Development Blog & Reveals

[gliptal 25]

Does the F/A-18 (any variant) support launch from an amphibious assault ship such as the Wasp-class of which USS Khe Sanh was a (fictional) member? If not, then that's a separate, new, "full-size" carrier model that would have to be made to go with the Hornet or Super Hornet...

Nope, the F/A-18 need a carrier catapult to take off, and I'm pretty sure the Wasp class doesn't have one (they used Harriers in ArmA II didn't they? Harriers are VTOLs so that's why they could operate on a Wasp)...

I recall the story about that being that it was (all?) WVR... which, considering the seeming doctrine behind the F-22 (BVR ALL DAY EVERY DAY) doesn't even surprise me.

But in ArmA everything is WVR isn't it? :p

Jokes aside, I also knew the F22 were easily spotted with the EF-2000 optical pod thank to the fact that the Raptor is a very big plane; also they are invisible when in forward or abeam aspects, but the radar signature goes up a ton with certain beam angles...

Still, F22s beaten in manuevarability is something I hadn't expected, I always thought the high AOAs it could reach (for a NATO plane at least) could win most fights easily: seems like the EF-2000s faster turning performance at corner speeds made the day in the end...

If it ever gets finished, maybe.

That's right! :D

We could also have the Alenia C-27J Spartan, The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, or The Lockheed C-5 Galaxy.

Gotta love the C-27J, this cargo plane can make loops, fly inverted, make full 90° turns using only the rudder, land and take off in makeshift landing strips, land at very steep angles and blah de blah de blah... :D

Yay!

Edited August 9, 2013 by Gliptal

[comp_uter15776 1]

@Gliptal,

EF2000s are a highly agile plane and I would not be surprised in the slightest at being able to outmaneuver an F-22.

Oh and the AV-8B is actually V/STOL.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Comp_uter15776

[gliptal 25]

@Gliptical,

EF2000s are a highly agile plane and I would not be surprised in the slightest at being able to outmaneuver an F-22.

Oh and the AV-8B is actually V/STOL.

You're right, sorry, I wasn't sure the S went in there... :D

Yay!

[comp_uter15776 1]

You're right, sorry, I wasn't sure the S went in there... :D

Yay!

Well, I think I was getting a bit pedantic haha, the VTOL craft are a subset of V/STOL but basically whilst the Harrier is VTOL it can also take off from a runway (hence the S bit). Things like helicopters would be pure VTOL.

Semantics eh :p

[chortles 263]

Nope, the F/A-18 need a carrier catapult to take off, and I'm pretty sure the Wasp class doesn't have one (they used Harriers in ArmA II didn't they? Harriers are VTOLs so that's why they could operate on a Wasp)...

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, it was Harriers and F-35Bs specifically in Arma 2; as said, unfortunately for Arma 3 purposes the F/A-18 would necessitate a "full" carrier -- presumably more work that wasn't already in the pipeline -- if you want to "authentically" depict naval air.

As as VTOL vs. V/STOL and STOVL -- my understanding is they can all do VTOL but fuel consumption and weight preclude it whenever even a short runway is available... the interesting (or odd) thing is, we didn't have an actual F-35B vertical takeoff until this past May.

I hear something about Harriers being limited to vertical or rolling vertical landings and being unable to perform conventional landings though??

But in ArmA everything is WVR isn't it? :p

... depends on your definition of WVR. :p

Jokes aside, I also knew the F22 were easily spotted with the EF-2000 optical pod thank to the fact that the Raptor is a very big plane; also they are invisible when in forward or abeam aspects, but the radar signature goes up a ton with certain beam angles...

Still, F22s beaten in manuevarability is something I hadn't expected, I always thought the high AOAs it could reach (for a NATO plane at least) could win most fights easily: seems like the EF-2000s faster turning performance at corner speeds made the day in the end...

I'm not sure if we'll ever find out publicly -- even allowing for classified performance numbers (one interesting quote on the subject: "Additionally, I have been told more times than I can remember that the publicly stated ranges of air to air missiles are almost totally bogus and highly underestimated for operational security reasons") there's still a hilarious amount of seeming misinformation and contradiction-between-writers as to the circumstances of the jets as of the time period during which the exercises took place... and in any case, rather different takes from the pilots' ends as to how the engagements went.

And hell, one interesting take on the subject:

Besides, I am of the opinion that when it comes to the F-22 fighting late model "4.5+" gen aircraft, they SHOULD get shot down. If the F-22 guys are not pushing the envelope, finding out their weaknesses during DACT, then they're not learning.

[celery 8]

Isn't the whole "fifth generation of jet fighters" just marketing bullshit from the makers of the F-22 to make people believe that an overpriced plane that compromises firepower and flight characteristics for slightly less radar visibility is an all-round evolution of the fighter concept?

[comp_uter15776 1]

Isn't the whole "fifth generation of jet fighters" just marketing bullshit from the makers of the F-22 to make people believe that an overpriced plane that compromises firepower and flight characteristics for slightly less radar visibility is an all-round evolution of the fighter concept?

Nope.

[celery 8]

Nope.

I disagree with you.

[comp_uter15776 1]

I disagree with you.

I think you made it fairly obvious by the subtleness of your statement. It's not only used by the US and typically represents modern (i.e. 2010->Present) jet fighters. Whilst 5th gen is somewhat disputed in the realms of exact definition, it is most commonly agreed upon that advanced avionics, stealth, and high performance (i.e. speed/firepower) are crucial deciding factors on which generation such an aircraft is categorized. For example, the F-35 is 5th Generation. The 4th Generation has things like the F-15, Tornado, and Eurofighter Typhoon. You are correct on one point however, and it is that essentially, the F-22 should not be regarded as 5th generation in all honesty. It is outclassed by many of its counterparts which are in 5th Generation and even in certain aspects by 4th Generation aircraft.

Think of it as each generation is newer aircraft... There is evidently a gap between 1st and 5th Gen as 1st is things like the Me 262 (German WW2)...

[Wiki 1558]

Well, all I know is the French Rafale beats the F-22 and the Eurofigther Typhoon, so...

I think it would be a good idea to have it instead of the F-35.

Moreover, if has 2 engines (instead of 1 for the F-35) and it can carry more ammo.

[gliptal 25]

Well, all I know is the French Rafale beats the F-22 and the Eurofigther Typhoon, so...

I think it would be a good idea to have it instead of the F-35.

Moreover, if has 2 engines (instead of 1 for the F-35) and it can carry more ammo.

No, the French Rafale is outclassed by the EF-2000... :p

And the EF-2000 is generally regarded as 4.5 generation fighter, mainly to show it is more advanced than 4th generation but has no real stealth capabilities...

Yay!

[comp_uter15776 1]

Well, all I know is the French Rafale beats the F-22 and the Eurofigther Typhoon, so...

I think it would be a good idea to have it instead of the F-35.

Moreover, if has 2 engines (instead of 1 for the F-35) and it can carry more ammo.

This depends on the scenario, tbh. The F-22 would win in BVR, and the Typhoon has been known to successfully come out on top over the Rafale.

The F-35's high stealth capabilities and its modern avionics mean that it should still retain 5th Gen, although I can't exactly comment as I haven't seen its performance yet as much as I have the rest (F-35's predicted active service at 2016)

EDIT: Ninja'd. Damn, Gliptal!

[f27sharps 1]

Well, all I know is the French Rafale beats the F-22 and the Eurofigther Typhoon, so...

I think it would be a good idea to have it instead of the F-35.

Moreover, if has 2 engines (instead of 1 for the F-35) and it can carry more ammo.

The Rafale developed a unit 75kN thrust in afterburner, the f35 developed 178kn. I think it is not a good idea to attack the F-35 on this point and I do not see the U.S. use Rafales.

http://imageshack.us/a/img27/2393/Rafale-weapon-options.jpg

Ok Rafale can carry more ammo but he doesn't have VTOL capability

[Alo Keen 7]

Although I enjoy your discussion, and find it very interesting and educational, this is not the place for it ;)

[maddogx 13]

Although I enjoy your discussion, and find it very interesting and educational, this is not the place for it ;)

^^ This.

[chortles 263]

Hahaha yeah... not least since the F-22 has never been hinted at in official Arma 3 promotional materials or tucked away in alpha/beta files, nor have the Rafale or Typhoon, unlike the F-35 (whatever variant).

[comp_uter15776 1]

I think the discussion had moved on to the F-35 though (which was meant to be in the game) :L

[Wiki 1558]

The Rafale is above the Typhoon and the F-22

http://www.opex360.com/2013/06/18/un-f-22-raptor-en-mauvaise-posture-face-a-un-rafale/

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20120201trib000681583/l-eurofighter-a-perdu-tous-ses-duels-face-au-rafale-.html

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20121002trib000722459/le-radar-rbe2-l-arme-fatale-du-rafale-a-l-export-.html

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/

Concerning the F-35, even if it has VTOL, if there is engine failure, the pilot has to eject.

With the Rafale (or F-22 or Typhoon), they can still fly with 1 engine failure, as long as the other engine is ok.

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

Moreover, I dunno if the Typhoon and the F-22 and the F-35 can do that, but the Rafale pilot doesn't need to be in the six of an enemy plane: as long as the pilot can see it, the missiles of the Rafale will lock on the other plane (thanks to a new system in the helmet).

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

Last but not least, the Rafale is an omirole plane - means it can be a fighter, interceptor, make air-to-ground missions, carry the nuc weapon and can operate from land AND sea with Rafale Marine.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Wiki
Added a link

[nmdanny 22]

I highly doubt that BIS would develop entirely new planes for a faction if they haven't done by now, future jets will probably be a paid DLC.

An F-35 is more likely to be finished, however if wont be fair to other factions since the F-35 would obliterate the L-159. Still, much better than having only one jet. Perhaps the F-35 could be for OPFOR and BLUFOr, and L-159 for greenfor.

But optimally, BLUFOR should have An F-22, F-35 and maybe a Eurofighter. Greenfor should have an L-159 and and an F-35. OPFOR should have a Sukhoi PAK FA or J-20

Edited August 9, 2013 by NMDANNY

[Wiki 1558]

I think that a major problem in ArmA is vehicles not taken as "stealth".

I mean the Comanche was supposed to be, as is the Ghosthawk or the F-35.

In gameplay, they are as easy to detect as any other vehicle...

[nmdanny 22]

I think that a major problem in ArmA is vehicles not taken as "stealth".

I mean the Comanche was supposed to be, as is the Ghosthawk or the F-35.

In gameplay, they are as easy to detect as any other vehicle...

Yes, if BIS has removed tab locking and adder a radar system that detects enemy units based on their stealthiness and range, it would have been much better

[gliptal 25]

Moreover, I dunno if the Typhoon and the F-22 and the F-35 can do that, but the Rafale pilot doesn't need to be in the six of an enemy plane: as long as the pilot can see it, the missiles of the Rafale will lock on the other plane (thanks to a new system in the helmet).

This can be done by the Typhoon too...

Last but not least, the Rafale is an omirole plane - means it can be a fighter, interceptor, make air-to-ground missions, carry the nuc weapon and can operate from land AND sea with Rafale Marine.

This is also true for the Typhoon (although from Tranche 4 beytond for full mud capabilities), less the carrier operations (there was no need for a carrier version of the Typhoon)...

Whether one is better than the other is debated, but look at sheer numbers: http://ef-typhoon.blogspot.it/2013/03/rafale-vss-typhoon-facts.html

The Typhoon is fully bisonic, it has much higher thrust to weight factors, has a better engine (capable of moving nozzles in the future, a la F-22); moreover, the further canard position of the Typhoon should give higher turn performance at corner speed... Plus the Typhoon will be equipped with an AESA electronical scan radar...

I think the main reason the Rafale is considered superior to the EF-2000 is that the latter is still far from fully developed, both in the flying envelope and in electronics/radar/mission suite...

Yay!

EDIT: Sorry Mods... :(

[Wiki 1558]

I'm sorry to say that, but all the experts agree that the Rafale is above the Typhoon which is more an interceptor than an operationnal multirole jet.

Read the links I posted - and there are many more, you can search on the internet yourself.

I'm not saying that because I like the plane - just because it's true.

[13islucky 10]

Come to think of it the Rafale's increased payload and slower speed might make it more appropriate for Altis. The slower speed makes for a greater chance the sights:). It also happens to be one of the sexiest planes I've ever laid my eyes on.

Anyways...

[purepassion 22]

If you want to discuss and compare airplanes, please do it in already existing other threads such as the wishlist discussion thread. This thread is meant to be used for discussing the development blogs and reveals. Thank you! :)