in beyond-visual-range tech and missiles. Of course they lose when a combatant airframe lobs four missiles at them from 30 miles away that can punch right through the F-16s countermeasures without breaking a sweat.
In a dog-fight the F-16 wins.
The F-35 is the Bradley reconnaissance vehicle of the air, and by that I mean it is a committee-molested jack of all trades that is good at many things but not great at anything.
The F-22, F/A-18 and even the F-15 are still superior airframes for their roles.
The whole point of the Joint Strike Fighter program was to maximise commonality between a range of similar modular airframes designed and engineered to fill different roles in an effort to minimise manufacturing, training, and maintenance costs. What we've ended up with is a bloated mess that costs more than almost any other aircraft in history, and is struggling to even become airworthy before it's made obsolete by drones.
Basically, more XB-70s have appeared in AC than ever existed in real life. Meanwhile, the USSR built ~500 Tu-22M, and 150 of them are modernized and in service.
Again, sadness. It would make the perfect mid-game mission target or mission escort--though the player would need an aircraft in the Mach 2 range....
Also that Red Flag data is suspect because the Air Force didn't release data about what the F-35 DID in those exercises. Red Flag missions are joint operations. Plus, the Air Force in the past doctored data and outright lied to the public to try to kill the A-10 to have more F-35 toy money.
manwiththemachinegun on
+2
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited September 2017
Yeah the F-35 was designed by committee to do everything and that just doesn't work. Pick a role and perfect it.
On the bright side the Air Force has wised up and have been looking in to a real CAS replacement for the A-10.
Most recently they tested a couple of aircraft this summer.
Pictured here:
A-29 Super Tucano hailing from Brazil. At a per flight hour cost of $500 it is certainly one of the cheapest of the bunch. It also has the distinction among the test craft as being the only one already battle proven.
AT-6 Wolverine. Currently the Wolverine serves as a trainer for the Air Force (the Texan II it is called) so it already has a fair amount of familiarity with pilots.
Textron AirLand Scorpion. The only jet powered option in the bunch. Textron has been trying to find a buyer for their jet for some time now. All told it is a solid and fairly cheap aircraft. Designed to be the "most affordable attack jet in the world" and many people in the know would agree Textron succeeded. Problem is finding a market for it. Richer nations can afford fancier aircraft and poorer nations have an near limitless selection of cheap second hand 4th Gen jets to pick from.
AT-802L Longsword. I am pretty sure this one was added to the summer testing as a pity gesture. The Longsword is based on, no fucking joke, a civilian crop duster. Specifically Air Tractor's AT-802. It lacks a pressurized canopy and ejection system. Both of which are required by the Air Force for their future CAS option. I think it looks fugly as all get out and I love it.
All the aircraft are cheap to buy and have very low per flight hour costs compared to most any other aircraft in the Air Force's arsenal. The Scorpion is the most expensive to buy and fly, but even at $3000 (IIRC) per flight hour it is still far, far cheaper than any other jet. Though I believe the Super Tucano is the favored among most experts, but the Air Force typically doesn't like flying foreign especially non-NATO. So we'll see how things shake out.
Bonus Trivia: We literally cannot build more F-22s. After production was shut down the Air Force stored all the machining parts and schematics to build the machining parts in a connex box and stuffed the connex box some where in the desert. When Congress was looking in to maybe restarting the program the Air Force went to where they had stored all the F-22 machining stuff only to find the connex empty. They have no clue where it is. We would basically have to reverse engineer our own aircraft in order to figure out how to build more. For anyone flying the F-22 it is a bitch because there is a limited supply of replacement parts. Maintenance crews have had to get inventive when fixing things.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Bonus Trivia: We literally cannot build more F-22s. After production was shut down the Air Force stored all the machining parts and schematics to build the machining parts in a connex box and stuffed the connex box some where in the desert. When Congress was looking in to maybe restarting the program the Air Force went to where they had stored all the F-22 machining stuff only to find the connex empty. They have no clue where it is. We would basically have to reverse engineer our own aircraft in order to figure out how to build more. For anyone flying the F-22 it is a bitch because there is a limited supply of replacement parts. Maintenance crews have had to get inventive when fixing things.
So it was stolen.
I'm expecting some explanation of "No, it wasn't stolen because (complex, nuanced, but largely truthful explanation here)..." added to this story, because from this it absolutely sounds like it was stolen, which is hilarious (and I say this as someone who thinks the F-22 is a beautiful work of engineering, even before considering its qualities as a stealthy multirole fighter). And it really sounds like a Politico headline of "Original tool parts and blueprints for American stealth fighter aircraft stolen from hiding place in desert. Washington not pleased."
Is there some explanation that can dissuade me from the mental image of some uneducated but street-smart and very savvy hick stuffing his trailer full of cardboard boxes labeled "PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES AIR FORCE - NOT FOR RESALE" shutting the door, and very meticulously planning for his retirement in the deserts of Nevada. That is not the bonus trivia, that is the trivia trivia. Or the non-trivial important information, in fact.
How does that even happen?
+1
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Hah, I doubt it was stolen. It is more likely the massive bureaucracy of the Air Force simply misplaced it. Which is pretty hilarious in its own right. Hell even just last year Air Force personnel opened up an old, overgrown bunker on the edge of their base in the middle of nowhere only to find, like, 27 nuclear warheads they had no idea existed. So there is precedent.
Some of the more tinfoil hat types accuse the Air Force of either "misplacing" it on purpose or lying about where they stored it so there'd be no threat to the F-35 program. Which while I do doubt, a part of me also wound't be too surprised if it turned out to be true.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Lost would be less terrible and depressing than stolen. One of the incomplete Buran space shuttle airframes was lost, but at least it wasn't stolen.
If the Air Force genuinely knew where they put all the original design papers, manufacturing originals, and everything else, went back there, and found it empty, that is by definition not lost. It is stolen or destroyed. Maybe the Pentagon considers them the same thing, but the Pentagon is wrong. And that's before considering the huge amount of resources that went into the Advanced Tactical Fighter program in the first place (which at least produced a capable if unnecessary design which can't be brought back...because it was either lost or stolen).
Don't believe your parents, kids: details matter, they really do.
I am a casual nerd when it comes to fighter jets (my eyes tend to glaze over reading excessive speed, altitude, turning stats etc), but this new F-16 block 70 seems rad. It'll be made for the Indian Air Force.
I just love the idea of upgrading proven machines to be just a little bit less badass than the cutting edge new stuff.
I can't get over how bizarre and unrealistic it looks from that angle. If I saw it in anime, I'd call it poorly done (and I normally really like the F-16's profile). Here's a much less disturbing shot.
There we go. Much better.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if the deal goes through (these sort of things get canceled and renegotiated constantly, just ask Russia). India still intends to take delivery of another +50 Su-30MKI, either from Russian or Indian factories, and Hindustan Aeronautics' role in the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft project (i.e. India's license to build the PAKFA) has turned on and off what seems like a dozen times--that's more room for the F-16 in budgets, but it still has to compete with the Rafale, Israeli offers, and everything else. Above all, I think it'll have to be turned over to India, in some variant, for production by HAL--refusing to allow India to build it domestically is a political death-sentence at this time.
Real life weirdness aside, it'd be a welcomed addition to the AC7 roster.
Apparently there's a single seat version too? The one I posted had a few different angles and it was a one seater.
In promotional material for the MRCA competition back in 2012, the F-16IN (as everyone called it) was always a one-seat configuration--but it was also promotional material. Along with the MiG-35 and F/A-18, the F-16 lost to the Rafale for the 126 aircraft tender--then again, the Rafale deal fell apart anyway, and Modhi and Hollande settled on 36 Rafale's total (none of which have been delivered, as far as I know).
The Rafale deal falling apart was definitely a shining moment of optimism for Lockheed, but they most they've gotten is a letter of intent as far as I know. Every time this gets brought up, Congress or someone else gets worried--not incorrectly--about technology transfer, because those planes will be made in part in India (which isn't exactly great news for American audiences). That is nonnegotiable, and the Indians have made it clear that they will axe deals if only because insufficient amounts of the aircraft are made in India.
Beyond that, who knows. Everyone, including Russia and the US, wants to replace those +200 MiG-21s in the IAF, but everyone seems put off by India's terms to varying degrees, with the Russians being far and away the most successful to getting that (they've already built almost as many Su-30MKI for India via HAL as there are MiG-21s still in service). Of course the Russians design bureaus have a head start: they were letting Hindustan build MiG aircraft 50 years ago, when America was seriously considering going to war with India Pakistan in the Bay of Bengal, much less selling them planes.
+1
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
India is pretty unique when it comes to military procurement. Most nations of the world either get NATO or get Russian/Soviet. India just gets whatever they think will work for their needs regardless of origin.
If you look at their military you'll see NATO, Russian, and third-party equipment working side by side. Heh, it is the most Strangereal nation on Earth in that regard. :razz:
On a related note, Brazil has been quietly building themselves up as a third alternative to NATO/Russia. Providing better alternatives to Soviet junk and cheaper alternatives to expensive NATO platforms to the Third World. Hell the most bullshit thing happened to their Main Battle Tank. They had produced a few prototypes and were hoping to sell em to Saudia Arabia to help fund their own military's procurement. With plans to then sell more to the Third World. During the trials (in the late 80's) the Brazilian Osorio went up against the AMX 40, M1 Abrams and the Challenger 1 and beat out all of them. The Saudis were in line to buy them when some back room shenanigans went down and they ended up changing their mind last minute and went with the Abrams instead. This ended up bankrupting the company and the tank never entered service.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
India is pretty unique when it comes to military procurement. Most nations of the world either get NATO or get Russian/Soviet. India just gets whatever they think will work for their needs regardless of origin.
It's a tangent, but really only the Indian Air Force. The Indian Army almost exclusively uses one of the three:
1) Soviet equipment (like some of the original T-72 tanks, the BTR series, etc.)
2) Foreign equipment licensed from Soviet equipment (so, Russian BMP-2s, Polish fighting vehicles, Ukrainian armored cars).
3) Indian equipment licensed from the USSR and its Russian successor state (like the thousands of T-72s manufactured in India, or more than a thousand T-90 tanks manufactured in India or imported)
Yes, you will see French jeeps or British motocycles--the Russian Army also buys French motorcycles or other oddities when sanctions aren't in effect (or even if they are, there was a long period where Russia eagerly bought French rangefinders and targeting computers for T-80 and T-90 tanks). We wouldn't call the Russian Army a major purchaser of French equipment, however, and that's applicable here. The Navy is about as uniform: the vast majority of the equipment is manufactured in India with Russian license, and the next biggest group is Russian surplus (like India's nuclear submarines). The lone exception is are a few Israeli patrol boats, four German attack submarines (compared to more than twice that of Russian manufacture), and one American amphibious transport ship that--by literal agreement--is not a warship because it cannot be used in wartime without American permission.
That wasn't always the case--there was a time where the Indian Army used huge amounts of British equipment...except it was World War II-surplus (you know your equipment is old when the T-55 is a modern replacement), and even not rated very favorably next to the armour the British started off with in 1939, much less by 1945. India's first aircraft carrier was Royal Navy surplus too. Really, military aircraft procurement is allows for unprecedented competition for buyers, in no small part because the products are relatively small, so expensive, and obviously very transportable. Meanwhile, woefully outdated British and (to a lesser extent) French junk was around in such quantities some of it survived the Cold War, llike the Vikrant (formerly the HMS Hercules) in 1997, a mostly-floating museum piece next to the already aging Kiev-class that replaced her. Really for any country throwing away an aircraft carrier, even one built in 1943 and increasingly a death trap, is a tough pill to swallow (there's a metaphor about the sun never setting about the British Empire somewhere in here).
Funny enough, if games in Strangereal were focused on, say, tanks or ships (there was PS2-era naval warfare game that was basically a WWII answer to Ace Combat 4), it would actually be "less believable" if that makes any sense (then again, pretty much every Strangereal country uses either something that looks like a mishmash of an M60 and an M1, or a mishmash of a T-80 an a T-90).
Shamelessly stolen from Reddit, but some cool new details I'm putting in spoiler tags.
It appears Osea did to Erusea what they did to Belka to cause the Belkan War - the ISEV was supposed to provide economic boon to Erusea, but it didn't.
The trailers are made up of various pieces of the game, a mix of events and quotes in the timeline.
The story focuses on the people and their own reasons to fight, not a simple good and evil plot.
The unknown UAV gets involved as the story progresses.
There's mixed feelings on both sides of the conflict. Not everyone in Osea approves of the conflict.
We have no control over wingmen's aircraft. The tunnel run is going to be quite intense, and "It's not necessarily just a tunnel."
AC3 and UGSF will have an effect on the game to some degree.
I love how they're all, "well yeah, of course we're going to have a tunnel run".
I've been going through NineGearCrow's extensive LP of the Ace Combat series and if you guys haven't seen it, I'd really recommend it. Some fanon, but it culls from pretty much every Ace Combat source known to man including the rare artbooks, interviews, behind the scenes, and has extensive research pointing out when key events happens, environmental details, canon welding between the older games and new ones, difficult to acquire assault records (did you know Gault 7 for example from AC:0 designed the Aigaion air fortress in AC:6 because I sure didn't) and alternate story drafts.
I've been going through NineGearCrow's extensive LP of the Ace Combat series and if you guys haven't seen it, I'd really recommend it. Some fanon, but it culls from pretty much every Ace Combat source known to man including the rare artbooks, interviews, behind the scenes, and has extensive research pointing out when key events happens, environmental details, canon welding between the older games and new ones, difficult to acquire assault records (did you know Gault 7 for example from AC:0 designed the Aigaion air fortress in AC:6 because I sure didn't) and alternate story drafts.
There is a side LP of AC3... because its a weird game when compared to the others. Likewise, there's also a side LP dedicated to "full murder" Cipher as he depopulates all of Belka with a default F-5 on Ace difficulty.
So should I replay all the old games before 7 comes out?
If you mean the PS2 ones, absolutely, yes. Having replayed these recently, I’d say they hold up just fine. Ace Combat 4, 5, and Zero are still masterpieces, looking and playing great.
While I enjoyed the multiplayer, the campaign in Ace Combat 6 on the 360 is marred by some truly awful writing and voice acting. Also, 6 doesn’t take advantage of the Strangereal setting, and the super weapons that go along with it, as well as the others, so maybe give it a miss. I only ever tried the demo of Assault Horizon, up to I-have-no-idea-how-far into the helicopter mission before deleting it with extreme prejudice, so I can’t comment on that one. It makes nice YouTube clips, that much I know!
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
I have no way of playing 6, and I won't touch assault horizon with a 10 foot pole. I have the 3 ps2 games, as well as a copy of assault horizon legacy on 3ds. I'll probably fire them up. I don't have a copy of 3. I don't know if I want to play 3.
Assault Horizon isn't terrible, most would admit it's better than HAWX. It's just that all of the bad mechanics people hate are front loaded in the first four missions.
4-5-0 remains the "golden trilogy" so if want to replay those ones, you're solid. I'm in the same boat with AC6 so I'm just watching Crow's LP.
+1
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Find the Assault Horizon soundtrack and listen to that. Maybe some YouTube clips because as weird and not great as Dogfight Mode was, it looked really impressive.
The classic AC games desperately need a remaster collection.
Posts
Add in the F-111 Aardvark and I'm with you.
Steam: betsuni7
It's probably just because of the color schemes I've seen, but I always see the F-111 as a chubby, friendlier-looking MiG-23. Which is fine too! They're all lovely in their own way. But even the Su-24 got into Ace Combat Infinity (someone out there must have played it)--we need more supersonic bombers.
Reminds me of that crossword puzzle a few weeks before June 1944 that contained answers such Normandy, Overlord, and half of the beach codenames.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
F-16s are dog fighters designed in the late 1960s, not long-range interdictors bristling with the latest in beyond-visual-range tech and missiles. Of course they lose when a combatant airframe lobs four missiles at them from 30 miles away that can punch right through the F-16s countermeasures without breaking a sweat.
In a dog-fight the F-16 wins.
The F-35 is the Bradley reconnaissance vehicle of the air, and by that I mean it is a committee-molested jack of all trades that is good at many things but not great at anything.
The F-22, F/A-18 and even the F-15 are still superior airframes for their roles.
The whole point of the Joint Strike Fighter program was to maximise commonality between a range of similar modular airframes designed and engineered to fill different roles in an effort to minimise manufacturing, training, and maintenance costs. What we've ended up with is a bloated mess that costs more than almost any other aircraft in history, and is struggling to even become airworthy before it's made obsolete by drones.
Basically, more XB-70s have appeared in AC than ever existed in real life. Meanwhile, the USSR built ~500 Tu-22M, and 150 of them are modernized and in service.
Again, sadness. It would make the perfect mid-game mission target or mission escort--though the player would need an aircraft in the Mach 2 range....
Also that Red Flag data is suspect because the Air Force didn't release data about what the F-35 DID in those exercises. Red Flag missions are joint operations. Plus, the Air Force in the past doctored data and outright lied to the public to try to kill the A-10 to have more F-35 toy money.
On the bright side the Air Force has wised up and have been looking in to a real CAS replacement for the A-10.
Most recently they tested a couple of aircraft this summer.
Pictured here:
A-29 Super Tucano hailing from Brazil. At a per flight hour cost of $500 it is certainly one of the cheapest of the bunch. It also has the distinction among the test craft as being the only one already battle proven.
AT-6 Wolverine. Currently the Wolverine serves as a trainer for the Air Force (the Texan II it is called) so it already has a fair amount of familiarity with pilots.
Textron AirLand Scorpion. The only jet powered option in the bunch. Textron has been trying to find a buyer for their jet for some time now. All told it is a solid and fairly cheap aircraft. Designed to be the "most affordable attack jet in the world" and many people in the know would agree Textron succeeded. Problem is finding a market for it. Richer nations can afford fancier aircraft and poorer nations have an near limitless selection of cheap second hand 4th Gen jets to pick from.
AT-802L Longsword. I am pretty sure this one was added to the summer testing as a pity gesture. The Longsword is based on, no fucking joke, a civilian crop duster. Specifically Air Tractor's AT-802. It lacks a pressurized canopy and ejection system. Both of which are required by the Air Force for their future CAS option. I think it looks fugly as all get out and I love it.
All the aircraft are cheap to buy and have very low per flight hour costs compared to most any other aircraft in the Air Force's arsenal. The Scorpion is the most expensive to buy and fly, but even at $3000 (IIRC) per flight hour it is still far, far cheaper than any other jet. Though I believe the Super Tucano is the favored among most experts, but the Air Force typically doesn't like flying foreign especially non-NATO. So we'll see how things shake out.
Bonus Trivia: We literally cannot build more F-22s. After production was shut down the Air Force stored all the machining parts and schematics to build the machining parts in a connex box and stuffed the connex box some where in the desert. When Congress was looking in to maybe restarting the program the Air Force went to where they had stored all the F-22 machining stuff only to find the connex empty. They have no clue where it is. We would basically have to reverse engineer our own aircraft in order to figure out how to build more. For anyone flying the F-22 it is a bitch because there is a limited supply of replacement parts. Maintenance crews have had to get inventive when fixing things.
So it was stolen.
I'm expecting some explanation of "No, it wasn't stolen because (complex, nuanced, but largely truthful explanation here)..." added to this story, because from this it absolutely sounds like it was stolen, which is hilarious (and I say this as someone who thinks the F-22 is a beautiful work of engineering, even before considering its qualities as a stealthy multirole fighter). And it really sounds like a Politico headline of "Original tool parts and blueprints for American stealth fighter aircraft stolen from hiding place in desert. Washington not pleased."
Is there some explanation that can dissuade me from the mental image of some uneducated but street-smart and very savvy hick stuffing his trailer full of cardboard boxes labeled "PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES AIR FORCE - NOT FOR RESALE" shutting the door, and very meticulously planning for his retirement in the deserts of Nevada. That is not the bonus trivia, that is the trivia trivia. Or the non-trivial important information, in fact.
How does that even happen?
Some of the more tinfoil hat types accuse the Air Force of either "misplacing" it on purpose or lying about where they stored it so there'd be no threat to the F-35 program. Which while I do doubt, a part of me also wound't be too surprised if it turned out to be true.
If the Air Force genuinely knew where they put all the original design papers, manufacturing originals, and everything else, went back there, and found it empty, that is by definition not lost. It is stolen or destroyed. Maybe the Pentagon considers them the same thing, but the Pentagon is wrong. And that's before considering the huge amount of resources that went into the Advanced Tactical Fighter program in the first place (which at least produced a capable if unnecessary design which can't be brought back...because it was either lost or stolen).
Don't believe your parents, kids: details matter, they really do.
These "replacements" have a distinct lack of GAU-8
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
There is no God but General Electric, who began his only son, the Avenger, to us for our sins.
In the name of the Dakka, the Brrrrrt and the Holy GAU, Amen.
I just love the idea of upgrading proven machines to be just a little bit less badass than the cutting edge new stuff.
There we go. Much better.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if the deal goes through (these sort of things get canceled and renegotiated constantly, just ask Russia). India still intends to take delivery of another +50 Su-30MKI, either from Russian or Indian factories, and Hindustan Aeronautics' role in the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft project (i.e. India's license to build the PAKFA) has turned on and off what seems like a dozen times--that's more room for the F-16 in budgets, but it still has to compete with the Rafale, Israeli offers, and everything else. Above all, I think it'll have to be turned over to India, in some variant, for production by HAL--refusing to allow India to build it domestically is a political death-sentence at this time.
Real life weirdness aside, it'd be a welcomed addition to the AC7 roster.
In promotional material for the MRCA competition back in 2012, the F-16IN (as everyone called it) was always a one-seat configuration--but it was also promotional material. Along with the MiG-35 and F/A-18, the F-16 lost to the Rafale for the 126 aircraft tender--then again, the Rafale deal fell apart anyway, and Modhi and Hollande settled on 36 Rafale's total (none of which have been delivered, as far as I know).
The Rafale deal falling apart was definitely a shining moment of optimism for Lockheed, but they most they've gotten is a letter of intent as far as I know. Every time this gets brought up, Congress or someone else gets worried--not incorrectly--about technology transfer, because those planes will be made in part in India (which isn't exactly great news for American audiences). That is nonnegotiable, and the Indians have made it clear that they will axe deals if only because insufficient amounts of the aircraft are made in India.
Beyond that, who knows. Everyone, including Russia and the US, wants to replace those +200 MiG-21s in the IAF, but everyone seems put off by India's terms to varying degrees, with the Russians being far and away the most successful to getting that (they've already built almost as many Su-30MKI for India via HAL as there are MiG-21s still in service). Of course the Russians design bureaus have a head start: they were letting Hindustan build MiG aircraft 50 years ago, when America was seriously considering going to war with India Pakistan in the Bay of Bengal, much less selling them planes.
If you look at their military you'll see NATO, Russian, and third-party equipment working side by side. Heh, it is the most Strangereal nation on Earth in that regard. :razz:
On a related note, Brazil has been quietly building themselves up as a third alternative to NATO/Russia. Providing better alternatives to Soviet junk and cheaper alternatives to expensive NATO platforms to the Third World. Hell the most bullshit thing happened to their Main Battle Tank. They had produced a few prototypes and were hoping to sell em to Saudia Arabia to help fund their own military's procurement. With plans to then sell more to the Third World. During the trials (in the late 80's) the Brazilian Osorio went up against the AMX 40, M1 Abrams and the Challenger 1 and beat out all of them. The Saudis were in line to buy them when some back room shenanigans went down and they ended up changing their mind last minute and went with the Abrams instead. This ended up bankrupting the company and the tank never entered service.
It's a tangent, but really only the Indian Air Force. The Indian Army almost exclusively uses one of the three:
1) Soviet equipment (like some of the original T-72 tanks, the BTR series, etc.)
2) Foreign equipment licensed from Soviet equipment (so, Russian BMP-2s, Polish fighting vehicles, Ukrainian armored cars).
3) Indian equipment licensed from the USSR and its Russian successor state (like the thousands of T-72s manufactured in India, or more than a thousand T-90 tanks manufactured in India or imported)
Yes, you will see French jeeps or British motocycles--the Russian Army also buys French motorcycles or other oddities when sanctions aren't in effect (or even if they are, there was a long period where Russia eagerly bought French rangefinders and targeting computers for T-80 and T-90 tanks). We wouldn't call the Russian Army a major purchaser of French equipment, however, and that's applicable here. The Navy is about as uniform: the vast majority of the equipment is manufactured in India with Russian license, and the next biggest group is Russian surplus (like India's nuclear submarines). The lone exception is are a few Israeli patrol boats, four German attack submarines (compared to more than twice that of Russian manufacture), and one American amphibious transport ship that--by literal agreement--is not a warship because it cannot be used in wartime without American permission.
That wasn't always the case--there was a time where the Indian Army used huge amounts of British equipment...except it was World War II-surplus (you know your equipment is old when the T-55 is a modern replacement), and even not rated very favorably next to the armour the British started off with in 1939, much less by 1945. India's first aircraft carrier was Royal Navy surplus too. Really, military aircraft procurement is allows for unprecedented competition for buyers, in no small part because the products are relatively small, so expensive, and obviously very transportable. Meanwhile, woefully outdated British and (to a lesser extent) French junk was around in such quantities some of it survived the Cold War, llike the Vikrant (formerly the HMS Hercules) in 1997, a mostly-floating museum piece next to the already aging Kiev-class that replaced her. Really for any country throwing away an aircraft carrier, even one built in 1943 and increasingly a death trap, is a tough pill to swallow (there's a metaphor about the sun never setting about the British Empire somewhere in here).
Funny enough, if games in Strangereal were focused on, say, tanks or ships (there was PS2-era naval warfare game that was basically a WWII answer to Ace Combat 4), it would actually be "less believable" if that makes any sense (then again, pretty much every Strangereal country uses either something that looks like a mishmash of an M60 and an M1, or a mishmash of a T-80 an a T-90).
I love how they're all, "well yeah, of course we're going to have a tunnel run".
Can you link it?
And the Youtube channel
There is a side LP of AC3... because its a weird game when compared to the others. Likewise, there's also a side LP dedicated to "full murder" Cipher as he depopulates all of Belka with a default F-5 on Ace difficulty.
Yep, it's ISAF. Pixy's "reformation" is fighting for the good guys as a foreign legion soldier in AC:4.
If you mean the PS2 ones, absolutely, yes. Having replayed these recently, I’d say they hold up just fine. Ace Combat 4, 5, and Zero are still masterpieces, looking and playing great.
While I enjoyed the multiplayer, the campaign in Ace Combat 6 on the 360 is marred by some truly awful writing and voice acting. Also, 6 doesn’t take advantage of the Strangereal setting, and the super weapons that go along with it, as well as the others, so maybe give it a miss. I only ever tried the demo of Assault Horizon, up to I-have-no-idea-how-far into the helicopter mission before deleting it with extreme prejudice, so I can’t comment on that one. It makes nice YouTube clips, that much I know!
4-5-0 remains the "golden trilogy" so if want to replay those ones, you're solid. I'm in the same boat with AC6 so I'm just watching Crow's LP.
The classic AC games desperately need a remaster collection.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky