F-35/x-35

[usmcrp 0]

Hello all,

I am working on a new Stealth Fighter Jet (F-35) that the Department of Navy (includes Marines Corps) is having built.

Lockheed Martin expects to build 3,000 JSFs, including:

1,763 "F-35A" CTOL variants for the USAF, replacing F-16s and A-10s.

609 "F-35B" STOVL variants for the USMC, replacing F/A-18C/Ds and AV-8B Harriers.

480 "F-35C" CV variants for the US Navy, replacing F/A-18C/D Hornets.

* The F-35 has two weapons bays, each of which can accommodate a single "Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)" GPS-guided bomb and an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM). The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs. The F-35A and F-35C variants have bulged weapons bays to accommodate the larger munitions. The two bays have two doors each, with the AMRAAM fitted on a launch rail on the inner door.

This Jet kicks ass on the the F-22!

It will have all the goodies IE; counter meassures, IR jam, MFD switch map to radar.

vertical take off and landings. and some kick ass weapons

Semper Fi all you DevilDogs!

some rough shots

http://ofp.info/cgi-bin....t=13680

[Crowley 0]

Lookin' good. I look forward to that tentative May beta.

[jens198 0]

Yep, looks cool! Anyone remember this JSF flightsimulator a few years ago?

Jens

[havocsquad 0]

Actually, the it's the F/A-22 and no the F/A-35 JSF does not beat the F/A-22 in combat capability.

Here is why the F/A-22 is better than the F/A-35 in combat capability.

The F/A-22 has a much lower stealth RCS than the F/A-35.

The F/A-22 can carry more payload weight and has more internal bay room than the F/A-35.

The F/A-22 will contain the latest in super computing technology with the most advanced situational awareness hardware and software to date.

It has two VERY powerful Pratt&Whitney Thrust vectoring engines specifically designed for the F/A-22 and these engines spawned the technology for making the F/A-35's engine design.  That allows the F/A-22 to achieve Supercruise capability, going faster than Mach 1 without using afterburner.

Despite strong debate against phasing out the F-117A by the USAF, I believe if the F/A-22 is fitted with internel laser designator, it could easily replace the role of the F-117A Nighthawk, since it's aging low observable design is now becomming obsolete with today's tactics for searching for and attacking stealth aircraft.

The F-22 is built on a "True Stealth" design, similiar to the way the B-2A Spirit was made.

The F/A-35 will truely be a great addition to the US, UK, and a few other NATO countries.   However, the F/A-22 is still reign as king of the skies and will remain so for at least 12 to 15 years minimum.

Both aircraft are a great milestone in aviation history and both get my vote of approval for their quality, stealth design, combat capability, range, and versatility.

Bravo to both and hope to see them in action soon in some Red Flag excercises.   (It's gonna be a bad day for the aggressor squadrons when the Raptor comes to play)  

[usmcrp 0]

I have read your replay, my only question is; if the F22 is so much better then the F35 then why is the Air Force replacing then with the F35?

True Stealth does that mean there is a false stealth?

Just a question.

[Crowley 0]

They're replacing some of the F/A-22 requirement with F-35s because the F/A-22 is expensive as hell.

[havocsquad 0]

Not very much JSF's will be subsituted for the F/A-22, the F/A-35 does not even close have the max range, effective combat speed, nor the higher stealth capabilities the F/A-22 has.

True, the F/A-35's will take up the slack for most of the typical flight ops for precision strike and low priority MIGCAP duties.

However, in potential flashpoints in Korea and the invasion threat of Taiwan will prove the F/A-22's purpose and proved its money's worth in those areas.  These countries will think twice about a preemptive strike without undisputed provocation from South Korea or Taiwan.

On the general stealth aircraft effectiveness issue:

Land based Air defenses from the OPFOR side have definately improved to it's capabilities of detecting, tracking, and attacking stealth aircraft.  However, like everything stationary it is highly vulnerable to Cruise missile strikes and Anti-Radiation missiles.

After the most threating high powered SAM sites like SA-10's and SA-11's get hit first, Air defense coordination becomes very  difficult to maintain and the swarm of EW sites and other systems searching for the enemy aircraft become much more ineffective.

The military that is more mobile is better equipped to handle a much more larger scope of threats than a military that must rely mainly on enormous bunkers, pillboxes, and fortified Air defense sites.   The first Gulf War proved that logic and crushed Iraqi air defense sites, communication, logistics, and quickly anniliated the Iraqi war machine into nothingness.

[havocsquad 0]

Hey usmcrp, could you post a image link of screenshot(s) of your addon's current progress. This would definitely help me direct people asking questions about if there is a F/A-35 being developed now.

Since www.ofp.info redid their forums, that forum topic link doesn't work anymore.

If you need any help or tips about how to deal with the STOVL functions or implimentation, ask the Falklands War Mod for some help. I'm sure they would be very willing to provide plenty of help whenever they can on helping finish your addon.

Keep me informed.

Later,

Havoc.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Actually, the it's the F/A-22 and no the F/A-35 JSF does not beat the F/A-22 in combat capability.

Thats a broad statement and depends on your perspective and the environment the Aircraft are being used in.

Its a classic example of the "right tool for the job".

Quote[/b] ]Here is why the F/A-22 is better than the F/A-35 in combat capability.

The F/A-22 has a much lower stealth RCS than the F/A-35.

Sorry that’s wrong - The F35 is nearly 40% physically smaller - its also almost 75% Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) and composites.  Whereas the F22 is still mostly aluminium Lithium covered in RAM. This means the F-35 would have a smaller probable RCS - just how much smaller is still in debate.

While both have very small RCS the design and the laws of physics mean that the smaller Stealth aircraft will always win.  Remember the F-35 is a design inspired by the F-22.  The entire F-35 concept is based on learning from the huge number of mistake made in the F22 design and development mistakes - that’s proven by the development budget the F-22 has vs. that of the F-35.  

Quote[/b] ]

The F/A-22 can carry more payload weight and has more internal bay room than the F/A-35.

This is true but that’s not surprising for an aircraft that’s nearly twice the size and 2.4 times the mass.

Quote[/b] ]The F/A-22 will contain the latest in super computing technology with the most advanced situational awareness hardware and software to date.

Yeah and look at the cost!  So far the avionics have proven to be the biggest hurdle slowing and even stopping development and deployment. The F-35 will also have the latest integrated cockpit systems.  Unlike the F22 it will support 75-85% of the airborne munitions in NATO  (exception being French stuff I believe) together with the latest JTIDS and JSTARS suites, something the F22 prototype aircraft have yet to get working.  While the first avionics test bed F35 was working after 2 days of trials.

Quote[/b] ]It has two VERY powerful Pratt&Whitney Thrust vectoring engines specifically designed for the F/A-22 and these engines spawned the technology for making the F/A-35's engine design.  That allows the F/A-22 to achieve Supercruise capability, going faster than Mach 1 without using afterburner.

Yup and look at the fuel requirements 7400lbs of internal fuel = increase in airframe size and mass.  But since it was designed as a Strategic fighter that’s to be expected - it was designed for deep penetration from extreme ranges.  The F/Attack-22 was a reaction to the change in the way wars were being fought and the requirements being changed by the USAF about 1/3 of the way into the project - exactly the same as the reasons for the development of the F-15E who’s primary role is strategic attack.

Quote[/b] ]Despite strong debate against phasing out the F-117A by the USAF, I believe if the F/A-22 is fitted with internel laser designator, it could easily replace the role of the F-117A Nighthawk, since it's aging low observable design is now becomming obsolete with today's tactics for searching for and attacking stealth aircraft.

The F-22 is built on a "True Stealth" design, similar to the way the B-2A Spirit was made.

Ok now I'll cover the 2nd point first and go back to the 1st later.  This statement about F/A-22 stealth is another one of the popular myths - the F/A-22 is not a "True Stealth" design - its a compromise plain and simple.

If you want true Stealth look at the F-117 or the B-2 - their design is biased toward providing the lowest RCS and observability by compromising on other aspects, either performance and/or capability.

The F-117 is the high end of the stealth scale (bear in mind it was initially designed nearly 30years ago now) It focuses on Stealth above all else. It has poor performance and range - its not aerodynamically stable enough to be used as anything but a strike platform - The "Nighthawk" was designed as a "first day of war" weapon. Fly in without detection and destroy the radar/SAM and CnC facilities and get out.  It clears the path for less stealthy aircraft to operate.

The B-2 - possible best example of the Stealth Ideal - tiny RCS, good thermal dissipation etc and a good payload.  Does everything it was designed to be.  its subsonic, stable and has a huge range.  But it costs a small fortune for a single aircraft due to the materials and technology it uses.

The F/A-22 is a compromise between the requirements of a Strategic Strike aircraft and the need for Stealth capability.

If it were a "true stealth" aircraft it would not have:

1 - Radar

2 - Afterburners

3 - External payload capability

4 - Aluminium Lithium Wingboxes/Airframe (This is the main spars that all the wing surfaces and equipment are mounted on.

5 - Open Intakes

Why no Radar? - well if you use it people can see you - even the LPI (low probability Intercept) stuff is now detectable if you have the right kit - and due to the reducing cost of computing power its getting easier to buy.

Why no After burner? - Stealth isn’t just about radar.  Its about concealing your presence and location form anything that could detect you.  This means, radar, heat (IR), sound and visibility.  After burners show up on IR tracking systems very easily - not to mention the noise or the exhaust trails.

Why no External payload capability? - Radar Stealth is about reducing or deflecting the radar waves - if you imagine an aircraft covered in a mirrored finish and shine a light at it light reflect in all directions - Now if you hang more weapons, tanks etc on the aircraft you increase the number of surfaces that reflect the light/radar - this means its a lot more visible to your naked eye or the RADAR that’s looking for it.

Aluminium Lithium Wingboxes/Airframe  Aluminium Lithium alloys are the most used material in any aircraft’s structural components.  Gram for gram it’s stronger than steel is treated and handled properly.  Its cheaper than Titanium or composite materials and a lot easier to machine in large quantities. These properites mean nearly all the main structural components in modern aircraft are made from it.  Both the F22 and the F35 use a huge amount of it in their airframes.  

Its also a huge radar reflector which means you have to coat it in thick layers of Radar absorbent material to make it stealthy.  Which adds cost and weight which means smaller payloads can only be carried.

Open Intakes? - The largets radar reflector on any aircraft (besides the pilot) are the compressor fans of the engines. Most modern designs bury the engines in the fuselage and "bend" the intake duct to ensure that any radar reflection is reduced. Most stealth aircraft will have the intakes on the upper surface of the fuselage to shield them from gournd based radar and wil be protected by lattices/mesh to provide a filter for the radar energy.

Having large low slung intakes provides an ideal radar channel/guide...which isnt stealthy - however for a agile supersonic aircraft its essentially to ensure the airflow to the engines when maneovering.

The F-22 is a compromise as i said before.  Its a design that takes the requirements for a Strategic Aircraft and applies as much 'Stealth' to it as the capability and budget will allow.

Its the same for the JSF - both design have integrated stealth capabilities into the design but neither are "True Stealth" aircraft.

Going back to the point about phasing out the F-117 and fitting the F-22 with Laser Designators...

The argument swings around capability.  At the moment the F-117 is the most capable First Strike/Air Defence Suppression (SEAD) platform in the world.  As I said above its designed for almost total stealth.  The argument for the F117 and against the FA22 and F35 for that matter is that the F117 fleet is a proven and very successful if expensive weapon.  its expensive to buy and maintain but it does work as was proved in the gulf war in '91 and more recently in the invasion in Iraq.  There is a question whether any other current or planned Aircraft or weapons system would be anywhere near as effective.  The F22 & F35's are a compromise on Stealth vs Capabilities.  The "military" want the best  "right tool for the job".- this means having different aircraft/systems dedicated to a specific or very focused type of job.  Whereas the guys that hold the budget want a "Wonder tool" that cost Å10 and does everything.

Again, it going to be a compromise - is it cheaper to phase out F117's and give their role to another aircraft without an unacceptable drop in capability, survivability and performance.

Quote[/b] ]The F/A-35 will truly be a great addition to the US, UK, and a few other NATO countries.   However, the F/A-22 is still reign as king of the skies and will remain so for at least 12 to 15 years minimum.

I think the F-35 will be a great asset and i think you'll see more of them in the next 30 years than any of the newer aircraft in NATO including the EuroFighter and F/A-22.  The world has changed and the need for Strategic platforms is reducing.  I think you'll see the USAF requirement for the F/A-22 reduced and the F-35's increased in the next 5 years.  The F/A-22 just like a lot of other aircraft will become far too expensive to operate in the modern world.

The JSF concept isn’t about strategic capability - its about "Swing role" aircraft capable of providing Tactical Interdiction and Strike capability - the swing role function means that the aircraft will be capable of being a Fighter/Interceptor and a bomber.  This means that the F35 isn’t designed to do the same job as the F/A-22.  There is some common aspect to their roles but you wouldn’t expect to see a JSF fly 4000 miles to escort a strike package.

Its strengths lie in high frequency short range missions in a smaller theatre of war where response time is critical - in other words "Tactical Operations".   Whereas the F/A-22 is designed to reach to most any part of the world (with refuelling) and provide strike/escort capability.

In the case of Bosnia, Kosovo and all the other small scale wars the F/A-22 would be hideously expensive to operate.  The airfield and support requirements would be huge.  Whereas the F-35, just like the harrier can operate form smaller, rougher and more basic sites a short distance form the front getting the fire power where its need faster.

To my mind that's going to make the F-35 King very quickly.

@usmcrp

i have some pretty good images and info on the F-35 - including all the differtn configurations etc - if you want it drop me a PM.

[havocsquad 0]

Regarding the RCS of the F/A-22, yes the F/A-22's RCS is smaller than the F/A-35.  I believe the close estimate is between 2.5 and 3 times smaller than the F/A-35.  Several other factors also enter the debate, including classified materials or manufacturing methods, any special classified equipment to decrease RCS, etc., etc.

So you think it's not a true stealth aircraft, just a comprimise eh?  Life's full of em, or nothing gets done.  Get use to it...    

Yes I understand it is not B-2 stealth but the F/A-22 and the F/A-35 is close enough to be classified as a stealth aircraft, not just a low RCS aircraft.  That means unless the enemy can rig their ground air defense network to provide them accurate MRM targeting data, there is no way anything from a MiG-21 Fishbed to a MiG-31 Foxhound will be able to lock on and fire at an F/A-22 or F/A-35 from 10 miles or farther away.  Maybe with IR, but that's going to be very difficult given both F/A-35's and F/A-22's lower IR signatures for their aircraft's exhaust.

From what I've heard from reliable sources discussing about the F/A-22's capabilities, it's very expensive but the USAF is getting their money's worth.

I also never said the F/A-35 was made to take on the role of long range strategic deep strike capability.  That's the job of the F/A-22 and the F-15E, I never disputed that.  I've always believed that the role of the F/A-35 is to take on the role of multi-role capability for medium range air sorties.  That includes MIGCAP, SEAD (So far only the Royal Navy is going to use it for SEAD), Precision Strike, CAS, and Anti-ship role.

Regarding the LPI radar systems, everyone will eventually find a means to detect or counterdetect weapon systems and radio/radar emissions, that's a given.  However, for the next 5 to 10 years EVEN if someone develops a reliable and not too cost prohibitive LPI signal warning/detection system.  It still will not do them very much good except to say someone is out there painting them.  It can't say which direction or how far the threat is.  

Because of this fact, LPI radar systems will continue to be very effective in providing a clear advantage to Western countries and many European countries.  This way of designing radars also increases reliability in its function (When designed and manufactured correctly) and reduces some of the cost of manufacturing them.  (Can you count high enough the words "Made in China" appear on the circuit boards and other OTS parts.   )

Overall I am sure I have a good understanding of many aircraft's capabilities and weaknesses, even though I may read something wrong or make a mistake from time to time discussing about this subject.

Hey RockofSL, make sure you do a good counter-post. I haven't had a good debate on aircraft in a good while and I enjoy the challenge of a well-informed person.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the RCS of the F/A-22, yes the F/A-22's RCS is smaller than the F/A-35.  I believe the close estimate is between 2.5 and 3 times smaller than the F/A-35.  Several other factors also enter the debate, including classified materials or manufacturing methods, any special classified equipment to decrease RCS, etc., etc.

So you think it's not a true stealth aircraft, just a comprimise eh?  Life's full of em, or nothing gets done.  Get use to it...    

Well I am perhaps a little more informed than you on this one.  The F/A-22 uses a derivative of the same RAM composites as parts of the EuroFighter.  It’s the same ‘stuff’ I used to be responsible for when I worked for BAE EuroFighter at Salmesbury.  I have also sat through the 16 hours of technology seminars about its use and limitations.  Then went on to spend a year overseeing the subcontract manufacture of the RAM parts for both EuroFighter and to a very small extent the X-35 centre fuselages that were made by BAE at Salmesbury in 4 Shed , Lancashire and are now made at BAE Warton.

The RCS of the F/A-22 is small but I know that the F-35 is smaller.  How?  I read the research papers on the composites and testing done at MIT in conjunction with BAE Warton.  There is also a rather well know (and painfully embarrassing for Lockheed) DARPA/DoD Technology white paper from 2003 that covers the short comings of the F/A-22 – its failure to meet test and performance expectations due to software etc and most of all the ‘lack’ of the level of  Stealth promised compared to contemporary (the X-35/X-32) designs.  The F-35 has a smaller RCS, quite a lot smaller thanks to the use of another much newer RAM composite that provides the ability to create stronger structures that have better RAM properties for less weight.  

Unfortunately the F/A-22 will not get to use this composite because of huge commitment to the production tooling for the original RAM composite specified in the design. To change to the newer material would cost (according to the DoD and Flight international) something in the region of $175,000,000 of Non Recurring costs for new jigs, moulds and tools, together with something in the region of $750,000 of recurring cost for disposable tooling and assembly jigs per aircraft set. Through the first delivery Tranche of 277 (plus Dev airframes) aircraft

However it may pay for them to change to the newer material in the long run for purely financial and legal reasons. Since the composites are difficult to make and a one stage of manufacture toxic – I believe Lockheed, Northrop and Boeing are still involved in legal action by former employees sueing for dammage to their health from working with the material.

As for other factors entering the debate such as “classified materials†and “manufacturing techniques.† Well actually they don’t – they are the root of the debate.  The composites used in the F-22 design to maintain stealth haven't changed since ’98 after the problems they had with very short Fatigue cycles and surface cracking.  Manufacturing is a factor in making any design work, but what I think you are missing is that the F-35 is a design evolved from the F-22.  

With the F-35 we’re 5 years on from the original technology and a lot has changed.  They haven’t limited themselves to the original materials and traditional structural design concepts – with the F-35 the design now incorporates a lot of Monocoque structures composite wing boxes, Composite Interleaves and chemical bonding.  This in itself is proving harder and more difficult thank expected to bring up to full scale production but is increasing the ‘Stealth’ performance relative to the cost and the mass.

The factors that drive design compromise are very well known to me – I worked as an Aerostructures designer and CAM programmer for 8 years before my last non IT job at Eurofighter as “Forward Fuse Subcontracts Manger.â€.  I’ve also work with Airbus, Glock, Lockheed and EADS consulting on manufacturing integration issues – usually Product Data Management systems that are used to manage design information on a lot of the major defence and aerospace projects including the F-35.

Quote[/b] ]Yes I understand it is not B-2 stealth but the F/A-22 and the F/A-35 is close enough to be classified as a stealth aircraft, not just a low RCS aircraft.  That means unless the enemy can rig their ground air defense network to provide them accurate MRM targeting data, there is no way anything from a MiG-21 Fishbed to a MiG-31 Foxhound will be able to lock on and fire at an F/A-22 or F/A-35 from 10 miles or farther away.  Maybe with IR, but that's going to be very difficult given both F/A-35's and F/A-22's lower IR signatures for their aircraft's exhaust.

From what I've heard from reliable sources discussing about the F/A-22's capabilities, it's very expensive but the USAF is getting their money's worth.

I think you are over rating both the FA-22 and F35’s stealth here – but you are right in that any air defence would have to be geared past the point of paranoia to detecting “Stealthy†aircraft to reliably detect them but since there aren’t many countries in the world that on the US/NATO shit list with a high enough tech level its a safe bet that they will be more successful.  You may want to look for a paper by Dr Hans Speirber (I think) on the relative costing of stealth aircraft vs. conventional aircraft in modern air warfare. I think it was published in ’90 and was used in the US congressional hearings about the A-12 Avenger project – it was used as evidence to justify it cancellation in ‘91

I’ve seen the published ‘public’ figures from the DoD and Lockheed for both the F-22 and F/A-35 – They are both riding in over budget in a big way. The F-22 especially, but a lot of that is down to legal issue forcing the use of alternative materials thus having to change the designs.  I’ve no doubt it will be a formidable bit of kit – I just don’t think its going to be cost effective for large scale use in today’s world.  The project was justified in the light of the Cold war but now large fleets of expensive Strategic aircraft aren’t financially viable.  I’ve no doubt about the lovely features the USAF will get but I doubt that there will ever be situation where they could be used where another cheaper aircraft couldn’t do the same job.

Quote[/b] ]I also never said the F/A-35 was made to take on the role of long range strategic deep strike capability.  That's the job of the F/A-22 and the F-15E, I never disputed that.  I've always believed that the role of the F/A-35 is to take on the role of multi-role capability for medium range air sorties.  That includes MIGCAP, SEAD (So far only the Royal Navy is going to use it for SEAD), Precision Strike, CAS, and Anti-ship role.

I know you didn’t say the F-35 was for deep strike – I emphasised the point to illustrate “The Right Tool foe The Job†axiom.  

Actually the USMC and the RAF as well as the RN are tasking it as a SEAD platform.  The MoD are also converting Tornado F-3’s to carry ALARM for SEAD roles but that’s another debate.

Regarding the LPI radar systems, everyone will eventually find a means to detect or counterdetect weapon systems and radio/radar emissions, that's a given.  However, for the next 5 to 10 years EVEN if someone develops a reliable and not too cost prohibitive LPI signal warning/detection system.  It still will not do them very much good except to say someone is out there painting them.  It can't say which direction or how far the threat is.  

There are already several relatively low cost and effective ground based networks capable of detecting LPI radar use – the US, Japan, France and the UK are developing them.  They used a distributed network of emitters/receivers that can triangulate any target – giving range speed etc to fire control or ATC environments.  The main application will be civil air traffic control but the military applications for ‘homeland’ defence are interesting.

Quote[/b] ]Because of this fact, LPI radar systems will continue to be very effective in providing a clear advantage to Western countries and many European countries.  This way of designing radars also increases reliability in its function (When designed and manufactured correctly) and reduces some of the cost of manufacturing them.  (Can you count high enough the words "Made in China" appear on the circuit boards and other OTS parts.   )

LPI is a huge advantage for anyone equipped with it – real world radar isn’t like the 360degree radar we’re all used to in computer games.  It’s a black art to use effectively and doesn’t provide anywhere near the coverage the average gamer demands in OFP, CoH or any of the mainline games.

“Made in China†is probably the most used phrase in modern electronics but the cost of everything is dropping (so the governments tell us ).  It’s the development costs that are getting higher.  The F-22 project is a good example of a cold war “grey project†that’s suddenly come stuck on the modern ideas of Cost efficiency.  If the F/A22 was developed in the 70/80’s the odds are the US DoD would have just kept feeding it cash just like the F-117 program.  But now it faces the problems of developing a 4th generation stealth aircraft in a world where its stealth and capabilities make it too expensive to operate in large numbers.

The F-35 is probably and arguably the most significant aircraft project in the last 50 years.  It’s going to be the first totally new combat aircraft system to have been designed and developed for the Post cold war environment.    Factoring how wars in the last 20 years have been fought and looking to the future where smaller hot zones, conflicts and Peace keeping will be the order of the day.  Possibly delivering the last large scale production combat airframe in the world   Unless China start to get “frisky†the role of the F/A-22 may get a little harder to justify.  I believe that the main argument for keeping the project alive was ‘rapid force projection’ – the ability to use the aircraft to reach most points in the world from the US with the minimum of logistical support.   In light of recent peace keeping roles and conflicts I don’t think this capability is one that anyone can really honestly use to justify the cost anymore.

I think that once the minimum commitment of 277(?) aircraft is met the US congress and DoD will have to take a serious look at the requirements again but I think that’s going to be around 2007/8 as the F-35 comes into squadron use.  Its going to be an interesting time for the Aerospace and Defence markets.

Quote[/b] ]

Overall I am sure I have a good understanding of many aircraft's capabilities and weaknesses, even though I may read something wrong or make a mistake from time to time discussing about this subject.

Everyone interprets what they read differently, it’s not a problem that’s what discussion and debate promote, common understanding.  Without wanting to sound arrogant; in the field of Aerospace technology and manufacturing I have an advantage as it was/is my day job for more than 10 years.

I have nothing against the F/A-22 project because it made sense when it was commissioned although I preferred the YF-23 myself – better stealth, and arguably performance just not as much flexible internal payload capacity and higher operating costs but it was a nicer looking airplane! ;  But coming from an industry that is now being forced to provide a product that must do the job and be hugely cost effective I can’t see the F/A-22 being a practical asset in the long term.  The principals of a common airframe and modular avionics make a lot more sense.

Quote[/b] ]Hey RockofSL, make sure you do a good counter-post.  I haven't had a good debate on aircraft in a good while and I enjoy the challenge of a well-informed person.

Hopefully the response will meet your requirements.

[havocsquad 0]

Very nice counter post, I'm going to have to make you work harder on your posts because I'm making it too easy on you.

Regarding about LPI radar, I do understand many core functions of it and applications via what I have found out through public knowledge and simulations of it via my favorite modern naval warfare strategy simulation, Janes Fleet Command.  It's not classified or high grade military simulation, but it comes reasonably close to simulating how effective it is in aircraft ops.  The ground and air target seeking and acquistion is many times more effective (but isn't unrealistic in its effectiveness) and makes getting a lock on stealthy objects like cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles immensely easier.

I'm a big flight sim fan, so I know the ropes about multi-mode radar uses and how much of a pain in the ass it is to find hard-to-detect targets.  Locking on anti-ship missiles in Jane's F/A-18 is a real b*tch like in real life unless you choose the easy settings.  I hate that damn mission, 12 Su-33's dump about 25 anti-ship missiles at your carrier and you have to start finding needles in an ocean in 2 mins or less and get about 90% of them shot down.    

Although I believe the Phased Array SAM's (SA-10, I-HAWK with modern radar, SA-11 with modern high frequency radar) capability for attacking aircraft like the F-117, F/A-22, and F/A-35 is a little too weak in the game.  (It only can effectively detect, track, and attack them at a range of about 10 to 13 miles.  I would like it to detect them at about 25 to 20 for a VERY weak detection that is difficult to pinpoint, then gets stronger as it comes closer.

However, in Janes Fleet Command the SAM's are effective if the stealth aircraft wanders too close to capable SAM systems.  The B-2 is the only aircraft in the game who can attack Phased arrary radar sites and not be hit or destroyed.

Probably for you it would significantly fall short on your demands for realism because of your first hand experience and knowledge, but if you are able to get it, then I highly recommend you buy the game.

The game by itself (without updates) isn't very appealing and has serious gameplay issues.  A group called NWP developed the realism and gameplay updates and added tons of new and modern units to Janes Fleet Command.

It's similiar to the harpoon series, except more interactive and more graphical.

If you want more info, let me know and I'll PM you the details.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Quote[/b] ]Very nice counter post, I'm going to have to make you work harder on your posts because I'm making it too easy on you.

Go on all you want.  This is simple compared to some of the document/papers I write on comparative technologies and reports on process integration.  If you want to make it harder you’ll have to come up with a different topic

Quote[/b] ]Regarding about LPI radar, I do understand many core functions of it and applications via what I have found out through public knowledge and simulations of it via my favorite modern naval warfare strategy simulation, Janes Fleet Command.  It's not classified or high grade military simulation, but it comes reasonably close to simulating how effective it is in aircraft ops.

It’s still a game; it’s played in a “small†controlled environment that makes detecting targets a lot easier.  The ranges and capabilities are exaggerated so it’s easy to play for the gamer.  I wouldn’t take those in-game capabilities as any where near realistic in relation to the real world equipment.

Quote[/b] ]  The ground and air target seeking and acquistion is many times more effective (but isn't unrealistic in its effectiveness) and makes getting a lock on stealthy objects like cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles immensely easier.

I’m curious on what you base your statement about its effectiveness?

Quote[/b] ]I'm a big flight sim fan, so I know the ropes about multi-mode radar uses and how much of a pain in the ass it is to find hard-to-detect targets.  Locking on anti-ship missiles in Jane's F/A-18 is a real b*tch like in real life unless you choose the easy settings.  I hate that damn mission, 12 Su-33's dump about 25 anti-ship missiles at your carrier and you have to start finding needles in an ocean in 2 mins or less and get about 90% of them shot down.    

Target acquisition in the real world is far harder than any computer game.  The real world means you have to factor in atmospheric conditions, reflections, interference and range and signal degradation.  

I know real aircrew that fly for the RAF that get vectored to targets by AWACS and ground based radars that still fail to get radar lock on targets until they are within 10-20 miles due to some quirk of the environment.  The same is also true in the reverse.  Aircraft pick up targets that ground based systems miss.  It really is a black art that is as much dependant on interpretation and environment as it is on equipment.

Computer games set up the environments where players don’t have to spend 16 hours searching for a target or interpreting vague signals.  In all of the best games and Sims you already have a huge advantage one that a lot of people seem to think real world systems have.  It is simply not the case.

About a year ago I had an 'argument' with a guy I worked with about computer game realism vs reality.  He played Flight Sim 2003 a lot and had by his count (he has a logbook) over 600 hrs of flight time and was a very proficient Simulator pilot.  

I do had a private pilots license (462 hrs logged) and do play Flight Sim too so we took him to the flying club at Filton where we worked and had him plan a short flight using only his FS inspired knowledge.

We then let him take the second seat and "fly" the sortie with us (Another friend who is a flight insturctor) in a Cessna 172.  His ground handling and setup of the aircraft was pretty bad - but ok considering he'd never even sat in a real plane.  Fuel and engine management would have caused permanent damage to the aircraft.

He completely ignored the Centre of Gravity (CG) on flight prep issues that any one operating any aircraft has to address before even taxing anywhere; radio comms were new to him as were safe climb limits and basic trimming of the aircraft.  After a 30 minute flight with him navigating we were 25+ miles off course.  He’d forgotten to account for wind and the resulting fuel consumption because to the extra headwinds and distance involved.  

We finally landed back at Filton again about 25 minutes later than his original plan called for having used 20% more fuel than he’d allowed for and having cocked up the approach to land twice (fortunately ATC at filton aret that busy and are more tolerant than most).

When we were back in the ops building we sat him down and ran him through the flight.  

He bought the beer and hasn’t mentioned it since.  I kind of ended that particular debate on how real computer simulations are.

Quote[/b] ]Although I believe the Phased Array SAM's (SA-10, I-HAWK with modern radar, SA-11 with modern high frequency radar) capability for attacking aircraft like the F-117, F/A-22, and F/A-35 is a little too weak in the game.  (It only can effectively detect, track, and attack them at a range of about 10 to 13 miles.  I would like it to detect them at about 25 to 20 for a VERY weak detection that is difficult to pinpoint, then gets stronger as it comes closer.

However, in Janes Fleet Command the SAM's are effective if the stealth aircraft wanders too close to capable SAM systems.  The B-2 is the only aircraft in the game who can attack Phased arrary radar sites and not be hit or destroyed.

Anything can be detected in the real world. It’s down to the operators to ensure that they use the right tactics to reduce the chance of detection.  Newer technologies make reliable operation a lot easier but its still not as effective as even the most ‘realistic game’.

Quote[/b] ]Probably for you it would significantly fall short on your demands for realism because of your first hand experience and knowledge, but if you are able to get it, then I highly recommend you buy the game.

The game by itself (without updates) isn't very appealing and has serious gameplay issues.  A group called NWP developed the realism and gameplay updates and added tons of new and modern units to Janes Fleet Command.

It's similiar to the harpoon series, except more interactive and more graphical.

If you want more info, let me know and I'll PM you the details.

Thanks but I bought it some months back (someone else on these boards recommended it), I wasn’t overly impressed with the game play even after some of the updates.  But it’s not really my preferred type of game in the first place.

[havocsquad 0]

I wonder how you can even enjoy a lot of sims anymore with all your RL experience you've built up.  Does any of them still keep your interests anymore or provide a significant enough challenge?

I guess for you playing most flight sims now is like knowing Santa Claus doesn't exists at age 6.

Oh, are you going to be building a P-3 Orion or an EP-3 anytime soon?

By the way, the E-3 AWACS is looking excellent.  I hope that monster can land on OFP runways.  (Probably not but wishing for it..   )

Later,

Havoc.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I wonder how you can even enjoy a lot of sims anymore with all your RL experience you've built up. Does any of them still keep your interests anymore or provide a significant enough challenge?

Its not so much experience as knowledge. Knowing something isn’t right or has hard as it should be doesn't ruin anything for me. It’s only a game - if I enjoy playing it great but if it was a true to life simulation then it would be a bit too much like work.

I still love playing team based games but its more for the challenge of pitting wits with somebody else. Playing only against the computer is boring compared to playing against unpredictable and slightly mad humans.

Quote[/b] ]

I guess for you playing most flight sims now is like knowing Santa Claus doesn't exists at age 6.

Not really I just don’t take it particularly seriously. I play FS2004 quite a bit - its cheaper than actually flying and its nice tool for practicing some of the basic things. Play it with other people and try and fly aerobatics and it brilliant fun.

Falcon4 is always a laugh but again I know its a game but its as close to flying a F-16 as I’m going to come. But I do enjoy it precisely because I know how hard much harder it should be in real life.

Quote[/b] ]Oh, are you going to be building a P-3 Orion or an EP-3 anytime soon?

Not for the moment I have a backlog of stuff to clear first.

Quote[/b] ]By the way, the E-3 AWACS is looking excellent. I hope that monster can land on OFP runways. (Probably not but wishing for it.. )

Yeah it does. The AI lands on most OFP runways its far too manoeuvrable than it should be considering the size (45m wingspan) but I had to do that to ensure "mouse flyers" and the AI could fly it easily.

it shouldn’t bee long before some of them are released - I planning of 'being Santa' for a few things this year.

Cheers

[VXR 9]

Will there also be a Dutch version made?