F-35 status (in BMS) request
-
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.
-
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…
I never stated in my post that the 120 C-7 or D has a range of 100nm. And technology has improved with time. So, who is to say if the D has a 100mn range or not. As for the C-7, since BMS operates on the original Falcon engine, I am aware of the limitations for such things as pulse for the slammer. Since we all agree that the latest slammers will not be modeled, then keep the rest of the sim to the 80’s and 90’. That way, Su-35 and other advanced jets in the advanced Korean theatre should be removed. In fact, the whole idea of advanced jets in any theatre (unless modeled) should be removed. Fair is fair.
-
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.
That is not true. F-16, F-18 and F-15’s use the C-7 with better performance than the C-5. It is not exclusive to the F-22 with respect to performance. The F-22 may have better performance than the 4th gen fighters, but a lot of that comes down to capabilities for the jet and the launch parameters.The C-7 was specifically designed for the F-22 (now F-35) but its use is not strictly for that specific jet. Since the 120C-5 was applied into (2001 to 2004), it should be noted that most 4th gen jets did not receive them until 2004 or later. The C-7 became operational around 2009 (or later). The D is now operational with over 2,000 produced and quietly integrated with many Airforce and Navy Squadrons currently. The Meteor is an astounding weapon. RamJet technology has truly come of age. But water under the bridge for BMS.
-
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.
Then why is Canada buying them for their hornets?
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/canada-aim-120d-advanced-medium-range-air-air-missiles-amraam
-
Why to buy old missiles? BTW C-5 is even not produced anymore…I think.
-
Then why is Canada buying them for their hornets?
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/canada-aim-120d-advanced-medium-range-air-air-missiles-amraam
Because Meteor so far has not been integrated on any F-18. In Europe only Spain has in NATO (besides FIN and SUI which are not NATO members). Meteor is available for Gripen C/D with latest software upgrades and will be available on EF first. (The leased HUN Gripens could use them if we bougth Meteor.) CAN will buy old RAAF juts as an interim solution, they have much different priorites than integrating a new AAM on a figthers which has no long time future…
-
This post is deleted! -
Yes you can. It looks a little odd in the pit, but it works. Radar performance is 90% DB, it’s just a matter of knowing which fields to change. What you cannot do, is engage multiple threats simultaneously like most 5th Gen + AESA allow you to do.
Pls. show me how you can do it…
I’m very curious because except some modeling values for player controlled airplanes almost everyting is handled by the code. You cannot change any sweep parameters and modes of the radar and you cannot do sim. AG-AA mode which are capable to do ESA type radars.
-
This post is deleted! -
You CAN change sweep rate, just like you can change the beam width, and vertical scan limits, and range, and ECM resistance, notch effectiveness, and look down penalty. No, you cannot do simultaneous AA/AG, but not all aircraft which have ESA implement that feature, so it’s not a matter of modeling the radar, it’s implementation specific. Just because it doesn’t reflect in the azimuth indicator on the FCR, does not mean it didn’t work. Watch the FCR, every track gets refreshed every frame, regardless of where the beam indicator is pointing. It works.
These are for non human controlled jets. If you fly with any aircraft the sweep rate is exe coded…
BTW fast sweep rate is not equal with totally free beam forming and deflection in azimuth and elevation. If you set almost 0 time it would mean over modeling…
All other parameters are non used of does not have anything with ESA…
Have you ever try to MOD at least F4…? As I can judge you do not have a clue about the DB + exe… -
This post is deleted! -
Who’s talking about things they don’t understand now…
Sweep rate should never be anywhere close to 0, because it’s RADIANS/SECOND not SECONDS/SWEEP. Furthermore, the goal is to simulate behavior, not emulate function. You don’t need to beam form and calculate deflection to get the same EFFECT as an AESA radar. And the last time I checked, AESA is more jam resistant, and has better low altitude and low speed tracking than the old mech radars. All of which can be adjusted.
All those parameters don’t impact human aircraft? I’ll bet you a 2 year hiatus from the forums if you change the beam width you’ll see it reflected in the pit. I’ll bet you a 10 year hiatus from the forums if you lower the jam penalty you’ll see exactly where aircraft are even when they turn on the jammers–from the pit as a human player. I have mapped, tested, and confirmed the function of almost every field in every file of the database. If you have a better idea of how it’s structured than I do at this point, I’ll just go ahead and delete my account.Show me in video pls…
-
This post is deleted! -
Not at home, you’ll have to do your own leg work. Unless someone else following the debate wants to put it to a quick test.
Hm…. What you posted seems to me is just value of RCDs in DB. As I have said you can set what you want but it does not have any effect on human controlled jet…