DCS F-35A

The F-16 suffered a bunch of 'disasters' well into its useful life as well, there was at least one well publicized scandal. It's not modeled in any flight sim (mind you, GE fixed the problem).

 

After Janet Harduvel sued their butts for anything and everything. lol.

Tomcats had and still had issues when they were retired.

Don't get me wrong I do hope the F-35 and it's variants ends up being a big success and financially viable given how deep the US and other contractors got their heads in that huge and challenging project and simply just cannot afford to start from scratch now.

But I doubt the troubles the F-35 faces in terms of development and more importantly the astronomic cost issues can really be compared to troubled R&Developments in the past. It is unprecedented and basically is an exercise 'on how not to run a major acquisition effort' as one just has to look at the numbers and numerous officials statements to realize the whole project walk on thin ice indeed. Although, maybe that's a bit out of subject here and there's obviously enough matter for that debate to have a thread of its own. :)

I was merely raising a point about the F-35 not being viable IRL so far and the near future (hopefully that'll change) which haven't taken part in any war theater. I'm not judging it, that's just known facts that influences my love and/or reticence for an aircraft or another, in this case the F-35; which on paper looks awfully cool and sexy and that translate in-game to fun bars. That's all we're after in the end. I will still backup that project regardless like I've previously stated (if the plan is to reach the level of detail of other modules). :)

Vivoune thank you but I think we have discussed the availability of intelligence issue to death and I for one trust in in Kinney's ability to make a DCS-level product without the guesswork. That will most likely not be the issue.* On your first point, if you want to criticize the F-35 for acting like every other high-performance fighter aircraft in terms of maintenance and in its design phase, then well that is your right. If people complain about getting murdered by the F-35, well they can either develop tactics (human wave lol) or exclude it from the server.

I think the problem with getting shot down or not being able to shootdown a DCS F35 will be based on the fact they are competing against an aircraft with potentially unrealistic values for radar strength, ecm burn through, side aspect rcs, etc. Plus with it being cutting edge tech unknown quantities come into play such as AESA signal observability which rather than being an invisible source is actually known as a low probability of intercept which will require even more guessing on whether a rwr sees an emitting AESA or not. How all this is interpreted will always be up for debate and primarily because unlike certain aspects of the A-10c this directly affects the pvp environment.

I see P-51 servers with no Fulcrums, Flankers or Eagles.

While of course it might not be terribly fun to have a server of just F-35's, they can also be carefully incorporated into certain missions.

I'll also point out that as devastating as an F-35 should be, you might find a super-hornet just as scary against the current flock of FC birds ... but as you said, all subject to interpretation.

I personally wasn't a big fan of the Ka-50's stealthing.

I think the problem with getting shot down or not being able to shootdown a DCS F35 will be based on the fact they are competing against an aircraft with potentially unrealistic values for radar strength, ecm burn through, side aspect rcs, etc. Plus with it being cutting edge tech unknown quantities come into play such as AESA signal observability which rather than being an invisible source is actually known as a low probability of intercept which will require even more guessing on whether a rwr sees an emitting AESA or not. How all this is interpreted will always be up for debate and primarily because unlike certain aspects of the A-10c this directly affects the pvp environment.

But I doubt the troubles the F-35 faces in terms of development and more importantly the astronomic cost issues can really be compared to troubled R&Developments in the past.

They are directly comparable if you account the change in the value of money, and last time I checked the F-35 was in the correct price ballbark with old mainstays like the F-15.

It is unprecedented and basically is an exercise 'on how not to run a major acquisition effort' as one just has to look at the numbers and numerous officials statements to realize the whole project walk on thin ice indeed. Although, maybe that's a bit out of subject here and there's obviously enough matter for that debate to have a thread of its own. :)

Apparently people aren't looking at enough numbers. That isn't to say that scandals have not or will not happen.

I was merely raising a point about the F-35 not being viable IRL so far and the near future (hopefully that'll change) which haven't taken part in any war theater. I'm not judging it, that's just known facts that influences my love and/or reticence for an aircraft or another, in this case the F-35; which on paper looks awfully cool and sexy and that translate in-game to fun bars. That's all we're after in the end. I will still backup that project regardless like I've previously stated (if the plan is to reach the level of detail of other modules). :)

Was the Raptor viable from day one? Was the F-15? How about the F-16 or the F-18? F-14? The F-35 is going through pretty much the same shake-down those other fighters did. It has its problems, just like everything else that employs new technologies, and the F-35 really is on the cutting edge.

Was the Raptor viable from day one? Was the F-15? How about the F-16 or the F-18? F-14? The F-35 is going through pretty much the same shake-down those other fighters did. It has its problems, just like everything else that employs new technologies, and the F-35 really is on the cutting edge.

Yes I agree with you, and it being a plane going through shakedowns, still in development and that hasn't even went through half of its test runs means for me it's not the first aircraft I was looking forward to pilot in a highly detailed simulator like DCS, I don't think that's too hard to digest. I didn't say anything about the F-35 supposed to be running perfectly and ready from day one and the whole project being a shame if it didn't IRL.

Now about F-35's cost, well direct comparisons are always very hard to do, even for experts (despite inflation it's just wild guess at future costs in terms of fuel,man wages, resources, materials prices, aircraft sales etc which means so much in an aircraft final price), but one can gather a whole lot of information about that subject in the medias and if there's one thing that no expert debates is the fact that the F-35 is a huge mess financially, constantly threatened by various US authorities that have a say in the US budget be them officials or consultants, the project was at first estimates "the costliest weapons system in U.S. history and the single most expensive item in the 2013 Pentagon budget" and still these estimates doubled and we're just halfway there from what I understand & on its way to being tripled, maintenance and cost per hour in the air is still too high to be viable which forces countries to reconsider their plan to buy F-35s like Canada for one (which obviously would raise the plane's cost even more) when other countries that must acquire the F-35 because they took part of the r&d cost faces raising controversies like Italy for exemple. Tbh, The only financially good thing you can hear about the F-35 is the die-hard backers of the project that says it's getting better and better every time they're given a chance to communicate (which I hope is true). I'm not even mentioning

About the game balance yea I agree that servers can & would have to manage it, that sure would be a great solution. Like you I think a server full of F-35 only wouldn't be too fun, though from what I gathered kinneyinteractive is planning on creating and supporting F-35 oriented servers with custom scenarios and drills, that could offer some good times indeed!

Disturbing testimonies from people who have been out of the game for a while and pilot testimonies from 2006.

The cost of operating the JSF is less. It is less because you can do more with fewer planes - that means fewer support aircraft for ECM, fuel, ELINT, etc. It's a pretty big deal.

Disturbing testimonies from people who have been out of the game for a while and pilot testimonies from 2006.

 

The cost of operating the JSF is less. It is less because you can do more with fewer planes - that means fewer support aircraft for ECM, fuel, ELINT, etc. It's a pretty big deal.

Indeed multi-role aircraft when done right is absolutely awesome in so many ways, budget efficiency is one of them if not THE perk of it. But from what I understand the multi-role base design of the F-35 is its

Getting Curiosity on Mars cost 2.5 billions, so far the F-35 cost is on its way to 600, all the things we could do if Earth would unite.

not to mention the Unified parts list for all 3 versions.

I guess this is where we wait for the F-35D. Give the module about a decade or so.

It's multi-role in the same way an F-22 is multi-role. The JSF does have a primary mission: It is a strike fighter, and all other roles are secondary to that. And it will be a very good strike fighter, too - it can go places where an F-16 or F-15 can't strike, deliver the same payload, and come back in one piece.

Indeed multi-role aircraft when done right is absolutely awesome in so many ways, budget efficiency is one of them if not THE perk of it. But from what I understand the multi-role base design of the F-35 is its

, "too heavy to be a good fighter yet too fast, thin-skinned and lightly armed to be be a viable air to ground support". Some specialists are saying that, hopefully, the F-35 just won't be matched against a capable Air Force in its life time. But oh well who knows what the 5th gen warfare, if any, will be like. Personally I think it can be an extraordinary aircraft but that will take a whole lot of more years, billions and upgrades for that to happen, I just hope it does in time.

 

Getting Curiosity on Mars cost 2.5 billions, so far the F-35 cost is on its way to 600, all the things we could do if Earth would unite.

"too heavy to be a good fighter yet too fast, thin-skinned and lightly armed to be be a viable air to ground support".

It's also too stealthy and too clean when loaded to suffer from the limitations of current aircraft.

We don't send dozens of bombers with 20 bombs each after a factory anymore. We send one or two with a pair of bombs. CAS and air combat have evolved as well. If you only look at how a plane will imitate older planes, you're not going to see the whole picture.

For CAS I don't think she's a good replacement for the A-10. For strike she'll be great. Also her lotter time will suck compared to the A-10.

I'm with Beach on that post as well. The difference between now and then, however, is that average joes now have SO MUCH MORE access to immediate information that they develop a sense of entitlement. It's as if they feel deserving of an impeccable product because of their perception of familiarity with the real aircraft. They have done the research, they know every switch and every gizmo. All they seek as a reward is a perfect product.

Yeah. "All they seek is a perfect product."

Back in the 90s, doing research on these aircraft was a LOT of work and information wasn't as forthcoming. Now, expectations are much higher because a person could literally sit in the basement all day and night and read aircraft performance spec sheets between jack sessions. Sure, they've read about it- just like the guy who reads about hockey 80 hours a week and knows stats back to the 60s... until you get him on the ice to do the real thing.

I've found myself wincing as I read through some of these forums now- at the CONSTANT nitpicking. I remind myself- okay... well it's not important to me but it doesn't mean it's not important to someone else.

But I think in acknowledging that we're not all going to worry about the same things, that some people need to check their egos at the door long enough that others can enjoy the general development of the simulation concept.

On one side we get "too much information that has too little detail" and on the other we get "not enough accurate information." Frick- can't people agree on anything? Are we ALL so self important?

I'm not sure I've ever seen a group of high fidelity simulation enthusiasts who set themselves so high above everyone else who act with such a spoiled sense of entitlement.

Bring on the F35.

Bring on the civ aircraft.

Bring on that massive WW2 tank...

(But first, fix multiplayer! heheeh)

/rant

/soapbox

 

I'm not sure I've ever seen a group of high fidelity simulation enthusiasts who set themselves so high above everyone else who act with such a spoiled sense of entitlement.

 

Do you want a simulator, or do you want a game?

Do you want a simulator, or do you want a game?

I'm sorry, but how about you expand on what difference that makes exactly? With your clarification I'm hoping that my point will have been demonstrated.

It's all games anyway, because you do it for entertaining reason, and you don't die when the virtual aircraft blows up.

@Eno...

It was a straightforward proposition

When they talk about using it as a replacement for the A-10 I cant imagine it will be used like the A-10, that the way missions might be tackled by A-10s might be tackled differently by the F-35 right? Too expensive to come back with bullet holes after every mission :)

 

As for lotter time, do you mean based on fuel it can carry or something else?

Fuel flow vs fuel capacity would suck compared to the A-10, I guess. Just like loiter time for F-16s, F-15s and all the bunch does (A-10s, after all, were built specifically for the mission).

And tackling the missions differently is great, I guess you mean more "come at 30 000 ft and drop a JDAM on target instead of going low with guns" (by the way, nowadays A-10Cs are very capable of doing the former), but what you have to keep in mind is that Close air support typically needs long loiter time because you never know when and for how long the ground troops will need you.

I think that might be what Paulrkii had in mind.

Fuel flow vs fuel capacity would suck compared to the A-10, I guess. Just like loiter time for F-16s, F-15s and all the bunch does (A-10s, after all, were built specifically for the mission).

 

And tackling the missions differently is great, I guess you mean more "come at 30 000 ft and drop a JDAM on target instead of going low with guns" (by the way, nowadays A-10Cs are very capable of doing the former), but what you have to keep in mind is that Close air support typically needs long loiter time because you never know when and for how long the ground troops will need you.

 

I think that might be what Paulrkii had in mind.

Both F-35 and A-10 use TurboFan engines, so a slow F-35 at 3-400miles/h will have a great much more loiter time, than a plane With Jet engines.

Without afterburner, it would be very difficult for it to go above 40,000feet.

Both F-35 and A-10 use TurboFan engines, so a slow F-35 at 3-400miles/h will have a great much more loiter time, than a plane With Jet engines.

Without afterburner, it would be very difficult for it to go above 40,000feet.

Most modern fighters use turbofan engines, some have higher bypass than others (more bypass normally means less thrust at supersonic speeds)

Both F-35 and A-10 use TurboFan engines, so a slow F-35 at 3-400miles/h will have a great much more loiter time, than a plane With Jet engines.

Without afterburner, it would be very difficult for it to go above 40,000feet.

No.

ALL modern western fighters have Turbofan engines, and have done for years. The difference is that the A-10C has high bypass turbofans whereas the fast jets have low bypass turbofans.

The F-35 will burn fuel just as quickly as the teen series fighters.

Now you can get a reasonable loiter time out of the "fast" jets, but you need to be up high and quite slow to do it. And even then you're talking 30-45 mins at most, and that's if you reach your station either shortly after in-flight refuelling or have a short ingress.

Do you play A-10C? That's a game.

Do you want a simulator, or do you want a game?

Just listened to congress talk about JFC......combat capability will be added in block 2b update. So that means it doesn't have any right now.....;)