F-35 status (in BMS) request
-
Ok, 3rd party addons, like theatre addons, JanHass addons, ect., are well received here. A 3rd party (BMS APPROVED) team can do a lot of work without cluttering up the teams time…
If a nice guy is working under specs and produce something considered as “BMS approved” , he would certainly be invited to be fully part of the BMS team. So … it won’t be a 3rd party group.
The additions of current 5th gen fighter would be a fantastic addition to BMS,
BMS is not made for 5th gen fighters.
… The engine of F4.0 was created in '90s considering that era …
Perfectly explained.
-
Hi,
On this topic, F-35, J-20, J-31, Su-57 will come sooner or later (maybe later than sooner).
We already put Rafale on stock DB, which was already a big deal, because she uses logics which are unknown to F-16.
On another hand, there is still many 2nd and 3rd generation aircrafts to make.
I think, patience is needed here to get what you wish to.
Regards,
Radium
-
The engine of F4.0 was created in '90s considering that era…
Perfectly explained.
That carries zero weight in this conversation!!!
Falcon, being original 4.0, BMS, FreeFalcon, Open Falcon, SuperPak, RP series……any of them, can go where it wants. You could code BMS with 6th Gen fighters if you wanted to, it’s just code!!!
Would it be correct, of course not, but if you really wanted, you could turn Falcon code into Star Wars!!!
C9
-
@Cloud:
That carries zero weight in this conversation!!!
Falcon, being original 4.0, BMS, FreeFalcon, Open Falcon, SuperPak, RP series……any of them, can go where it wants. You could code BMS with 6th Gen fighters if you wanted to, it’s just code!!!
Would it be correct, of course not, but if you really wanted, you could turn Falcon code into Star Wars!!!
C9
Yes it is just code, everything is possible. But here we are talking about the near future (three four years). So before considering AESA radar and advanced ECCM means … etc … one must have more correct “classic” radar and better ECM.
-
Yes it is just code, everything is possible. But here we are talking about the near future (three four years). So before considering AESA radar and advanced ECCM means … etc … one must have more correct “classic” radar and better ECM.
Agreed, I was just saying my friend!!
C9
-
Funny, but not what I said.
Ok, 3rd party addons, like theatre addons, JanHass addons, ect., are well received here. A 3rd party (BMS APPROVED) team can do a lot of work without cluttering up the teams time. Work like modeling and cockpit addons are already out there. So, no worries about that. However, you do have people editing the dat files so they can out turn you or there weapons have super long ranges. Those are cheats. Nothing more. They cheat themselves actually. If they can’t fly the way everyone else does, they are a cheat for changing BMS unit they can beat anyone.
Avioncs is strongly based on code therefore you cannot do anything to model F-35’s sensors. Even just modeling IRST on Su-27S or MiG-29 9.12/13 is not possible AFAIK…
-
Well, if you look at some of the BMS numbers, for the AMRRAM for example, those numbers are for older slammers. The C-7 has much better range and it’s WEZ is also greater. I think that BMS models the C-5. The B is about right from what I have seen, but even the C-5 should have a few more miles added. Just my opinion. It just goes to show that this sim is not (nor ever will be) 100% accurate. There will always be the “best gestamation”. But for some of those theatres, yeah, they need to look at more realistic numbers. That’s if they even care.
And what is your source on this? Do you have eng. envelope diagram? AFAIK C-5 and C-7 have the same engine and their airframe are the same. Only a differenct autpilot and leading could provide small difference execpt if you optimizat for F-22 a totally different program to get similar profile to AIM-54 with extreme high alt gliding. For 4th gen fighters because of the flight performance this is not possible.
-
Yes it is just code, everything is possible. But here we are talking about the near future (three four years). So before considering AESA radar and advanced ECCM means … etc … one must have more correct “classic” radar and better ECM.
Amen.
For the rest of comments.
I never liked the way too optimistic comments. 20 years happened since F4.0 release and 15 (!) since SP3/SP4. Avionincs modeling is still strongly based on this era. (Biggger problem to me that modeling values either.) Consdiering this I have no idea why so many people pursuit the 5th and 4++ gen fighters. They simply cannot be modeled and even a very narrowly modeled F-22 (only FPM and stalth without ESA radar and LPI) can provide such advantage that you can hammer into to ground everying with it. What would be the point of putting F-35 when - let’s just assume - you can model all of its capability…? It would be similar to “pay to win”…
Considering only the fun factor of air combat '70s and '80s are better because missiles are (or shoudl not be…) holy weapons. (I think here about sensor modeling values.)
On my priority list are more far important thing. To me general upgrades wihch have stong impact on the whole tactical environment are more important.
- ASM and ARMs should be targetted for some systems. This change would lead to a totally different environment where Tor and S-300, S-300V and Buk-M1/M2 can defend themselves against ARMs and finally naval combat will be on the table.
- Sim. engagement capability of SAMs, may eyes on you Patriot and S-300 and ships. (Modeling S-300V is very hard because of its structure the CW + Grill Pan combo.)
- Somehow get rid of radar slot of battalion because it means a very painful restriction in many ways.
etc. I could say more if I wanted to. These are much more important because it would have effect many stuff and not only a single and way too OP airplane…
-
Well, if you look at some of the BMS numbers, for the AMRRAM for example, those numbers are for older slammers. The C-7 has much better range and it’s WEZ is also greater. I think that BMS models the C-5. The B is about right from what I have seen, but even the C-5 should have a few more miles added. Just my opinion. It just goes to show that this sim is not (nor ever will be) 100% accurate. There will always be the “best gestamation”. But for some of those theatres, yeah, they need to look at more realistic numbers. That’s if they even care.
Have you ever considered some potential/possible other internal limitations/constrains? … Many ppl seems too often think it is just a matter of figures in a database …
Why do you think we can’t have SA-20 with much more 50Nm range? …One more discussion for nothing.
Cheers. Will enjoy a sunny day today.
-
Have you ever considered some potential/possible other internal limitations/constrains? … Many ppl seems too often think it is just a matter of figures in a database …
Why do you think we can’t have SA-20 with much more 50Nm range? …One more discussion for nothing.
Cheers. Will enjoy a sunny day today.
What are the biggest limitations for the engine?
-
Why do you think we can’t have SA-20 with much more 50Nm range?
Bubble issue of course.
That can be fixed!! But not without a lot of code rework!
C9
-
For gods sake no one knows enough about the F35 to make a good simulator of it!
-
Have you ever considered some potential/possible other internal limitations/constrains? … Many ppl seems too often think it is just a matter of figures in a database …
Why do you think we can’t have SA-20 with much more 50Nm range? …One more discussion for nothing.
Cheers. Will enjoy a sunny day today.
Sticking to '80s also would fix this issue because eraly S-300PT/PS/PMU had only 75 km eng. range because of the limitation of the radar (and RCG for PT) as well as for MIM-104 (68 km and only M3.0 brunout speed). S-300V also had only 75 km range. Only later variant (VM2/3/4) and from PMU1 was the eng. range above 150 km.
-
And what is your source on this? Do you have eng. envelope diagram? AFAIK C-5 and C-7 have the same engine and their airframe are the same. Only a differenct autpilot and leading could provide small difference execpt if you optimizat for F-22 a totally different program to get similar profile to AIM-54 with extreme high alt gliding. For 4th gen fighters because of the flight performance this is not possible.
Ha,
Can’t get info on slammers unless you have some affiliation with Raytheon. That being said, the “known” performance information does place the C-7 at greater range than the C-5. I will just say that it is a much more efficient with it’s use in regards to it’s engine The tactical advantage of the C-7 lies in it’s ability to defeat countermesures and increase the WEZ. Now, the D slammer has taken this to a much greater extent. Over the C-7, the D variant can exceed the range further through high arc trajectories. It’s onboard avionics are far more advanced than the C-7. Just saying here. This basic information is out there. Air to air missile advancements have been huge in the last 10 years. Remember, your jet is a weapons platform. The weapons we have now do most of the work.Which gets me to the point of modeling advanced weapon systems. Your right Molni, if we create weapons that take out jets over 100 miles away, the “fun” factor and the strategy for the sim would be lost. But that is what IRL flying a fighter jet is all about. The US does not want a fair fight. It simply dominates the sky. So, what I have said about the difference between the C-5 and the C-7 is quite valid. They are constant progressions towards air superiority weapons. But Russia, and China to a great extent, have countered this with there own advanced weapons that can reach greater ranges and are less likely to be defeated by countermessures. So, the stakes will always rise. Maintaining the sim to an 80’s or 90’ level of attrition makes for a “fun” simulation. But since we have “Advanced Korea” campaigns within BMS, then those advanced weapons systems (which would most certainly be employed) should be there.
-
What are the biggest limitations for the engine?
From what I have gathered over the years, the engine works in the sphere of bubbles. Going outside the bubble (max draw ranges) creates all kinds of issues. Like Moli said, the engine was built/completed in 1998.
-
For gods sake no one knows enough about the F35 to make a good simulator of it!
You could build a very real working (within BMS) F-22 or F-35. In other words, a jet that looks and flys like the F-22 or F-35. NOW, would it operate (FM/FLCS, weapons, avionics) as the real jet? Absolutely not. You might (maybe) get close (maybe 70%, MAYBE) of the FM base. To me, that would be reasonable, considering there will never be a 100% accurate model of anything (even far less for a 5th gen fighter). As for the weapons, best guestimation. Maybe around 60% realistic (MAYBE). Now, for the avionics: Molni has stated that the avionics code of Falcon has serious limitations. The F-35, for example, would have to work with the F-16 avionics code in order for the representation of how the avionics behave within the current code.
So, TONS of code work to do. Can it be done? Yes, but expect 3 to 4 Falcon years……(unless the team gets some full time hard coders……then maybe 3 to 4 weeks… -
I’m with Molni for the 120 C-7/D. No point in BMS.
For an F-22, that can shoot at M1.5 and 50 000 ft, yes, I could see why the C-5 is limited by other things than kinematics. So a C-7/D with GPS and better controls law and batteries would make sense in those launch conditions.
For an F-16/ F-18, aerodynamics still are the main factor. And since exterior shape is identical and the booster either identical or marginally improved, so not a huge deal. There is only so much you can do with a traditional solid-fuel booster, that is why europeans are going statoreactor on the meteor and russians experimented with it as well.
-
Ha,
Can’t get info on slammers unless you have some affiliation with Raytheon. That being said, the “known” performance information does place the C-7 at greater range than the C-5. I will just say that it is a much more efficient with it’s use in regards to it’s engine The tactical advantage of the C-7 lies in it’s ability to defeat countermesures and increase the WEZ. Now, the D slammer has taken this to a much greater extent. Over the C-7, the D variant can exceed the range further through high arc trajectories. It’s onboard avionics are far more advanced than the C-7. Just saying here. This basic information is out there. Air to air missile advancements have been huge in the last 10 years. Remember, your jet is a weapons platform. The weapons we have now do most of the work.Which gets me to the point of modeling advanced weapon systems. Your right Molni, if we create weapons that take out jets over 100 miles away, the “fun” factor and the strategy for the sim would be lost. But that is what IRL flying a fighter jet is all about. The US does not want a fair fight. It simply dominates the sky. So, what I have said about the difference between the C-5 and the C-7 is quite valid. They are constant progressions towards air superiority weapons. But Russia, and China to a great extent, have countered this with there own advanced weapons that can reach greater ranges and are less likely to be defeated by countermessures. So, the stakes will always rise. Maintaining the sim to an 80’s or 90’ level of attrition makes for a “fun” simulation. But since we have “Advanced Korea” campaigns within BMS, then those advanced weapons systems (which would most certainly be employed) should be there.
You should not believe such statements that any version of AIM-120 has 100 nm launch range only by trajectory optimization. Maybe against a M2.0-3.0 speed target at 12 alt km but against a subsonic fighter even at 10 km alt it is kinematically impossible. I have dobuts even about the lenght of power supply for this performance…
-
You could build a very real working (within BMS) F-22 or F-35. In other words, a jet that looks and flys like the F-22 or F-35. NOW, would it operate (FM/FLCS, weapons, avionics) as the real jet? Absolutely not. You might (maybe) get close (maybe 70%, MAYBE) of the FM base. To me, that would be reasonable, considering there will never be a 100% accurate model of anything (even far less for a 5th gen fighter). As for the weapons, best guestimation. Maybe around 60% realistic (MAYBE). Now, for the avionics: Molni has stated that the avionics code of Falcon has serious limitations. The F-35, for example, would have to work with the F-16 avionics code in order for the representation of how the avionics behave within the current code.
So, TONS of code work to do. Can it be done? Yes, but expect 3 to 4 Falcon years……(unless the team gets some full time hard coders……then maybe 3 to 4 weeks…The basics RCS direction modeling is very, very far from what steath jets have…
You do cannot model ESA type radar…Only this two features makes very impotent comparing to RL the F-22 not mentioning different data link capability which is outclasses the stone age old Link 16.
-
I’m with Molni for the 120 C-7/D. No point in BMS.
For an F-22, that can shoot at M1.5 and 50 000 ft, yes, I could see why the C-5 is limited by other things than kinematics. So a C-7/D with GPS and better controls law and batteries would make sense in those launch conditions.
For an F-16/ F-18, aerodynamics still are the main factor. And since exterior shape is identical and the booster either identical or marginally improved, so not a huge deal. There is only so much you can do with a traditional solid-fuel booster, that is why europeans are going statoreactor on the meteor and russians experimented with it as well.
Exactly. The much higher range for new AIM-120 concers strictly on F-22. Meteor is a big leap forward in kinematics if it has similar sensor to AMRAAM almost the only thing where Europe has the lead comparing to US in fighters.