F/A-18 Super Hornet and Su-35S Flanker E

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Figured out how to take sweet screenshots in the editor, I'll just leave this here:

http://i.imgur.com/3WmxbUF.jpg (152 kB)

[Crielaard 434]

Ofcourse there is! You can't fly indefinetly unpowered. The Jdam is a gliding weapon. I believe its maximum range is about 40 nautical miles when its dropped from max height at max speed. F-15's have dropped them from upwards of 50.000 ft at mach 2.5 in the past. That gets you long way.

indeed. So it has no max range.

it all depends on the initial potential and kinetic energy. Plus the method of delivery.

the range even depends on the local wind a lot.

weapons like the sidewinder and maverick have max ranges because the seeker head will only lock at some max distance. And the seeker has a maximum endurance while in flight. The gps battery obiously also has a max endurance but its so long its not even mentioned during training

---------- Post added at 23:05 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ----------

And what about the GBU-12 LGB (GBU-12 Paveway II)?

Paveway II is a multimode bomb using both GPS and Laser guidance. So technically no max range either. And should be within 15 meters accurate without laser guidance. IF the GPS function is used.

the seekerhead should be able to pick up the laser to home specifically on that spot. How far off it will pick it up depends on a lot of factors:

- laserbeam's surface (how well it reflects)

- laser beam intensity (source's power and spot-source range)

- atmospheric conditions (moisture...clouds)

- laser's angle of incidence with the surface.

Etc etc

And obiously the laser should be inside the area where the seeker is looking

Edited June 28, 2014 by 87th_Neptune

[EricJ 724]

Correction, Paveway IV is multimode, not the Paveway II.

[Crielaard 434]

Thnx. But lets make this even better:

the enhaced paveway II is dual mode. Gps/ins+laser

Multi mode bombs, like the paveway IV even have dataling and IR tracking capability.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

indeed. So it has no max range.

it all depends on the initial potential and kinetic energy. Plus the method of delivery.

the range even depends on the local wind a lot.

weapons like the sidewinder and maverick have max ranges because the seeker head will only lock at some max distance. And the seeker has a maximum endurance while in flight. The gps battery obiously also has a max endurance but its so long its not even mentioned during training

Well that's just silly. According to that logic I also don't have a max range, if someone throws me hard enough I'll go all the way to the moon. But trust me unless they decide to strap a Jdam to a ballistic missle its not going much further than 40 nautical miles.

[chortles 263]

I don't suppose there's room for a joke about how the JDAM kit is only going to go as far as the base weapon will? :p

[CyclonicTuna 87]

I don't suppose there's room for a joke about how the JDAM kit is only going to go as far as the base weapon will? :p

I wouldn't actually know about that. I guess that the fins may add a little extra range but its probably not going to be much of a diffrence.

[Crielaard 434]

Well that's just silly. According to that logic I also don't have a max range, if someone throws me hard enough I'll go all the way to the moon. But trust me unless they decide to strap a Jdam to a ballistic missle its not going much further than 40 nautical miles.

based on which altitude and which speed?

is this also based on zero wind? Since when you fly at very high altitudes you have winds called jet streams. They can potentially give you a 100kts extra ground speed, easily increasing the falling distance by miles and miles.

@Chortles

Actually they do have influence on the bomb trajectory. So its no dumb question or anything.

From the cockpit, the pilot has all kinds of options on how the bomb will and should approach the target. Like which impact angle, which azimuth, which speed. Even profiles like corcscrewing from the top can even be selected.

the control system of the bomb 'knows' the aerodynamics of the bomb.

Seen from the side, a bomb is verymuch like a symetric airfoil. Thus zero lift when it has zero angle of attack.

If the angle of attack is increased, lift is increased (and so is drag). Maintaining the optimal speed and optimal angle of attack gives the bomb optimal gliding range.

This will allow the internal computer to 'fly' the bomb to the point where it will start it's attack profile.

I scripted that in my JDAM script as well, to some extend. Its fixed on a 30 degree impact angle, with no limiter to speed and azimuth.

Edited June 28, 2014 by 87th_Neptune

[PVT Watt.J 14]

Let's make this discussion much shorter:

JDAM's have no effective range for its seeker when in Earth atmosphere. It can be 200 miles away and it still knows where it needs to go, it just needs the kinetic energy to get there.'

LGB's, on the other hand, do have a an effective range for their seekers. They can only pick up laser energy from a certain distance and only in direct LOS. If you send a laser-guided weapon from 200 miles away, no amount of Kinetic energy will solve the problem unless you actually put the weapon on course to get close enough to pick up the laser energy.

I think that's the distinction that can be made that perhaps Neptune did not make very clearly.

[Harzach 2507]

based on which altitude and which speed?

Using the upper limits of an F-15's performance envelope, a release from 50,000 feet at M2.5 would put a GBU-24 Paveway III a little over 41 NM downrange. This is assuming a perfect straight-line flight at a 5:1 glide ratio, no wind, and no change in velocity.

[Crielaard 434]

↑ these are solid numbers. Makes more sense.

And thanks shadow :)

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Using the upper limits of an F-15's performance envelope, a release from 50,000 feet at M2.5 would put a GBU-24 Paveway III a little over 41 NM downrange. This is assuming a perfect straight-line flight at a 5:1 glide ratio, no wind, and no change in velocity.

Realisticly though there is an upper limit to the speed and altitude at which the JDAM is certified to be separated from the aircraft safely, without risking damage to the airframe. The certified release conditions would likely be some degree below the aircrafts absolute limits of performance.

For example the highest and fastest certified JDAM release from an F-22 seems to be back in 2006 where one was dropped from 50,000ft and Mach 1.5, reaching a range of 24 miles:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5721/

Since then, Boeing has developed a system called HIFEX that will provide active air flow control around the weapons bay of future aircraft designs that should them to release weapons in excess of Mach 2. So future bombers should be able to drop bombs higher and faster than their current day counterparts.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/active-flow-control-enables-supersonic-weapon-release-219920/

Obviously there are differences in releasing munitions from a weapons bay, to releasing external stores that are already in the airflow (like they would be on an F-15), but they are still subject to safety limitations that arise from how airflow around the aircraft effects the release of a munition.

[Harzach 2507]

Realisticly though...

Clearly the parameters of my example are outrageous, but that was the point. Tuna's 40NM figure was pretty much dead-on as an absolute hypothetical limit of a JDAM's range, with the practical figure being obviously far less.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

based on which altitude and which speed?

is this also based on zero wind? Since when you fly at very high altitudes you have winds called jet streams. They can potentially give you a 100kts extra ground speed, easily increasing the falling distance by miles and miles.

Yeah whatever, you didn't get my point. The JDam has a practical maximum range, end of discussion.

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

Clearly the parameters of my example are outrageous, but that was the point. Tuna's 40NM figure was pretty much dead-on as an absolute hypothetical limit of a JDAM's range, with the practical figure being obviously far less.

Thank you.

[saul 24]

@All - I'm going to kill this bomb discussion now before it gets out of hand (cause that is what it seems like to me). John and I can already say with almost absolute certainty that this topic of "How far bombs and missiles can go and how far are we are going to take them" has been well researched. We have realistic physics (to a point) that allows for bombs to be dropped at just about any speed at any altitude and they will hit their mark (guided or unguided). HOWEVER John and I are limited to the confines of the game itself so we are faced many a time at a crossroads of what is realistic/ authentic and what is practical and doesn't destroy gameplay. Outside of the physics of bomb release John and I are limited to the default Arma targeting system and our VERY experimental version of the GPS/ INS system. We know what the capabilities of JDAMs and LGBs are but there is the argument of what is real and what is practical. We could create a CCRP system synced with the GPS/ INS system where you could drop a JDAM from 20 +/ - km away and hit the target within 3 meters give or take. The problem there in lies a couple of different issues from a modders perspective. First is adding the feature which Arma doesn't really support by default so it could be very script heavy and with an aircraft mod already supporting over hundreds of lines of code this isn't practical (more code means more possible FPS issues). Second, Arma's default targeting system though not pretty and very lac luster essentially acts as a very simplified CCRP system (without all the HUD stuff) so John and I only have to set up the parameters of how far specific types of munitions can be dropped. Third, gameplay is something that is very important to John and myself. We have already created the first true multirole capable aircraft for Arma which can be insanely overpowering. Though it is ultimately the prerogative of the group and mission maker how the aircraft is used, a single F18 can take on multiple aircraft and take out two platoons of armored units in one mission. John and I designed the aircraft to be able to do that job but we also want to give the enemy a fighting chance (and who doesn't like a little pucker factor when they go on a bomb run). This is why we limit the range of JDAMs and LGBs. Now right now JDAM range is shorter than we desire, this is due to the experimental nature of the GPS/INS system. The upcoming update will see the range of JDAMs increased out to 12km (no more so don't ask). I ask that all be patient and no more arguing about "How far bombs and missiles can go and how far are we are going to take them".

That is all ;)

[CyclonicTuna 87]

The upcoming update will see the range of JDAMs increased out to 12km (no more so don't ask).

Well that seems reasonable :). One question though, is that 12 km total travelling distance diagonally (from release of the aircraft to hitting the groundtarget), or 12km horizontally (ground distance).

I understand your dilimma though. I think of it this way. In my opinion, and F-18 or any other strike aircraft for that matter should be able to drop its guided bomb from far enough away that its safe from enemy ground fire and short range heat seeking missles. The problem is that there are only 2 dedicated AA munitions in Arma 3 vanilla that are exactly that, AA fire, and short range heat seekers. So if you were to implement a completely realistic Jdam system, it would infact be overpowered.

So, the way to solve this problem would be to introduce new weapons like bigger rader guided weapons, radar stations and radar guided air to air munitions carried by enemy fighters. Then you are ofcourse faced with the task of, first of all, implementing a radar system that works but that also makes sense and functions similair to real radar. And also introducing all these new weapon systems. Now nobody expects you to do that next to what you're already making. The SU-35 and the F-18.

In other words, if you would want to really improve the air combat in Arma 3, you would need to do a lot more than add a pair of new aircraft. Its a kind of task that really BI itself can only ever accomplish given the amount of work that would be needed to really make it work.

Now I'm glad that you chose to make your aircraft more compatible with Arma 3 vanilla because it means you can focus on the F-18 and SU-35, which has paid off. Those aircraft, to me atleast, are the standard by which all other addons measure themselves.

So anyway, keep that up. And perhaps some BI developer will read this some day ;)

Edited June 29, 2014 by CyclonicTuna

[kremator 1064]

Use a C-RAM to defeat them ? I know it isn't vanilla, but that could be a solution :)

[Hud Dorph 22]

Does anyone else but me have troubles with the su-35 after respawn always face north?

If i place an su-35 in editor and make it respawnable it will upon respawn face north instead

of keeping the orientation it had when i placed it.

This is not the case with the FA18 or any other stuff i might place respawnable.

It happens when placed with mcc-sandbox or zeus and i suspect its something

with the su35 as it only happens with this.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Dorph;2721079']Does anyone else but me have troubles with the su-35 after respawn always face north?

If i place an su-35 in editor and make it respawnable it will upon respawn face north instead

of keeping the orientation it had when i placed it.

This is not the case with the FA18 or any other stuff i might place respawnable.

It happens when placed with mcc-sandbox or zeus and i suspect its something

with the su35 as it only happens with this.

Did you place it by dragging it, or using the azimuth compass?

[Hud Dorph 22]

I placed it either with zeus or mcc-sandbox (so dragging). First i expected it to be a mcc or zeus problem, but its only a prob

when i place the su-35, all other items apear/respawn with the orientation aplied to them.

[saul 24]

Which respawn module are you using? As far as Zeus or MCC- Sandbox compatibility we will have to look into this.

[Hud Dorph 22]

Its with mcc latest mod version.

[Audrey 10]

Please make a two seater version :D

Well, in the 90s there was a twin-seat trainer, but it is another Su-35, not the modern one. And btw, it would be nice to perform Pugachev's Cobra with this. If possible, ofc.

[John Spartan 89]

@BusterBlader - no mate no more two seater's mate. Enough with one F/A-18 F. It's a double work to make aircraft like that. We still need to finish the F version of F/A-18.

@Audrey - that is Su-30MK trainer/CAS version built for indian AF as an export.

@Dorph, we will test the issue with MCC and see what can be done there.

[handicap 19]

Having an issue with players randomly falling out of the F-18's mid-flight. Is this a key bind issue or known at all? I've got guys who will be in straight/level flight who then randomly fall out of the aircraft, using M&KB and Joystick controls. It's next to impossible to replicate completely on our end but it always happens at some point in flight.

Maybe a mod conflict?