Jump to content
SGT Fuller

United States Air Force( 2015)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ex3B said:

The question was where, not when.

I gather it won't be on steam, will it be on Armaholic?

Mediafire? dropbox? I'm just curious


Didn't @SGT Fuller say it's gonna be released on Steam a while back?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/10/2018 at 3:54 AM, PotionSeller said:

I don't know if the Staff want to have the honors, but here is the trailer for the mod! 

 

Thanks for posting it..we were going to but thanks ?

Edited by FallujahMedic -FM-
Video Removed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, pipewr3nch said:


Didn't @SGT Fuller say it's gonna be released on Steam a while back?

But also on Armaholic, right? I just can´t get mods working through SWS, only missions... and I prefer to install them manually (the more mirrors, the merrier ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there! Not sure if this has been addressed yet, but the your F35A is plagued with inaccuracies. I’m not trying to be a jerk because I know you guys worked hard on this and still are, but it’s immersion breaking for me, and, as an F35A Crew Chief, it’s a little painful to see my baby depicted incorrectly...

One of the first things I noticed when I first downloaded and launched the mod and loaded up an F35 was that you have it as 08-0747 from Eglin AFB, tail code EG. Now 0747 is a beautiful jet, and I’m friends with one of her previous DCCs, but she’s not, and never will be a combat jet. The 33rd FW, and by association the 58th FS are part of the AETC, they train pilots and maintainers like myself. Currently the only combat capable F35A wing is the 388th in Hill AFB, tail code HL. We have the 34th FS, the 4th FS, and the 421st FS, as well as the 419th ANG, but they fly and maintain 34th jets.

The next inaccuracy I noticed was that the model and texture was that of a CV, or C model, used by the US Navy and Marine Corps. The wing span is is 8ft longer than the CTOL, or A model, due to the need for extra fuel stores in the wings, and the need for foldable wings. Additionally the IPP exhaust is on the top of the jet, like on CV and STOVL, the B model, jets. On the CTOL model the IPP exhaust is about 1.5 feet aft of the IPP intake door, which itself is aft of the LH Weapons bay by about a foot. On top of the LH intake, where the GAU-22/A should be, there’s nothing, again this would be because she was modeled after a CV, which use a belly mounted pod on station 6 between the Weapons Bays, as opposed to the integrated gun above the LH intake. The arresting gear on the CTOL is much smaller and therefore doesn’t require the huge compartment below the engine like the CV does, making the back end more streamlined.

you left the interior of the cockpit very bare bones and I can respect that, there’s a lot going on inside the cockpit and as far as I’m aware there aren’t many, if any, pictures of it floating around on the internet. There really aren’t any glaring inaccuracies that I can talk about there, it’s just simplified down to what is known about the interior of the cockpit.

There’s a few things missing from the jet, like pitot tubes and flush ports, but those are of little to no consequence. However, I did notice that you managed to cram 4 AIM-120s and a JDAM into the Weapons Bay, which is a feat considering it can only hold 1 AIM-120 with a JDAM in there, 2 without a JDAM. The external pylons attach to those 2 6 sides polygons under each wing for heavier stores, as well as the outer most diamond for AIM-9s and 120s.

In the end, I respect what you guys are doing, and I love that you’re trying to depict the USAF in all our glory! Thank you guys for doing what you do, because I know I lack both the time and skill to make any of these models! Keep up the good work guys!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DBAmn said:

 

 

We appreciate the info and thank you for your service! I have been focused on the other fighters so far, but I do know the F-35 has already undergone a major overhaul since the last release. I'll look into what is still missing and how feasible implementation would be. It's a balancing act of time cost vs reward vs ingame balance, but we're doing our best to make it as realistic as we can within those constraints.

 

@Ex3B It will definitely be on the steam workshop.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DBAmn said:

However, I did notice that you managed to cram 4 AIM-120s and a JDAM into the Weapons Bay, which is a feat considering it can only hold 1 AIM-120 with a JDAM in there, 2 without a JDAM. The external pylons attach to those 2 6 sides polygons under each wing for heavier stores, as well as the outer most diamond for AIM-9s and 120s.

Isn't there a planned upgrade to allow it to hold 6 AMRAAMs, even if at the moment it can only hold 4?

My suggestion would be 4 pylons, 1 of which on each side can only mount an AMRAAM (or some other thin weapons), and the 2nd on each side can mount a large bomb/rack of 8 SDBs/a rack of 2 AMRAAMs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 12:30 AM, Ex3B said:

Isn't there a planned upgrade to allow it to hold 6 AMRAAMs, even if at the moment it can only hold 4?

So I’m not a weapons troop, so my knowledge of future upgrades is mearly speculation based on my limited knowledge of the weapons system, but I could get with a weapons buddy of mine and ask. Hypothetically, however, you could throw a double rack on the main launcher and mount 2 120s on it, and it wouldn’t take up MUCH more space than a GBU-31.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DBAmn said:

So I’m not a weapons troop, so my knowledge of future upgrades is mearly speculation based on my limited knowledge of the weapons system, but I could get with a weapons buddy of mine and ask. Hypothetically, however, you could throw a double rack on the main launcher and mount 2 120s on it, and it wouldn’t take up MUCH more space than a GBU-31.

Well, that's what I've been suggesting for F-35s (currently the only other F-35B that works well is the Aegis mod), to have 4 pylons, and allow one pair of pylons to mount a double rack of AMRAAMs (I use setpylon to accomplish this, but there's only the dual rack for external use, so its not ideal, but it doesn't visibly stick out)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qsEYdvo.png

This is our current carry capacity on the F35A (don’t worry this isn’t classified information). I’ve seen them go up with similar loads, except the internal bays and stations 2 and 10 (the center pylons on each wing) had GBU-12s instead of GBU-31s. The inboard pylons can be mounted with fuel tanks, but I’ve only seen them mounted for TDYs, and they’re more for long distance travel, I’ve never seen the ones that would be mounted in a denied location.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LordDemonWolfe said:

where can I find the mods you listed as necessary for this to work? having trouble finding them...

 

well the current public version of this mod is very broken, however, the only other mod required for this to work is CBA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 5:47 PM, DBAmn said:

This is our current carry capacity on the F35A (don’t worry this isn’t classified information). I’ve seen them go up with similar loads, except the internal bays and stations 2 and 10 (the center pylons on each wing) had GBU-12s instead of GBU-31s. The inboard pylons can be mounted with fuel tanks, but I’ve only seen them mounted for TDYs, and they’re more for long distance travel, I’ve never seen the ones that would be mounted in a denied location.

 

Appreciate it - I found a similar image while working on the pylons/loadouts recently, and also saw a pic of a GBU-12 being loaded into an F-35 internal bay. However I'm not sure I added them to the external stations, so I'll make sure they are.

 

Also, small PSA, we've added a dev-updates channel to our discord. We believe this is a better medium for smaller dev updates and progress pics etc. Major news will still be posted here. You can join the discord here: https://discord.gg/ua9fmYe (also added link to my sig)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 6:52 PM, hcpookie said:

Do you have a reference describing this pylon upgrade I can read about?

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2017/March 2017/March 28 2017/Let’s-Do-More-Shots.aspx

Quote

The F-35 program office is looking at adding capacity for another AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missile in each of the jet’s two weapons bays, increasing internal—and thus stealthy—missile loadout by 50 percent, program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said March 22. Speaking with reporters after his speech at a McAleese/Credit Suisse conference in Washington, D.C., Bogdan said, “There is potential … to add a third missile on each side.” The upgrade would likely be part of the Block IV program of F-35 enhancements

Block IV is waiting for approval:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/02/f-35-upgrade-plan-awaiting-approval-from-top-pentagon-acquisition-exec/

 

Here's a forum thread (not this forum) that went on for 17 pages about it:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=52958&sid=2c5dd9a63bf050eea5a64699e11cc90a&start=240

 

file.php?id=28102&t=1&sid=442bf6cad245c9

 

Last we heard, the increased internal AA loadout was going to be block 4.2-4.4... but that was years ago. Those comments from march 2017 imply it is still on track.

Then there's the B version, its weapon's bay is smaller than the A and C version, and after the weight reduction changes, its ability to carry 6 was in doubt/likely to be delayed. Last I heard, it would still eventually get a 6x AMRAAM/AAM internal loadout too, but at an unspecified date/ block upgrade

 

 

 

On 10/22/2018 at 12:47 AM, DBAmn said:

qsEYdvo.png

This is our current carry capacity on the F35A (don’t worry this isn’t classified information). I’ve seen them go up with similar loads, except the internal bays and stations 2 and 10 (the center pylons on each wing) had GBU-12s instead of GBU-31s. The inboard pylons can be mounted with fuel tanks, but I’ve only seen them mounted for TDYs, and they’re more for long distance travel, I’ve never seen the ones that would be mounted in a denied location.

The internal part is right, beast mode is marketing BS:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17250/lockheed-touts-non-existent-beast-mode-f-35-configuration-with-16-air-to-air-missiles

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think that imposing to users to download from Steam only is not fair. Users shall have the right to choose how they can install or download the mods. It’s my personal opinion. Download a game from Steam is ok for me but a mod... 

Btw good work USAF mod team.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ex3B said:

beast mode is marketing BS

I’ll admit, I’ve never seen 14 120s loaded on the jet, but the claim that the technology doesn’t exist is BS, and even if it was true, that makes the full load out only partial BS, as the column only addressed the air to air load. However, I place my own experience over civilian web columests almost a year ago, and I know, while the literal opposite of stealthy, double rack missile mounts exist and can be mounted on the F35, they’re just ugly as sin and not conducive with the stealth image. That’s why Lockheed is trying to reinvent the wheel, they want it covered in LO and minimizing radar cross section just like the pylons purpose made for it, but make no mistake, they’re fully capable of mounting the same double racks as legacy jets.

Sorry about my little rant, but it’s this kind of misinformation that has been circulating about the 35 since it’s inception. Saying it doesn’t dogfight well, saying it can’t do one thing or another, it may not intentionally be misinformation, but without the full story, attempting to pass it on as truth is misinformation nonetheless. On the note of the dogfight issue in 2015, the F35 was operating under strictly enforced g limits, due to still being in the early testing phase, 3 years down the road the g limits aren’t nearly as strict and its most recent Red Flag appearance in 2017, it scored 20:1 kill ratio, mopping the floor with all other jets present. Additionally Israeli F35s decimated Syrian air defenses in May of this year, and a Marine B model striked Taliban positions in September, a day before we lost the B model in SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I’ve never seen 14 120s loaded on the jet, but the claim that the technology doesn’t exist is BS ... double rack missile mounts exist and can be mounted on the F35 ... they’re fully capable of mounting the same double racks as legacy jets.

Yes, its not completely BS, the capacity is there to mount external stores, and putting multiple missiles on a rack is not exactly some un attainable future tech... but as far as anything is publicly known/what they have otherwise released, there is not hardware+software+certification in place for such a loadout.

Also note that with 4 external pylons for AMRAAMs (2 pylons for sidewinders), 4 internal AMRAAMs, that means 10 need to be mounted externally on 4 pylons. That requires 2 of the pylons to mount 3 if the others mount 2 (or a quad mount and a single mount, quad mounts have been proposed). AFAIK, there are no triple or quadruple racks.

Alternately, if the block IV upgrades go as planned, that beast mode may represent 6 internal AMRAAMS, and 8 external...

It is certainly within the realm of possibility, but the capability does not exist yet. That AA "beast mode" loadout is not a currently available loadout, but its certainly an achievable loadout if there is the will (and the money).

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, raynor_d said:

We have never said it will only be on the steam workshop.

Thanks for your confirmation and for your good work !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×