maybe microsoft might put weapon system modeling in there next version theres a idea to send themshane

Let's not forget the definition of our combined military forces as "Defence" ("Defense", whatever).Military aircraft are armed, yes, but surely the key issue is that they are so designed primarily as a deterrent, and the idea is not to go and shoot people out of the sky or bomb cities for the sake of it. Recent events rather cloud my argument, but I think you get my point.So flying realistic missions in military FS aircraft is perfectly possible. Just think peace, not war.The other important factor about a good military aircraft - particularly a fighter - is that it usually has tremendous performance, of a kind that the commercial world can't afford. So when you're flying one, you're flying a Ferrari not a Chevy. Now that's fun, innit?Mark "Dark Moment" BeaumontP.S. Pedantic old wally, aren't I. And no, I'm not a sweater-wearing, organic-onion-eating, liberal democrat. Well, not all at the same time, anyway. http://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

>Military aircraft are armed, yes, but surely the key issue is>that they are so designed primarily as a deterrent, and the>idea is not to go and shoot people out of the sky or bomb>cities for the sake of it. Recent events rather cloud my>argument, but I think you get my point.>>So flying realistic missions in military FS aircraft is>perfectly possible. Just think peace, not war.>Don't make any mistake about it...warplanes were indeed designed to efficiently and as rapidly as possible shoot airplanes out of the sky and obliterate specific targets on the ground.The politicians tell the military who and what to shoot, and as long as it doesn't violate that macabre set of rules known as the international laws of war, then the mililtary does just that. Nobody bombs things "just for the sake of it" except Osama bin Laden. But when one of the war planners says "this is a valid legal military target, and here are your orders to go destroy it," the guy (or gal) flying that jet wants more than just a scary-looking but ineffective "deterrent" (like a MiG or a Eurofighter) strapped to his butt. He wants a lethal one-pass multiple-kill capability that keeps his little pink bottom within range of the bad guys as little time as possible. In other words, he wants an F/A-22.So in a way I agree...buy a CaptainSim MiG and you can practice looking scary, which seems to be the real military mission for a number of national air forces. But FS9 ain't makin' it if you want to sooth your missile-shootin', PGM-droppin' inner beast. That requires LOMAC. :-)Bob

Thats a question I've had on my mind for a long time as well! I've got nothing against people who fly fighter-jets in MSFS. Like the author of this thread I always wondered what the appeal was because (as stated above) you cant fly missions, use weapons etc.The military planes that are "closest" to MSFS (IMO) are the, trainer, tanker and transport planes.However it is interesting to see the reply where someone mentioned using an F-16 in MSFS as a sort of hi-speed touring car to check out the scenery! Thats a cool idea hee hee.As for the missions?...I think I shall leave that to Falcon 4 :)

For me there are a number of reasons.One that really comes to mind is recreating historical flight plans using the right aircraft under meteorological conditions similar to those in the official after action reports.A good example are the routes flown by the 316th TCG during operations HUSKY I and NEPTUNE BIGOT. The former carried the 505th PCT from Kairouan Tunisia to Sicily and the latter carried the same unit from Cottesmore England to St Mere Eglise in Normandy.HUSKY I as flown using vectors, time calculations and dead recconing with 30 knot westerly winds. NEPTUNE BIGOT was flown using navigational waypoints (which I created using a scenery editor). Upon landfall the skytrain was enveloped in dense clouds which in turn severly reduced visibility) The experience coupled with weather rather nicely illustrated the value of navaids. I also came to apreciate two things, why so many aircraft, some of which wound up on the east coast of sicily, missed the mark in finding the drop zones and how low visibilty can affect formation flying.There are other benefits. Others have reported on flyng the Hump in FS and there is also the ever population carrier operations crowd.Remember its about flying! one might as easily ask "Why fly a 737 or 172 in FS?"Sam

Well sadly most money is spent on developing weapons of mass destruction so military aircraft are really pushing the development. Take the Spitfire and the Meridian for example. The Spitfire is easily twice as powerful. Not to say it handles quite a lot better.So it

Mmmmmm.... onions. Good stuff.

For those of us that like the larger aircraft and wanted to fly a military transport (as opposed to a fighter), where are the AF bases that support missions such as SAC (may have a different acronym and/or name these days). I recall Offert(sp?) AFB in NE and Travis AFB in CA, but not sure if they are still active and I'm sure there are a lot more than just thsoe two. And I'm sure there are many internationally too.Thanks, Bruce.

Because I enjoy flying a fast jet, or a big transport, or a fast helecopter, etc. But I'd rather not shoot something. That is just mindless entertainment that I choose to live without. Just because it is a military plane doesn't mean the only way to get enjoyment is to use it to kill. Besides, whats NOT fun about flying all around the world but in these half-done military games you see generic scenery and airports not half as good as fs9.1

>Because I enjoy flying a fast jet, or a big transport, or a>fast helecopter, etc. But I'd rather not shoot something. That>is just mindless entertainment that I choose to live without.>Just because it is a military plane doesn't mean the only way>to get enjoyment is to use it to kill. Besides, whats NOT fun>about flying all around the world but in these half-done>military games you see generic scenery and airports not half>as good as fs9.1Well LOMAC you see scenery and airports much better than FS 2004 ;). Also especially ww 2 sims and earlier it

LOMAC may look beautiful, but it gets killed in a dogfight with FS9:realistic trafficrealistic airports all around the globemore choices of AircraftAnd yes dog fighting takes skill, I never said it didn't. I stated I choose not to kill anything or get enjoyment out of killing, whether in a game or in real life. It's a mental thing

>LOMAC may look beautiful, but it gets killed in a dogfight>with FS9:>>realistic traffic>realistic airports all around the globe>more choices of Aircraft>>>And yes dog fighting takes skill, I never said it didn't. I>stated I choose not to kill anything or get enjoyment out of>killing, whether in a game or in real life. It's a mental>thingYeah but you don