Matrix Games Forums

The F-35 isn't being certified for external AMRAAM carriage in SDD / with Block 3F. It's definitely physically capable of doing it, but because the F-35 is meant to be operating stealthily on OCA / DCA missions there's been no customer requirement (and therefore no separation testing) to clear the plane for external AMRAAM carriage. The F-35 is cleared for AIM-9X and AIM-132 ASRAAM carriage on the outer wing hardpoints, but only really for additional self-defence capability when also carrying external air-to-ground munitions.

Interesting, thanks! [8D]

Do you know if the 6x 2000lb JDAM loadout will be an operational loadout? I.e. expected to be used in a shooting war.

Also from carriers?

There seem to be a hard limit for the minimum operating depth for towed array sonars.
This limit makes all the towed arrays practically useless on on any of the platformas operating in the Baltic Sea.

There are many documents and references online where Towed array sonars are used in littoral and shallow waters of a depth of 15m, so something needs to be done to make these sonar system work as they do in real life.

Example:
http://geospectrum.ca/towed-reelable-ac ... nar-traps/

Correct, the minimum depth is set on a per-system basis. Is TRAPS used operationally?

Please see question on F-35 JDAM loadout above.

Anyone got any photos of a Super Bug carrying 4x Harpoons and 2x HARMs?

Or a vanilla bug carrying 4x Harpoons or 2x Harpoons and 2x HARMs?

Thanks!

Hey guys! Another post regarding aircraft of the Portuguese Air Force! Some of these aircraft are/were also used by the Spanish Air Force. And also, happy new year, guys!

- Alpha Jet A (’92-…)

- Ex-German aircraft, identical to #65, except where noted.
- Avionics:
---RWR: SPS-1000
---Counter-measures: AN/ALE-40
- Uses CRV7 rockets instead of SNEB.
- The “BL.755 CB, Heavy, Multi-Store Rack” loadout cannot use drop tanks, as the BL.755 cannot be used in multi-store racks.

Sources:
http://www.emfa.pt/www/aeronave-4-dassa ... -alpha-jet
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/eur ... a-jet.html
https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400. ... TII_VF.pdf

- C-212-100 Aviocar (’74-’11) [Portugal] and T.12B [Spain]

- Engines: 2 x Garret-Air Research TPE-331-5-251C (776hp)
- Cargo:
--- 18 passengers
--- 16 paratroopers
--- 2 metric tons of cargo

Sources:
http://www.airvectors.net/avc212.html
http://www.emfa.pt/www/po/esquadra/link ... 12-aviocar
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_C-212_Aviocar
http://www.operacional.pt/ate-sempre-aviocar/
https://altimagem.blogspot.pt/2014/08/c ... parte.html
https://altimagem.blogspot.pt/2014/08/c ... parte.html

- C-212-100 ECM Aviocar (’77-’04) [Portugal] and TM.12D [Spain]

- Engines: 2 x Garret-Air Research TPE-331-5-251C (776hp)
- EW equipment:
--- SIGINT: SIGINT Multispectral Airborne (SIGMA) System
--- ESM: AMES (Direction Finding, 2-18GHz)
--- ELINT/ECM: ARIES-A (ELINT: C-J bands, ECM: D-J bands)
--- COMINT/COMJAM: Smart Guard/Fast Jam (VHF-UHF)

Sources:
http://www.airvectors.net/avc212.html
http://www.emfa.pt/www/po/esquadra/link ... 12-aviocar
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_C-212_Aviocar
http://www.operacional.pt/ate-sempre-aviocar/
https://altimagem.blogspot.pt/2014/08/c ... parte.html
https://altimagem.blogspot.pt/2014/08/c ... parte.html
https://www.intelpage.info/47-grupo-mix ... nolas.html
http://bacteriosclub.blogspot.pt/2011/1 ... nt_19.html
 
- C-212-300MP Aviocar (’93-’11)

- Engines: 2 x Garret-Air Research TPE-331-10R-513C (925hp)
- Carries 2 500l external fuel tanks
- Sensors:
--- Radar: AN/APS-128
--- SLAR: MSS 6000

Sources:
http://www.airvectors.net/avc212.html
http://www.emfa.pt/www/po/esquadra/link ... 12-aviocar
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_C-212_Aviocar
http://www.operacional.pt/ate-sempre-aviocar/
https://altimagem.blogspot.pt/2014/08/c ... parte.html
https://altimagem.blogspot.pt/2014/08/c ... parte.html
http://www.planobrazil.com/o-barato-que ... os-avioes/
https://uppsagd.files.wordpress.com/201 ... e-2011.pdf

Corrections:

#65 – Alpha Jet A

- The “BL.755 CB, Heavy, Multi-Store Rack” loadout cannot use drop tanks, as the BL.755 cannot be used in multi-store racks.

Sources:
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/eur ... a-jet.html

#1648 – G.91Y Gina

- Should have 3 DE OUDE DELFT TA7M2 reconnaissance cameras pointed left, right and vertically plus a FAIRCHILD KA60C panoramic camera pointed front
- When carrying the AS-20 missiles, a gun is removed to install the missile guidance system
- Missing loadouts:
--- LAU-10/A (4 x Zuni) rocket pod (up to 4)
--- Mk83 bomb (up to 2)
--- AS-20 missile (up to 4)

Sources:
http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircr ... g-91y.html
https://pt.scribd.com/doc/174079220/War ... -Fiat-G-91

ORIGINAL: TheOttoman

Is there a format in which database requests should be submitted (or would it be helpful to create a format), or do we just post links or requests with a "please add this", and leave it to the devs to work out the actual data?

Also, is there anywhere a list of gaps in the database where information needs to be sourced?

ORIGINAL: Bashkire

More to the point: where is the database to see what's being worked on? The link in the first post doesn't work.

These are both extremely important questions to ask.

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Please see question on F-35 JDAM loadout above.

Anyone got any photos of a Super Bug carrying 4x Harpoons and 2x HARMs?

Or a vanilla bug carrying 4x Harpoons or 2x Harpoons and 2x HARMs?

Thanks!

ORIGINAL: SlabSheetrock

ORIGINAL: TheOttoman

Is there a format in which database requests should be submitted (or would it be helpful to create a format), or do we just post links or requests with a "please add this", and leave it to the devs to work out the actual data?

Also, is there anywhere a list of gaps in the database where information needs to be sourced?

ORIGINAL: Bashkire

More to the point: where is the database to see what's being worked on? The link in the first post doesn't work.

These are both extremely important questions to ask.

To which I have seen no answer for.

ORIGINAL: I1066

There seem to be a hard limit for the minimum operating depth for towed array sonars.
This limit makes all the towed arrays practically useless on on any of the platformas operating in the Baltic Sea.

There are many documents and references online where Towed array sonars are used in littoral and shallow waters of a depth of 15m, so something needs to be done to make these sonar system work as they do in real life.

Example:
http://geospectrum.ca/towed-reelable-ac ... nar-traps/

I believe the way the Swedes were able to do it a couple of years ago, they basically went to all the places Russian (and American) subs were found forty years ago and used smaller arrays. Even still, you lose a lot of resolution due to the lack of length, and ultimately it isn't effective as you point out. You could also be a mean Swede and get all your fishing boat captain pals to go to an area and flood it with active sonar / fish finders

Thanks guys [8D]

On the F-35, Dimitris sent me this link:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... able-f-35s

It seems the F-35 has very limited weapon capabilities, and isn't much more than a 'modern' F-117, or a Blk 40 F-16? I.e. 2x internal JDAMs or up to 6x internal + external Paveway IIs, and a pair of AMRAAMs. Plus two Sidewinders.

As such, the aircraft in the database is seriously overrated, and we should whack 2/3rd of the loadouts?

Additional weapons may come online with software Block 4.

Thoughts?

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Thanks guys [8D]

On the F-35, Dimitris sent me this link:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... able-f-35s

It seems the F-35 has very limited weapon capabilities, and isn't much more than a 'modern' F-117, or a Blk 40 F-16? I.e. 2x internal JDAMs or up to 6x internal + external Paveway IIs, and a pair of AMRAAMs. Plus two Sidewinders.

As such, the aircraft in the database is seriously overrated, and we should whack 2/3rd of the loadouts?

Additional weapons may come online with software Block 4.

Thoughts?

Funny this, as it was one of the reasons why I was asking about the format we ask for additions/changes - the specific munchcanism of the F-35s. (Let me know when we can talk about edits to the MQ-8 Fire Scouts).

I would completely agree with stripping out a lot of the loadouts that are currently there, and use the loadout graphic that I posted

Okay lets do the F-35 first, then MQ-8.

What needs to be done, you think?

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Okay lets do the F-35 first, then MQ-8.

What needs to be done, you think?

I don't know how stealthyness works in thee engine, but I think that any of the external mounts will retard the stealthyness of the F-35, so that may dictate using stations 4,5,7, and 8 only, with a combined capacity of 5,700 lbs ... so that's like what?... 2x GBU-31s and 2x AIMs, or a combo of 4x GBU-38's (maybe 8, if they'd fit, but I've not seen any pictures) and 2x AIMs. This is also further reduced for STOVLs down to 3,700 lbs.

If stealthyness isn't as important, I'd give it pretty much the same loadout configs of the F-18. I'll look for more data that has real configs.

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Okay lets do the F-35 first, then MQ-8.

What needs to be done, you think?

Prior to Block 4, the internal bay could only hold up to 4 AIMS, this gets upgraded to 6 in Block 4

Guys,

Not sure if this is the right place to request this, I wondered if I could request an addition to LUA?

What I would like is the ability via LUA script for the a designer to change the current time in the scenario.

Ill give you an example:

As the scenario designer, I create an airfield defence scenario for the player. I set up an air attack on an airfield at 0100 01/01/2018, then another 24hrs later at 0100 02/01/2018. Between those times the player has nothing to do.

What would be good is if I could create an event that then sets the current game time to 0100 on the second of January. Yes I could message the player and tell them to skip time to 0100 on the second but the LUA script would be much better.

Regards

Butch

ORIGINAL: TheOttoman

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Okay lets do the F-35 first, then MQ-8.

What needs to be done, you think?

Prior to Block 4, the internal bay could only hold up to 4 AIMS, this gets upgraded to 6 in Block 4

Thanks [8D]

Do you have any details on this?

And it is safe to assume that the 2000lb JDAMs won't be carried externally on Blk 3?

ORIGINAL: emsoy

ORIGINAL: TheOttoman

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Okay lets do the F-35 first, then MQ-8.

What needs to be done, you think?

Prior to Block 4, the internal bay could only hold up to 4 AIMS, this gets upgraded to 6 in Block 4

Thanks [8D]

Do you have any details on this?

And it is safe to assume that the 2000lb JDAMs won't be carried externally on Blk 3?

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

As to the JDAM, the CTOL and CV loadouts clearly show that it can support the GBU-31 with both the Mk84 and BLU-109 warheads. It'll have to be loaded in position 3 or 9

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Thanks guys [8D]

On the F-35, Dimitris sent me this link:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... able-f-35s

It seems the F-35 has very limited weapon capabilities, and isn't much more than a 'modern' F-117, or a Blk 40 F-16? I.e. 2x internal JDAMs or up to 6x internal + external Paveway IIs, and a pair of AMRAAMs. Plus two Sidewinders.

As such, the aircraft in the database is seriously overrated, and we should whack 2/3rd of the loadouts?

Additional weapons may come online with software Block 4.

Thoughts?

I agree that the F-35 Blk 3 needs to have much / most of it's loadouts removed. AFAIK, the payload options right now are as limited as you suggest.

Also, I think the F-35 in-engine has much higher performance than the airplane. Based on stories from 2013, range and acceleration were decreased as KPPs. Also, the dogfight with the F-16 suggested that energy-maneuverability is strongly limited, while instantaneous maneuverability is strong.

Blk 4 will have more weapons, but that depends upon development money available for Blk 4.

Perhaps the best option is to keep the current payload variety, but push the aircraft date to 2025. Then make a much more limited Blk 3 with 3 - 5 load-outs, internal AAM, internal JDAM, internal Paveway II, external Paveway II with ASRAAM / AIM-9X.

ORIGINAL: DrRansom



I agree that the F-35 Blk 3 needs to have much / most of it's loadouts removed. AFAIK, the payload options right now are as limited as you suggest.

Also, I think the F-35 in-engine has much higher performance than the airplane. Based on stories from 2013, range and acceleration were decreased as KPPs. Also, the dogfight with the F-16 suggested that energy-maneuverability is strongly limited, while instantaneous maneuverability is strong.

Blk 4 will have more weapons, but that depends upon development money available for Blk 4.

Perhaps the best option is to keep the current payload variety, but push the aircraft date to 2025. Then make a much more limited Blk 3 with 3 - 5 load-outs, internal AAM, internal JDAM, internal Paveway II, external Paveway II with ASRAAM / AIM-9X.

IIRC, engine performance isn't expected to be addressed until Block 6 (?!)

I fully agree on your idea on payloads, if I were given a vote/voice, that would be what I would do.


As an aside, has anyone taken one of the in game versions of the F-35 up against an S-400 and sees how it does?