How about a nice little match?
F-22A vs J-20
Both are at 40.000 feet, 480 knots (Mach 0.84) and closing on each other with their AESA radars switched on.
F-22 has AN/APG-77 AESA, while J-20 has something that is just designated as "J-20 AESA".
For those who are interested, the J-20's AESA's actual name is said to be Type 1475/KLJ5, but nothing close is known about it, aside that it is a GaN design. But that's unimportant, since in the simulation, it is modeled with similiar capabilities and range like the AGP-77.
The J-20 is modeled with -26,8 dBsm, which is 0,0021 sqm head on RCS.
This actually compares quite bad with the F-22A's head on RCS, which is -32,8 dBsm, 0,00052 sqm. Truly, the F-22A is the gold standard in stealth in this game, but I dont know how accurate these numbers are, especially for the J-20, which appears to be quite too bad in my opinion.
Anyway, the J-20's numbers are still based on the optical estimations of the J-20 early prototypes, while the newer J-20 seems to have more RCS reduction features.
Anyway, let's the ultimate one-on-one begin!
After a few minutes flight in game (I have set it at 5 sec intervalls), the F-22A gained the first intel on the existence of the J-20 in the theatre.
At mind-bogging 244 nautical miles, no less!
Thanks for the F-22A's advanced ELINT system, the AN/ARL-94 with its gigantic 800 nm range!
This system is basically what a fully fledged ELINT craft would mount to spy on enemy signals. But carried on a fighter Jet like the F-22!
Even though the passive detection via ELINT is not precise enough for a lock, we know quite well where the J-20 is. That's what you get for switching on the radar!
The J-20, on the other hand, couldnt see nor passively detect the emissions of the F-22A's AGP-77, since it is only equipped with a RWR, which is designated as BM/KJ-8602C with merely 120nm detection range.
Looks like the J-20 in this simulation doesnt sport the advanced ELINT systems of the F-22A, which enables you to detect emissions from radars at ranges in excess of your own radar range.
I cant blame the game for not including that same system on the J-20, since, basically, the devs could only include in the database what they see on the aircraft in question. And ELINT systems arent that visible - especially on stealth fighters.
So, the J-20 basically flies blind now. Too bad for him!
Command Air/Naval Operations.
The successor of Harpoon, so to speak.
Not really a game, but more a simulation.
Forgive me. I just wanted to have a simple head-on confrontation.
Presumably, the two fighters know of each other's rough position due to being briefed back at base that the enemy will come from that direction (imaging satellite did a pass before and spotted J-20s/F-22s in that airbase yadda yadda...).
Ok, going on:
After several minutes of both fighers steering into each other, the F-22A's and the J-20's AESA still couldnt detect each other, despite being in fully range. Looks like the stealth on both fighter jets worked pretty well against X-band radars.
But suddenly, the AN/APG-77 cries out an alarm:
Unbelievable, but true; at roughtly 30 nautical miles, it has detected two Vampires inbount!
The F-22A, despite detecting the J-20 earlier, has lost the first launch?!
How did that happen?
>How did that happen?
Switching to the Chinese side in the editor, we see why this happens.
A cursory glance at the event-log shows us that the J-20 has detected the F-22A not with his radar, but actually with its IRST!
A look into the data-sheet unveils that the J-20 indeed is equipped with an advanced IRIST rated for 100nm range.
This has allowed the J-20 to get a solid lock on the F-22A at roughly 53nm, which it then uses to send two PL-12C active guided BVRAAMs into the direction of the the F-22A.
>45 EUR for d/o version, 50 EUR for box version of what is really reskined HC'97
you must be fucking kiddin' me...
The F-22A, which is warned about the incoming Vampires, immediately initiate evasive maneuvers, switches on its music box (advanced defensive ECM) in order to spoof and evade the two active guided missiles, which have switched on their onboard radars and got a solid lock on the F-22A at close range.
Despite its best effort at expending Chaff decoys and using its vector-thrust aided super-maneuverbility, spoofing the first PL-12C, the F-22A cannot withstand the second missile.
The F-22 gets shot down.
Despite being the first one to detect the J-20 with its ELINT system, it couldnt get a solid lock on the J-20. The AN/ARL-94, despite being quite precise with its passive detection estimation, is still not precise enough to enable the F-22 to gain the first shot, despite it being armed with the superior ranged AIM-120C-7 block3 AMRAAMs.
The J-20, on the other hand, despite not being armed with such advanced ELINT systems and long ranged missiles, could get the first solid lock on the F-22A due to passive IR detection.
Looking at the photos of the J-20, it truly has an EOTS-styled infra-red detection system under its nose like the F-35.
The F-22A, despite being superior armed and equipped with advanced electronics, doesnt have any IR-based passive detection devices.
This is the main reason why the F-22 lost the duel against the J-20.
Both couldnt detect each other with their radars, but the J-20 got the edge in the non-electromagnetic detection capability.
That's unexpected. Do one with the F-35 vs the J-20.
F-35 has EOTS and EODAS as well.
[spoiler]but possible no super-maneuverbility like the F-22[/spoiler]
I found a torrent of the game if you're interested, I'm downloading it right now to try. It shows no seeders on kickass but as you can see from the cap there are people seeding right now.
J-20 was even gimped by the devs.
Compared to the leaks on the RCS we know, the improved J-20 actually has about -30 dBsm at certain angles and X-band frequencies.
I guess lacking an IRIST truly hurts the F-22.
Wasnt this basically also the way the F-22 was defeated by the Rafale at Red Flag?
>Compared to the leaks on the RCS we know, the improved J-20 actually has about -30 dBsm at certain angles and X-band frequencies.
You mean made up numbers.
>Wasnt this basically also the way the F-22 was defeated by the Rafale at Red Flag?
The Rafale that got a F-22 kill in a Red Flag got to start above and behind the F-22 at dogfighting distance.
These numbers arent confirmed, but they correlate with Dr. Pelosi's optical RCS estimation software's results.
Notice that this was before the J-20 underwent the recent changes with the clipped fins and other RCS reduction measures.
I mean like 20 years of stealth research basically rendered moot by infrared radar. We basically built a plane to kick our own old plane's asses while these other groups went for a combo breaker.
It just annoys me, you spend all this money building and upgrading your turtle fire boats then you get zerg rushed by Aztec Eagle warriors.
>even with ultra gimped RCS (somehow worse than the T-50 in game), the J-20 was undetectable to the APG-77
This is why using a game is pointless, the PAK-FA prototypes have a higher RCS than the Hornet IRL and yet a plane with worse RCS in game was still undetectable.
And if that torrent doesn't work use this one, it definitely does
>Dr. Pelosi's optical RCS estimation software's results.
About the same.
It has the useful wing-mounted L-band radars that give some semi-useful location data on stealth fighters, but again, it is useless to get a lock on.
It has two pretty advanced IRSTs, though.
Worse RCS, but not that bad that it lights up on radar at 100 nm.
even with the -26 dbsm of the J-20/T-50, the range for detection via AGP-77 is still at around 18nm.
F-22A's night undetectable for the J-20 radar though. At about 12 nm, which is basically useless since this is within SRAAM range.
It did that as well some times ago.
The one with the longer ranged missile won.
Which was the US.
China's 2010 era PL-12C only has 50 nm range and late 90's seeker (again, artificially gimped). They stood no chance against the F-22.
But the F-22s also suffered some losses when the initial missiles didnt hit and the J-20 could close in.
AWACS are the great equalizer.
The previous link seems to work fine, getting 600kbps down with 20 seeders. Should be cool to play with, though I'm gonna end up in a bad mood if my flights of F22's keep getting shot down by commie junk.
seems like the PLAAF needs their PL-12D and PL-21 Sino-Meteors ASAP.
early PL-12 had R-77 seekers, but late variants, like the A, B and C variants employed today have modernized seekers and longer range. It is said that the A variant is about as equal to the AIM-120C4.
If you see the missile body, it looks nothing like the R-77, but closer to the AIM-120 series.
PL-12 armed Flanker of China's naval aviation intercepting a P-8 Poseidon.
PL-10, their high off-boresight SRAAM is pretty much a very unique design comparable to the IRIS-T and AIM-9X in capability. It also looks nothing like its peers.
Earlier PL-8 were licence produced Israeli Phyton-3, though.
>Game simulates American winning engagements
>Murica fuck your shits nuthin wrong with that
>Game simulates foreign countries winning
>Hurrrr biased commie game made up numbers its just a game
J-20 is has the looks like it is also made with high altitude cruise in mind. It's long fuselage makes it look like earlier high alt interceptors.
And it isnt like radar and missile range helped the F-22 (it already had superior range due to better missiles) - when he cannot get a lock on the enemy, he cant shoot.
Of course, the F-22 could try to fire on bearing, but with the still not insignificant margin of error due to its ELINT passive detection, this reduces the lethality of the BVRAAM.
After all, the BVRAAMs could be detected by the AESA radars of both planes when they are within some 50nm range. A bearing-only launch relying on its onboard radar wouldnt be as accurate as a radar lock launch, hence the enemy fighter could just evade and change course.
Can China be said to have "Naval aviation" when they can't seem to do simple launch and trap exercises without killing pilots and losing planes? Or when they have to get their carrier training from Brazilian pilots? Kek.
Funny thing is, this game is extremely biased against Chinese assets.
The Type 052D destroyer, for example, has no TASS, despite photos clearly show that it has.
Many similiar little errors make China actually quite weak.
This news is inaccurate as hell.
Chinese pilots never died while flying off and landing on the Liaoning.
And if they did, the US has over 10.000 non-combat death of naval pilots. Carrier business is very hazardous.
>the US has over 10.000 non-combat death of naval pilots
I'm going to need a fucking source and a half for that, junior.
The number only even approaches that if you include combat deaths in Vietnam and Korea. Nice try though.
From your own Chicom government report on the pilot deaths:
>“Two test pilots of the squadron sacrificed their lives during the tests,” read the Aug. 27 report that went on to list a series of citations for the test pilots who flew the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark in testing on China’s first modern aircraft carrier.
Sounds to me like they were indeed in the middle of testing when they died.
Janes, Defense News, USNI and SCMP all disagree.
The Chinese Defense response claims mistranslation and only allows for the death of 27 PLAAF test pilots in the entire 61 year history of the branch. I find this a little hard to swallow, Chicom anon.
>And if they did, the US has over 10.000 non-combat death of naval pilots. Carrier business is very hazardous.
Spread out over 94 years of carrier aviation. China is just getting into that business. Expect to lose many more planes and pilots. You said it yourself- carrier aviation is hazardous business.
There's no doubt at all that 2 Chinese pilots died. Your own post confirmed it.
What he's omitting is that those deaths date back to the beginning of US naval aviation- just about 95 years. China is looking at a similar butchers bill as they develop their naval aviation program.
Don't be surprised if they lose a ship along the way, also. Effective damage control isn't something you can just steal. It also doesn't help that the platform that China is depending on to build their program is a Russian design. Odds are it'll burn to the waterline within 5 years.
>the US has over 10.000 non-combat death of naval pilots
>The number of U.S. sailors and Marines that have died in and around aircraft carriers is shocking — 8,500 from 1948 to 1988 (when it was just as safe to fly off a U.S. carrier as a U.S. Air Force tarmac).
More than 12,000 aircraft were lost (both figures were dug up from the Navy Safety Center in an essay on the Navy’s transition to jet aviation included in the U.S. Naval Institute’s One Hundred Years of U.S. Navy Air Power.
>The Chinese Defense response claims mistranslation and only allows for the death of 27 PLAAF test pilots in the entire 61 year history of the branch. I find this a little hard to swallow, Chicom anon.
Chinese aviation didnt really test so many new, self-developed aircrafts.
Most of China's aircraft are Russian imports and licence copies in all these 61 years, and only a few required Test Pilots flying aircraft that arent mature and already tested.
China's test pilots only really have flown a few types of self-developed aircraft, such as the Q-5 (some crashes), JH-7 (more crashes), J-10 (no crashes during testing), J-11 (no crashes during testing), J-15 (at least two crashes during testing).
This number is quite believable, actually.
>made up numbers
the made up numbers made the a lot J-20 worse than it realistically is.
J-20 fought with a handycap and still won against the Gold Standard of stealth fighters in the end.
You cant defend this.
It's not the first time the Chinese hardware are surprisingly effective:
Here; a match between two LCS and a few Philippine patrol boats against a single Type 056 Jiangdao-class Corvette and a Chinese patrol boat:
>How I Lost the Battle of the South China Sea
>We gamed out a clash between the U.S. Navy’s latest ships and the Chinese Navy. Guess who won.
In the end, this just shows that the US has some capability gaps. This is what you get for fighting counter insurgency for the last 15 years. It truly errodes your conventional fighting capabilities and leaves you with weapon systems that are unsuited for conventional war.
It abstracts air-combat. For example, evasive maneuvers are RNG based on the maneuverbility of your aircraft (55% for 5th gen fighters), the defensive systems (chaff, flare, ECM - 15-20%) and the skill of the pilot (100% on the maneuverbility of the plane if you have a experienced pilot, 30% when you have a regularily trained pilot).
This system is actually not bad, as missile velocity and energy, as well as seeker capability is also counted into the Hit/Miss Die rolls.
So, you can actually try real air-combat BVR tactics, like Split-S, immelmann, etc to bleed off the enemy missile's energy and maximize your own.
still a kill by a inferior aircraft.
If nothing else, the F-22A with its superduper ultra-agility and Freedom-magic could evaporate every single Frog aircraft in 100nm radio.
But it didnt. It was killed.
Not once, but several times.
I imagine there's tactics to get around this though, for example upon detecting the emissions from the J-20 I imarine that it would be possible to try and flank it, get above and to it's side; the J-20 EOTS is on the underside of the nose, making it difficult to detect the raptor without knowing it's flanking you, while Additionally giving a larger radar target to the F-22.
Also I wasn't aware that a passive infrared source could be used to generate an accurate firing solution for a lofted BVRAAM Active Radar Homing Missile: I thought that shit only worked for passive AAM like the R-27 infrared variant.
>F-22 publicly released specs vs dick waving J-20 specs
What a great thread
J-20 has imaginary shit specs.
It doesnt even feature any long range ELINT systems and its stealth is the worst in that game.
The only thing is CONFIRMED to have over the F-22A is the EOTS/IRST.
Since you can actually see it on the real J-20, while the F-22A is also CONFIRMED to have no such system.
Read it again. The J-20 launches at over 50nm and the F-22 detects the missiles at 30 - which is when their seekers go active and the Raptors RWR presumably lights up like a christmas tree.
>non-electromagnetic detection capability
Yes. Another good solution would be to launch on bearing. The ELINT already gives a good picture of the J-20's position, and the closer he gets, the better the picture also gets.
At roughly 60nm, the ELINT system already could make out the J-20's AESA radar source with a relatively small area of uncertainty, so two or so AMRAAMs launched to the rough position and programmed to switch on their on board radars at close range could actually hit the J-20, or at least force it to evade and change its angle, were its less stealthy sides or rear are exposed.
In the end, everything's a question of tactics.
A Chinese strike fighter completely overwhelms the American air superiority fighter who was heading into the mainland to drop bombs. In a few days time, rest assured that this fact will be in national chinese newspapers as to herald the true intentions of deceptive America against righteous China.
12.000 aircrafts lost, though.
8000 death since 1948, so all the non-combat accident death during WWII arent counted in.
Carrier business is dangerous.
China's actually quite professional and benefits from modern technologies, such as automatic landing systems. But it is still dangerous, especially in bad weather and at night.
So, even when two of their pilots died while attempt to land on their AC, it is still pretty good.
But the reality is actually that they didnt die in or around the AC, but died during the early test flights of the J-15, when the Chinese copied the T-10K prototype they received from the Ukraine back in the 90s.
continuing on the point,
How the hell does a passive sensor generate usable range information? You'd need multiple sources from different directions to give an accurate location so you could work out a range (trilateration). Even most passive IR missiles have their seeker heads initially trained onto a target by radar (where the seeker then picks up the IR emissions). Lock on after launch capability through the use of HMD kind of relies on the same technology used in M-230 chain gun, the pilot looks at a target, say 180 degrees off boresight, the missile flies off the rail and immediately changes direction into the rough direction of the target, where the passive seeker locks on to it's target. These missiles do not follow ballistic profiles, like lofted BVRAAMs. The R-27T and ET seem to be the exception to the rule, but they have less range than conventional SARH variants.
Additionally, how would weather affect the EOTs, could a thunderstorm in between the F-22 and J-20 allowed the F-22 to close within lock on range?
Pic not related
I guess parallax should be enough to give you some rough fix.
Planes move trough the sky with non insignificant speeds. Of course the enemy plane moves too. But the probable region it occupies isn't arbitrarily large. Throw in contact size and intensity changes too and you've got something to work with.
8000 deaths from 1948-1988 != 10,000 naval aviator deaths
And I'm very curious what that number would be from 1988 to today
It's also extremely weird to compare "naval pilot" deaths between one country that has a very active and large naval aviation history to one that's hardly given it attention and applaud it for "benefiting from modern technologies"
USA had aircraft carriers not just since 1948.
During Wartime, accidents also happened, and a few accidents also happened after 1988.
^this is from 2010, where the USN also benefitted from modern technologies and had more than 80 years of carrier experience under their belt.
Making fun of China's carrier mishaps is bad taste. Carrier operation is one of the most dangerous businesses ever, and you are well off if you just get away with two dead naval aviators in 3-4 years of testing and operation.
Very true. It would be rough, but it would be enough. I suppose it would be just as accurate as using the AN/ALR-94 readings to fling a couple of AMRAAMs.
In the videos, it looks like the systems still have extreme trouble holding a lock.
Note how the raptor passes directly underneath the Rafale, while still in autolock and it doesn't catch it.
It can also be seen here.
>USA had aircraft carriers not just since 1948.
>During Wartime, accidents also happened, and a few accidents also happened after 1988.
I'm aware of these, but the number spoke to deaths on or near carriers from these dates, and I'm not aware of any numbers that exist for deaths in the past 20-30 years, because things have gotten much safer, especially with the invention of the "meatball" system.
Of course accidents have happened since and will continue to happen, human error will constantly play a big role.
webm of this
This reminds me of that 2008 Rand study:
It was still pre-J-20 and only had Chinese Flanker variants pitted against F-22s, and it was assumed that the F-22s would achieve perfect kill percentages, with each missile carried downing a J-11 -- and yet the US airborne tankers still got shot down. A limited number of tankers combined with the greater distances U.S. forces would have to fly meant that the number of F-22s that could be over Taiwan at any given moment was very limited -- and this in turn limited the protection that the tankers would receive.
Chinese stealth fighters weren't evaluated in that study. Instead, scores of J-11 fighters had to be sacrificied. If given an alternative -- using the J-20 -- I definitely think it would be something worth considering.
Here's an article about it:
An interesting fact from that article -- Kadena is the only U.S. airbase within 500 nm of the Taiwan Strait, while at the time of the article, China had 27 bases within range...
Thanks. I think at the ranges where locks were achieved, that missile launch probably wouldn't be viable, the missile might not have armed, or the Raptor could be too far off boresight for it the missile to correct (obviously with missiles like AIM-9X and R-74, this probably isn't so much a factor) It probably wouldn't have mattered in this case either as the F-22 was basically boresighted when it was finally locked on to.
That study seems very odd
I can't find a mirror to the full thing and the link in the post you linked is dead, but it seems to operate under the assumption that USN will be rendered useless, it doesn't appear to take into account any military other than the US (Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or any other SEA countires aligned with the US, plus NATO support) or the possibility of the US launching the same kind of attacks that would render their navy or air bases useless. In the event that this does happen, even if the carrier stationed in Japan was immediately destroyed or disabled, there are a few other carriers in the pacific that would come running over to support, along with their entire battle groups.
Victory conditions also appear to be over whether or not China can secure Taiwan, which is silly because that would hardly end any war.
All in all, it's basically a "1v1" scenario between China and the USAF, where the USAF has to defend a region that's right next to China but hundreds of miles away from even the closest base, giving immense odds in numbers and strike capability to China. A very favored scenario from the start with conditions that make it even greater.
This is probably why they still see fit to add a gun; one day there could be two 5th gen fighters that will have to close to close for missiles to actually get a lock. If OECM discipline is properly employed, I could see the dogfight returning albeit in a limited fashion.
So uh... I'm having troubles.
I set red and blue to be hostile to each other, made paths that should make the units engage, nothing happens.
What did I do wrong?
made the backfires turn back, but they didn't engage, they just got shot down. Uuuuh.
So pretty much anything I throw at it just casually flies into the Arleigh Burke path and gets shot down, ignoring any attack possibility. Even a Tu-160 loaded with cruise missiles. Wat.
Gotta edit their ROE rules and dissable EMCON.
As long as both are EMCON, they wont switch on their radars to engage the enemy.
One bad thing about command is that there is basically no AI. Everything must be made manually by the editor.
>Author is a Japanese american with past records of writing lots of anti-chinese stuff
>loses against chinese ships in a simulation and gets buttblasted just like /k/
>now is a pro china guy, according to an idiot on /k/.
you are murrica.
No matter how many commies you killed in the past - if you just say one good thing about commies, even if it just admitting that they do have some cool stuff, will automatically turn you into a dirty pinky commie chink etc.
This is American education at work.
It's like Islamic fundamentalism, only in blue.
I've been playing with this game some, and something seems screwed up with the F-22. Tried 4 on 4 vs. J-20's and the F-22's lost. Tried 1 F-22 vs. 2 F-35's and the F-22's lost. Tried 1 F-22 vs. F14, F15, and F18 and still lost. WTF?
On a similar note, 1 DDG vs. 3 LCS's was a freaking bloodbath for the Freedom class.
I did F-35 vs J-20 and the F-35 won.
EOTS + long range AMRAAM decided the battle. Both could target each other, though - just the F-35 has the range advantage due to better missiles.
>On a similar note, 1 DDG vs. 3 LCS's was a freaking bloodbath for the Freedom class.
Basically, LCS are inferior in basically everything aside of maybe anti-missile defenses and speed compared to even an obsolete DDG.
- even though it is quite accurate, the 57mm gun lacks range and HE power compared to 76mm or 100/130mm guns
- it has no long range anti-ship missiles
- it has paper "armor"/low damage tolerance
LCS really is just suited for anti-piracy patrols. In a gun-fight with any dedicated gun-boat or even an OTH fight, it will be defeated badly.
To be fair, in that pre-made scenario where two LCS fought against the PLAN in the South China Sea, they had to fight against both an Type 056 Corvette AND a Jianghu-class gunship. Latter is basically armed to the teeth with 100mm guns and 37mm autocannons, as well as a not insignificant AShM package. So, the LCS would lose on default.
The true damage dealers in that scenario were the Hornets and Poseidons equipped with anti ship missiles anyway.
Geeze, no wonder they stopped buying more F-22's. Once stealth got stolen it basically gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Haven't been doing anything complicated, just set up a rally point in the middle of the Med for sides A and B to patrol and fight over. Solo F-35 seems to lose most of the time in that scenario vs. J-20 for me.
I cant understand how you can loose, as you have AIM-120Ds with 75 nmi range and EOTS with 100nmi range vs the J-20, with its mere 50 nmi ranged PL-12Cs.
Sure, the F-35's radar has only 100nmi range vs the J-20's 120nmi (smaller aperture size, I guess), radar is useless in a stealth vs stealth engagement anyway.
You can sit down and start plopping down units and have them zerg into each other after about 10-20 minutes.
However, to do things right takes awhile. See, OP could have had the F-22 fire on the target way before the J-20 did, however he either had it set on fire on id, or set the AI to low, or simply didnt want to manually do it.
There is a lot of depth to the game, but topically its accessible.
>This is what you get for fighting counter insurgency for the last 15 years. It truly errodes your conventional fighting capabilities
I'd say feature creep, pork barrel spending, and the arcane nature of defence procurement is a far bigger contributor to the LCS's suite of "capabilities" than any long term asymmetric warfare.
I knew the devs at 360 Intracorp (Harpoon)
Since its a update the guts of the engine might be the same.
They did tour ships and got some more info. I know it was the military sim of choice in mid 90s in San Diego. So active duty mil types were good with it.
I was on the F-14, 15, 18 side there, so those were their missiles. Went back and checked, F-22 doesn't even have C's for the loadout.
Pretty neat game, now that I have missions set up I can just dump planes and ships in there and let them fight it out.
What a shit way to describe compare ships. It would had been better to put up a table showing their respective capabilities. It would had been much more concise and clear then a wall of text.
Not him but are there any mods/ community packs out there that simulates even earlier stuff?
I'm talking about Russo-Japanese war or Battle of Jutland here. Back when naval combat was dominated by battleships and torpedo boats instead of action heroes and their super high tech jet fighters.
But it cant leave, because the F-22 can supercruise at damn near mach 2 and the J-20 cannot. Better hope backup is around the corner Cpt. Wang, cause you getting run down otherwise.
If I do mod one in, do I have to make models, because I am shit at that. From what I see, it looks like just icons represent the unit types, so it MIGHT, emphasis on MIGHT, be as simple as editing a file and adding in Montanas.
That's What I thought, but I have the world's suckiest internet, so it will be at least 5 hours until I can try to figure this out, until then I am Stalkan innazone with AO 2.4.1
>IRST lock kills the Raptor
Somehow, I'm not surprised. You try making an air superiority fighter that doesn't still light up like Rudolph's nose to infrared tracking.
...is there any method to just flat out blind an IRST system, incidentally?
>chinks finally roll the J-20 out for some mock air battle stuff
>gets absolutely shrekt by some durka turkish pilots in old fucking F4s
>half of chinese produced aircraft are relegated to the service hanger during the first day as their soviet craft keep flying
Search your feelings, you know this to be true.
100 nautical miles strikes me as "extremely optimistic". IRST's affected by weather and temperature to a far greater degree than radar; often the listed range is under really ideal conditions.
The other thing is IRST systems are considerably more "tunnel-visioned" than radar sets; it's very hard to search the sky for a target with them unless you know the direction to look because of the narrow field-of-view. Since the field of vision is pretty narrow too, thermal noise can be a big factor also.
This is why you see them in use with Russia especially - their traditional doctrine emphasizes GCI to vector fighters in the general direction of the enemy, and then they can engage with IRST. The narrow field of view is less of a disadvantage if you know where to look.
We also don't know a whole lot about the F-22's IR signature reducing capabilities, which are pretty classified. I think this is one area where the simulation falls somewhat flat.
We can assume that the IR reducing measures are significant, given the Rafale video as well as testimony from pretty much everyone who has fought the thing talking about how it was hard to get a lock. IMO, that has to be talking about IR missiles as well as radar.
>LCS really is just suited for anti-piracy patrols. In a gun-fight with any dedicated gun-boat or even an OTH fight, it will be defeated badly.
In other words, the type of mission it was designed for. Now, there's a shocker. LCS are for low intensity conflicts, which we've talked to death in numerous threads.
LCS has no more business in a naval engagement than does a WPB. Having a computer game modelling something like that is the gaming version of those threads where somebody posts "1 Abrams vs 20 million Egyptian chariots- who wins?"
With Oliver Hazard Perry frigates soon going out of service then what will take it's place?
Even though the LCS is not a direct replacement that's exactly what it seems to be sold as in the media.
LCS' are more heavily armed than current OHPs. I don't understand why you spastics have such a hard time with the LCS not having SPY radars and MK-41 VLS cells when you had no problem with the OHPs being basically unarmed which was perfectly fine for its role, or the Guardian class minesweepers which had nothing bigger than a .50 caliber. The internet has turned everyone into a journalist these days. Learn to do your own research and come up with your own ideas instead of reading what some hipster writes on his defense blog while sipping lattes in starbucks.