F-22A Raptor

[Rommel 2]

All you got to change is a few config features (afterburners, speed, turn bleed etc) and this is one sweet addon.

The gauges Im sure you will figure out along the way too.

Excellent work, 5/5.

[rstratton 0]

you should use the flight model changes from the rksl studios a10 flight model demo

It wont work just using the config. it a rework of the geometry that does the "magic"

yup im aware of that

[BlackScorpion 0]

@layne_suhr

i dont think  the raptor uses reheat or after burner....i thought it has a supercruise capability to reduce its heat signature..... any plane heads out there to confirm or correct me on this?

You pretty much won't find a modern fighter jet without afterburners installed. Raptor can supercruise at around Mach 1.6 I think, thanks to the internal weapons storage used most of the times (external hardpoints can be fitted, reducing performance). Maximum speed of over Mach 2.2 and maximal fighting performance is achieved with afterburners, though... it's actually able to accelerate upwards, and AFAIK is able to reach the sound barrier even in a prolonged 90 degree climb with a small loadout.

[Halochief89 0]

The AIM missiles are extremely inaccurate, I missed a camel plane with the aim missiles. The Minigun losses ammo extremely quick. Other then that the F22 is awesome. The AIM missiles need more punch and need to be more accurate then a sniper with 10/20 vision.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

....though... it's actually able to accelerate upwards, and AFAIK is able to reach the sound barrier even in a prolonged 90 degree climb with a small loadout.

I'm sorry but that's the propaganda machine spouting BS.  Air Forces monthly did a very good series of articles a few months back about the Raptor.

While it had good time to altitude stats it still slower than a Tornado F3 to 15,000'.  It's true it can super cruise to and past Mach 1 but not in a climb! It needs full afterburner to maintain a half decent climb rate at any high pitch angle because no significant lift is generated in a steep climb.  Besides the acknowledged thrust to weight ratio just isn't enough to justify that claim.  The F-22 is a good plane but it’s not superman in a radar absorbent suit no matter what the Lockheed PR machine says.  It hasn’t even got a working data link!  The aircrew still have to use the radio to pass target info!

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

I'm curious as to why you'd say there is no datalink, as the Inter / Intra-Flight Data Link is listed in just about every publication as a standard piece of equipment, and integrated into the aircraft's CNI avionics package? It's been tested, and works as advertised, as far as public knowledge has thus far been told.

"Included in the CNI system is an Inter/Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL) that allows all F-22s in a flight to share target and system data automatically and without radio calls. One of the original objectives for the F-22 was to increase the percentage of fighter pilots who make 'kills'.

With the IFDL, each pilot is free to operate more autonomously because, for example, the leader can tell at a glance what his wing man's fuel state is, his weapons remaining, and even the enemy aircraft he has targeted. This link also allows additional F-22 flights to be added to the net for multi-flight coordinated attack."

http://www.defense-update.com/feature....way.htm

As to the Rate of Climb... I am by no means an expert in this field, but, The Raptor's Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz is.

This was discussed in a recent interveiw with Carlo Kopp, of Air Power Australia:

Kopp:

In terms of aircraft handling and manoeuvre performance, how does the F-22A compare with established types such as the F-15 and F-16 in areas such as transonic acceleration, supersonic acceleration, climb rates, and supersonic sustained turn rates? How does the supersonic energy bleed in manoeuvres compare to teen series fighters, optimised for transonic energy bleed?

Metz:

My previous answer touched on the subject of maneuver performance. It is interesting to fly an airplane like the F-22 which is optimized to fly supersonically as a matter of course compared to current generation fighters designed for momentary or transitory excursions supersonically. An example may illustrate this. The best subsonic afterburner climb speed in the Raptor occurs at 600 knots calibrated airspeed.

The fastest way to get to altitude in a Raptor is to accelerate to supersonic on the deck and climb all the way supersonically. Sorry, I can't quote the numbers but suffice is to say that we are talking high supersonic climb speeds. The F-15, on the other hand, has its best climb rate when the climb is made subsonically to 30,000-35,000 feet and the aircraft is then dived to a supersonic speed before once again pulling up into a supersonic climb. The difference in time to climb using the Raptor versus the Eagle climb technique is dramatic but, again, classified.

You also asked about handling qualities, which is a different subject than raw performance. Handling qualities refers to how hard the pilot has to work to accomplish a task. An airplane can be a great performer but, if the pilot is sweating bullets just to keep it upright and under control, it isn't a particularly usable machine. We formalized the desired handling qualities of the F-22 with the engineers early in the design process by defining 'carefree abandon' flying qualities. This meant that the pilot could do anything with the stick and rudder as well as the throttles with the assurance that he would never overstress the structure and break it; that he would never lose control of the airplane, or that he would never have his engines 'backfire'. Many hundreds of simulator and engine wind tunnel tests resulted in an airplane that today meets those expectations. The importance of 'carefree abandon' flying qualities is that it makes flying second nature and frees the pilot to concentrate on being the wiley tactician that the human being is so adept at.

http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I'm curious as to why you'd say there is no datalink, as the Inter / Intra-Flight Data Link is listed in just about every publication as a standard piece of equipment, and integrated into the aircraft's CNI avionics package? It's been tested, and works as advertised, as far as public knowledge has thus far been told.

Simply because it’s not fitted to the current aircraft.  There is not a in service Raptor - and by that I mean all the aircraft serving with active units apart from the 2 test beds – that has the anything even close to promised/claimed avionics suite.

Direct quote from Air Forces Monthly March 2008 Page 53

Quote[/b] ]…But wait a minute.  Unlike every other fighter in the inventory, the F22 lacks the Link 16 or any other datalink package to connect it to all those other ‘netcentric’ warfighters on land, sea and air.  Incredible as it seems, today’s F-22 pilot has only one way of communicating with the outside world – voice radio

Years after it should have been completed, work is slowly being carried out ot give the F-22 pilot the capability to transmit and receive images.  But the next generation helmet-cueing sight, cannon and air to air missile once envisaged for the F-22 are still just a pipe dream.

There have been a lot of media interviews given to gullible and info hungry journalists but now the aircraft are becoming more common place the truth is coming out.  A lot of what is on the web is really only sales propaganda.  The current state of the F-22 leaves it vastly inferior to the F-15 in practical military terms and according to USAF insiders and Industry sources its going to be 3-4 years before the F-22 even starts to begin living up to the promises.

I’ll scan the article tomorrow if anyone is really interested. PM me if you want it.

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

I'm curious as to why you'd say there is no datalink, as the Inter / Intra-Flight Data Link is listed in just about every publication as a standard piece of equipment, and integrated into the aircraft's CNI avionics package? It's been tested, and works as advertised, as far as public knowledge has thus far been told.

Simply because it’s not fitted to the current aircraft.  There is not a in service Raptor - and by that I mean all the aircraft serving with active units apart from the 2 test beds – that has the anything even close to promised/claimed avionics suite.

Direct quote from Air Forces Monthly March 2008 Page 53

Quote[/b] ]…But wait a minute.  Unlike every other fighter in the inventory, the F22 lacks the Link 16 or any other datalink package to connect it to all those other ‘netcentric’ warfighters on land, sea and air.  Incredible as it seems, today’s F-22 pilot has only one way of communicating with the outside world – voice radio

Years after it should have been completed, work is slowly being carried out ot give the F-22 pilot the capability to transmit and receive images.  But the next generation helmet-cueing sight, cannon and air to air missile once envisaged for the F-22 are still just a pipe dream.

There have been a lot of media interviews given to gullible and info hungry journalists but now the aircraft are becoming more common place the truth is coming out.  A lot of what is on the web is really only sales propaganda.  The current state of the F-22 leaves it vastly inferior to the F-15 in practical military terms and according to USAF insiders and Industry sources its going to be 3-4 years before the F-22 even starts to begin living up to the promises.

I’ll scan the article tomorrow if anyone is really interested. PM me if you want it.

Both of the links I posted above, are recent articles. The aircraft that participated in the JFEX 08 exercise WERE in fact production Raptors.

[Inkompetent 0]

The Minigun losses ammo extremely quick.

Well, 480 rounds (its cannon capacity) fired at 6000 rounds per minute (fixed rate of fire for the M61A1 Vulcan, and it translates to 100 rounds a second) will last 4,8 seconds. It's about 2-4 bursts to actually shoot something down IRL.

[miles teg 1]

Does the cannon not have different rates of fire? If you can only fire a few bursts, that would be pretty sad.

Aside from that...all the stuff about data links and what not doesn't really matter in ArmA as that stuff would be rather difficult to simulate in the game without some uber genius scripters. If the small bugs are sorted out and handling issues are also sorted out (not easy) then I think most people would be quite happy. But definitely more air to ground weaponry would be nice.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Both of the links I posted above, are recent articles. The aircraft that participated in the JFEX 08 exercise WERE in fact production Raptors.

LMAO - go read the article again they were the development aircraft carrying experimental equiment, not frontline production aircraft.

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

Both of the links I posted above, are recent articles. The aircraft that participated in the JFEX 08 exercise WERE in fact production Raptors.

LMAO - go read the article again they were the development aircraft carrying experimental equiment, not frontline production aircraft.

OK, I see your point. They were carrying new equipment, but- they WERE production-series aircraft, and the equipment DID work.

Naturally, the Raptor will constantly be upgraded, and refitted with new/better equipment. I'm not suggesting that the Raptor is the Be-all, End-all uber superfighter that Lockheed has sold it to be, but somehow, I'm betting that it is far from crap-tastic.

[Inkslinger 1]

Both of you are right actually, the experimental data link which uses the has been in the f-22 since 2006 but only in April did they finally demonstrate its capabilities. heres a link to one of the released articles.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports....99.html

On another note, fixing the flight model really wasnt that hard. I fidled with the config a bit and no problems flying or landing.

for landing all I added was landingspeed = 250; and the autopilot does a fine job now.

also took gnat advise and put the speed to 1200, added noseDownCoef = 0,and a wheelSteeringSensitivity = 3.0(same as franzes hornets). seems to handle great.

Although, I really have no Idea what I'm doing..lol. but ive been working on a cpl models myself so ive been experimenting with different configs to get a feeling for them.

[miles teg 1]

Well best talk to Mr. SCARS about your modifications and see if he can include them in an update.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Inkompetent 0]

Does the cannon not have different rates of fire?  If you can only fire a few bursts, that would be pretty sad.

Well, the cannon(s) on today's aircraft in the world of BVR- and helmet cue-sighted missiles are there as last resort weapons. There are very few occasions where you would use the cannon instead of a missile as long as you have missiles, and if you are out of missiles but your opponent is not you'd rather run than fight.

It is very hard to hit with a cannon, and it is very hard to even get that close on your opponent's tail. On top of that 20x102mm ammo isn't lightweight, and to carry lots of ammo for a weapon you aren't likely to ever use is pretty much a waste, thus the low ammo count.

And even if you would hit 20mm ammunition is so weak by today's standard (why for example the Harrier has a 25mm cannon) it doesn't have a very high chance to actually score a kill, but hopefully enough to cripple your opponent so much you can get away.

And lastly, to correct myself, the F-22 uses the M61A2 and not the M61A1, which means it shoots at a rate of fire of 6600 rounds per minute (110 rounds a second), and thus empties its cannon in 4,36 seconds.

[devgru 0]

I love this jet.

[Panda-PL- 0]

And lastly, to correct myself, the F-22 uses the M61A2 and not the M61A1, which means it shoots at a rate of fire of 6600 rounds per minute (110 rounds a second), and thus empties its cannon in 4,36 seconds.

The problem is ArmA has a limitation of shot/framerate.

Hence if you match the 4.36 second time you get only a fraction of bullets that should be fired actually fired.

Hence you either give the gun even less ammunition (lol? It's called "burst" in config for some reason - it deduces few rounds for every fired but multiplies the dammage accordingly - hence you get a 90mm cannon instead of 20mm ) or input the correct values but the gun fires at 1200-2200 rpm at 20-40 fps and hence ammo lasts for longer.

[malick 0]

Hi ! Nice plane that still needs some tweaks (ingame).

I noticed that the flight model makes it very hard to maneuver (for me at least). I had lots of troubles just pulling a turn without crashing. I might try what Gnat suggested, by reducing top speed and increasing landing speed.

When the canopy opens, it's not animated from pilot's point of view, strange.

The glass material is self blinding : when the sun is anywhere on screen, the pilot gets automatically blinded by HDR. Needs to be reduced.

I noticed that the plane carries a gun, AIM9X AND AIM120C. How do you manage that trick (2 missiles proxies on 1 plane) ?

Other than that, it's an overall good quality. Keep up !

What we really need is some good old soviet era fighters, like MiG29. Anyone ?

Malick

[wipman 1]

HI, the F-22A looks great, really well done; but as Beta 0.8 it have

some bugs. When you enter in the Tactical's/Commander's View

and you zoom out, then the plane shows the untextured or plain

AS grey LOD, when you zoom out just a bit in the runway, you can

see the wheels texture not entirely covering the print surface, also

the HUD texture it's few transparent so it obscures your sight on

almost all the day times and weather conditions; i think that should

be more transparent and less green, maybe left it as it's for the

2Nd LOD... for external view pourpouses.

I get the next error message when i put it in the Editor.

The Error Message:

I also think that for the final version, you should or better said...

you may add a separate texture/selection to the navigation

lights and set it to: Shine. In the O2 so it'll look better, like in the

OFP's F-15E's pack that someone released, this is what i mean.

Navigation Lights:

Also add an afterburner will be very handy in some situations,

something like This.

The HUD should or will be better if it were as transparent and

green as This.

So it'll not obscure the pilot's sight; the position lights should

look as silver and very shiny as This.

And then you'll only had to adjust the lights proxy to that height

allowing 'em to be seen from upside and downside; maybe duplicating

the proxy (if that works...) and will be very pimp if you could

add a smoke/vapour script that generates smoke from the wing

tips and over the plane when the speed goes down at a certain

rate to get something like This.

Then the plane will be truly perfect i think. Also make it recover

speed faster after a very closed turn will help and improve a bit

the handling and make the rudders have more effect on the plane's

lateral sliding will be very usefull too, rightnow it flyes like a pen

in the hands of a kid, it almost only moves over a single axis.

Let's C ya

[Average Joe 0]

I also encounter the same error as above that Wip had mentioned

[[aps]gnat 28]

I also encounter the same error as above that Wip had mentioned  

Everyone will unless they also have his SA-6 SAM launcher also running on ArmA

[{9thInf}Winchester Delta1 0]

Found a few things (may have been mentioned)

- Opening canopy only has exterior animation interior still has glass reflection.

-Aircraft is way too slow

-No afterburners

-Speed bleeds off too much during turns

-None of the cockpit gauges work

Really nice animations and exterior. I am surley going to be watching this F-22!

I totally agree with this guy..

And are you planning to have one also with JDAM's in internal weapons bay...

The model looks great man and the animations... But flight model sucks like hell..

[scars 0]

thank you all

The bug that had to be improved was brought together.

canopy

Afterburners

cockpit HUD

The speed is too fast.

It is not possible to take off and landing.

Change of flight model.

AI is a fool.

Destruction RVMAT is mended.

Rudder

Rate of fire of canon is adjusted.

Adjustment of LOD

Navigation Lights is made to shine.

It is made to make the texture in the body silver and to shine.

Work to do the fix is immediately done.

[Average Joe 0]

Scars is a man of action, goodstuff.

[malick 0]

That's what I call a useful beta and a quick addon maker ^^ Thank you Scars ! Good job with all these improvements

Malick