After have been played the Jane's USAF, I have not been impressed by any other game. Only "Lock on" came close.

As I have read, there seems to be a lot of things that H.A.W.X. Seem to have copied from Jane's which I think is wise.

Now the question is how is the game play going to be?

Even in Jane's the realistic mode wasn't realistic enough. Some aircrafts didn't use flare/chaff and some which did , coninued to navigate without trying to loose the missile.

So lets all point out what we don't want this game to have so that the development team knows what we don't want.

Things I don't want:
1. I don't want that if I fire a missile at any aircraft, it continues its flight path and keeps deploying counter measures. It should try to dodge the missile.
This should be level dependent.

2. I don't want the enemy to wait and fire missile. If it's in range, it should fire.

3. IFF: The friend or foe identifier should not work like a genius everytime, like it doesn't in real scenarios.

4. If I am in F22, then I should not be 100% invisible to the enemy Radar and missiles.


So guys and gals, what do you think all should be not there, post here.

Number 4. If you expect it to be a sim that's not gonna happen.

@Number 1. Do you mean when you are locked in a missile you do the flairs and do the maneuvers on your own? Unlike Heatseeker where you press a button then you fly so good?

I totally agree, especially with #4. It should take skill to use that aircraft. The F-22 still has a radar cross section, and even if the RCS is the size of a Swallow, advanced computer programs can still pick out the difference. And since this is a fictional Tom Clancy storyline, I wouldn't be suprised if they threw in the next newest technology that defeats stealth. It's called LADAR, and in the future will nullify stealth.

I think it would be a good idea to incorporate this into the game in Sam sites and AWACS, as a sort of weapon against stealth.

LADAR, its real.

LADAR, a cool civilian use that could see a future in video games.

I think if it's gonna be a sim, then yeah they could put the LADAR. So it wouldn't be 10/90 for Su-37/F22.

LADAR or not, but F22/F35 shouldn't be totally invisible, that would take out the fun. Some invisibility would be cool, it will make the game tough.

@DGTP430 in Jane's USAF, u can dodge missiles. I want the enemy to be a bit smarter that's all.

for verification, the F-35's stealth comes from very few actual design geometries like the F-22A, but from the radar absorbant paint that it is coated with. Therefore, the radar cross section of the F-35 is like a tomahawk whereas the F-22A is like a hummingbird. Now, on to what I want.

I want the stealth planes to be realistically stealthy. This means, an apg/an-88 radar system should not pick up an f-22A at all, period.

2. i want the Missiles to be realistic in terms of range and maneuverability. OGF did not accuratly depict the M-LRM's effectiveness, and that being the case, the only use for them is the use of the radar.

3. I want the use of all of my plane's systems on demand. This means trim, radar elevation/azimuth, datalink pods(external designation of targets for other aircraft and the use of other aircraft's missiles using the pod), AWACS RADAR extension,radar range, lights, APU, JFS, individual engine control, throttle autopilot, 6 stage autopilot, ECM, Infrared jamming(SU-25T, F-35, F-22A, F-117A/C, B-2A,MiG-35, SU-47), Fuel source, ECT.

3. accurate engine power, and AOA/handleing, Aerodynamics.

4. accurate missile systems modeling(LOAL, LOBL, forward/rear launch, thermal detection, SAR-AR guidance,speed.

thats about it. and model the stuff correctly please... Of course I don't expect classified materials to be modeled 100% accurate, but at least give it an effort...

That's really really a sim.

The Stealth, missiles. You know it all.

But wait, let's still keep a bit of fun yes?

quote:

Originally posted by netflame5:
for verification, the F-35's stealth comes from very few actual design geometries like the F-22A, but from the radar absorbant paint that it is coated with. Therefore, the radar cross section of the F-35 is like a tomahawk whereas the F-22A is like a hummingbird. Now, on to what I want.

I want the stealth planes to be realistically stealthy. This means, an apg/an-88 radar system should not pick up an f-22A at all, period.

Yes, but a hummingbird travelling at 500 Knots might tend to stick out if the radar was a little advanced.

stealth aircraft are just more difficult to be traced, however they can still be traced like any other aircraft, specially if sighted, there's enough ECCM tech to counter any 'invisibility' attempt. Stealth aircraft have to be careful where to go and what to do, flying around in full speed firing missiles and whatever else would make it blink in any radar like a christmas tree.

I agree with some of the realism points, and I would rather it to be a sim than arcade, but I aknowledge the fact that they should try to level the planes, some are faster than others, some are more agile than others, some are more fragile than others, but they all have their virtues, and I would like them to exploit it to level the aircraft.

Otherwise EF2000 would kick your asses.

quote:

Originally posted by CrazySunDog:
I totally agree, especially with #4. It should take skill to use that aircraft. The F-22 still has a radar cross section, and even if the RCS is the size of a Swallow, advanced computer programs can still pick out the difference. And since this is a fictional Tom Clancy storyline, I wouldn't be suprised if they threw in the next newest technology that defeats stealth. It's called LADAR, and in the future will nullify stealth.

I think it would be a good idea to incorporate this into the game in Sam sites and AWACS, as a sort of weapon against stealth.

LADAR, its real.

LADAR, a cool civilian use that could see a future in video games.

There is only one thing that must be kept in mind when it comes to military technology.

Action. Counteraction. It's been around since there has been war.

Yes, the F-22 has an RCS. But considering its significantly smaller then the F-117, and an enemy plane will have an Slammer up it's tail pipe long before it can see it, it's a non factor.

And when it comes LADAR, anybody else notice that Lockheed Martin had won the contract to work on it?

Yes, that is the same Lockheed Martin that developed the F-22. I believe the Raptor has Anti-Ladar capabilities.

It'll be 20 years before the rest of world can catch up to the F-22.

quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:

quote:

Originally posted by CrazySunDog:
I totally agree, especially with #4. It should take skill to use that aircraft. The F-22 still has a radar cross section, and even if the RCS is the size of a Swallow, advanced computer programs can still pick out the difference. And since this is a fictional Tom Clancy storyline, I wouldn't be suprised if they threw in the next newest technology that defeats stealth. It's called LADAR, and in the future will nullify stealth.

I think it would be a good idea to incorporate this into the game in Sam sites and AWACS, as a sort of weapon against stealth.

LADAR, its real.

LADAR, a cool civilian use that could see a future in video games.

There is only one thing that must be kept in mind when it comes to military technology.

Action. Counteraction. It's been around since there has been war.

Yes, the F-22 has an RCS. But considering its significantly smaller then the F-117, and an enemy plane will have an Slammer up it's tail pipe long before it can see it, it's a non factor.

And when it comes LADAR, anybody else notice that Lockheed Martin had won the contract to work on it?

Yes, that is the same Lockheed Martin that developed the F-22. I believe the Raptor has Anti-Ladar capabilities.

It'll be 20 years before the rest of world can catch up to the F-22.

The F-22 may or may not have a smaller RCS then the F-117A or B-2A. but what it certainly doesn't have is emissions stealth like the other two Stealth aircraft, making it only StealthY, not Stealth.

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
The F-22 may or may not have a smaller RCS then the F-117A or B-2A. but what it certainly doesn't have is emissions stealth like the other two Stealth aircraft, making it only StealthY, not Stealth.

You are mistaken bro.

1 - The F-22 is a 4th generation stealth aircraft, with a confirmed smaller RCS then anything currently fielded. The actual RCS is classified. There has been a few decades of time between the 3rd gen stealth and the Raptor's 4th gen stealth.

2 - Yes. The F-22 covers the FULL spectrum of stealth including radar signature, visual, infrared, acoustic, and radio frequency.The F-22 is what is known as an all-aspect stealth aircraft.

3 - The F-117 and the B-2 are both sub-sonic (due to the fact that afterburners are very unstealthy) aircraft, with engines that possess zero visible smoke. The F-22 does the same. Plus, the F-22 can reach supersonic speeds without afterburner augmentation. This was a technology not available at the time of the B-2 and F-117's development.

I could go on and on.

quote:

Originally posted by maxpontiac:

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
The F-22 may or may not have a smaller RCS then the F-117A or B-2A. but what it certainly doesn't have is emissions stealth like the other two Stealth aircraft, making it only StealthY, not Stealth.

You are mistaken bro.

1 - The F-22 is a 4th generation stealth aircraft, with a confirmed smaller RCS then anything currently fielded. The actual RCS is classified. There has been a few decades of time between the 3rd gen stealth and the Raptor's 4th gen stealth.

2 - Yes. The F-22 covers the FULL spectrum of stealth including radar signature, visual, infrared, acoustic, and radio frequency.The F-22 is what is known as an all-aspect stealth aircraft.

3 - The F-117 and the B-2 are both sub-sonic (due to the fact that afterburners are very unstealthy) aircraft, with engines that possess zero visible smoke. The F-22 does the same. Plus, the F-22 can reach supersonic speeds without afterburner augmentation. This was a technology not available at the time of the B-2 and F-117's development.

I could go on and on.

Until I see the actual tests and used radar energy to gauge different aspect stealth, I'll take the USAF's word with a grain of salt, and I work for them.

So by extent, your first point is completely disproven as you have no solid data to support your position besides, "It's newer and the USAF says so."

Point two is a laugh as well, the F-117A and B-2A has so many points on the Raptor it's not even funny. For one, they have no emission sources what so ever concerning radar as they lack any radar what so ever, ASEA is still emissions and can still be tracked. For visual, the Raptor is larger then the Nighthawk and painted in a Interceptor Grey like the Eagle with a diffusion form pattern, making it much easier to spot during Dusk, Night and Dawn operations compared to the F-117As and B-2As. Infrared is another issue with exposed, exhaust and visible A/B plumes, IRST and Modern MANPADs will pick up a Raptor from the back 180 in a heart beat, the F-117A and B-2A don't have afterburning engines and have modified turbofan turbines to run cooler then their unmodified breathern, the B-2A has semi platypus nozzles to deflect energy upward like the F-117A, which also has horizontal tailplanes to block IR trackers looking down onto the Nighthawk. (The F-117A uses modified turbines from the F/A-18C) Acoustic is another lark, the F-117A has dispersal grills and a dialed back RPM fan assembly that prevents acoustic tracking from a closer range then the Raptor, the B-2A's turbines are sunk so deep in the fuseagle that you can literally be directly under the bomber and it can be at angels 1 and you wouldn't know it was there.

Point three has no bearing, Supercruise is something used to ferry or ingress or egress to the target, it is not used in combat and there's still the point that if the Raptor goes nose down, it's TVS will expose it's heat of it's exhaust to the ground and not to mention it is quite a few decibels louder then it's "older" breathern.

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:

Until I see the actual tests and used radar energy to gauge different aspect stealth, I'll take the USAF's word with a grain of salt, and I work for them.

So by extent, your first point is completely disproven as you have no solid data to support your position besides, "It's newer and the USAF says so."

Point two is a laugh as well, the F-117A and B-2A has so many points on the Raptor it's not even funny. For one, they have no emission sources what so ever concerning radar as they lack any radar what so ever, ASEA is still emissions and can still be tracked. For visual, the Raptor is larger then the Nighthawk and painted in a Interceptor Grey like the Eagle with a diffusion form pattern, making it much easier to spot during Dusk, Night and Dawn operations compared to the F-117As and B-2As. Infrared is another issue with exposed, exhaust and visible A/B plumes, IRST and Modern MANPADs will pick up a Raptor from the back 180 in a heart beat, the F-117A and B-2A don't have afterburning engines and have modified turbofan turbines to run cooler then their unmodified breathern, the B-2A has semi platypus nozzles to deflect energy upward like the F-117A, which also has horizontal tailplanes to block IR trackers looking down onto the Nighthawk. (The F-117A uses modified turbines from the F/A-18C) Acoustic is another lark, the F-117A has dispersal grills and a dialed back RPM fan assembly that prevents acoustic tracking from a closer range then the Raptor, the B-2A's turbines are sunk so deep in the fuseagle that you can literally be directly under the bomber and it can be at angels 1 and you wouldn't know it was there.

Point three has no bearing, Supercruise is something used to ferry or ingress or egress to the target, it is not used in combat and there's still the point that if the Raptor goes nose down, it's TVS will expose it's heat of it's exhaust to the ground and not to mention it is quite a few decibels louder then it's "older" breathern.

Interesting post. You say you work for the USAF? Explain.

You contradict yourself. You say you believe the USAF/Manufacturers claims about the B-2 and the F-117 when it comes to stealth aspects, but when it comes to the F-22, you "take it with a grain of salt".

Proven data? I could supply links to whats available, but you know as well as I do that all that does is prove I can back my points by facts available. I could say the same for you, could I not??

Plus, I encourage you to use common sense. Something developed in the 70's and 80's will not be as advanced as something created in the 90's and the 00's. That's a simple concept.

Do some research on the electronics suite in the F-22. It blurs the line between a traditional radar and electronic warfare. In particular what the AN/APG-77 and AN/ALR-94 are capable of. Amazing stuff.

You are wrong. The F-22's paint is very advanced and was actually used to paint the F-117 in trials to extend the types usefullness and move the type to day operations.. Check out the the Dragon test team Det 1 53 TEG. Plus, you have to know that black is not the best color for night-time operations. It's a shade of purple. The Germans during WW2 were the first to field test this I believe.

Size? You act as if you are comparing a bus (F-22) to a car (F-117). Based on that logic, the B-2 is in a world of hurt.

The infra-red spectrum? All I can do is laugh. The problem with that theory is that in order to use that technology, you have to be close, around 20km if I am not mistaken. MANPADS? Are you serious? These systems have a 10 mile ranges at around 20000 ft. Do you actually think a Raptor driver will be that, for lack of a better term, stupid? The Raptor is all about BVR, and will have already killed you if depend on IR or Manpad systems. I can't believe you actually used this.

The Raptor has shaped inlets in the intakes and square nozzles to desperse radar as well. It also employs a new design technology called planform alignment.

I am aware of what the B-2 and F-117 have in order to reduce their signature across the all spectrums. But I still don't understand why you cling to older technology like it's the johnny cure all. You hold on to what you have been told, learned, read, etc. when it come to the older gen stealth platforms, but won't embrace what the F-22 and it's new tech brings to the table.

The F-117 Nighthawk was retired this April. The F-22 will be doing it's job. Care to comment on that??

Supercruise has no point? Are you kidding me? If the F-22 is assigned a Strike package, supercruise will be used on it's way to delivering an SDB or JDAM on a ground target. Supercruise allows the F-22 to move in TWICE as fast the F-117 to a ground target and deliver its munitions. You also have to respect the fact of what airspeed does to weapons delivery. A stealth aircraft going Mach speeds being used a deep strike platform is fielded capability war planners 10 to 20 years ago could only dream of.

The Raptor gives you Mach 1.5+ WITHOUT afterburner augmentation. Mach 1.5 without afterburner plumes. Imagine that.

If the F-22 needs to escape or lets say, actually engage enemy aircraft, the afterburners are there as well as the thrust vectoring. Something the Nighthawk could never do. If the Raptor is "seen" on any of the spectrums, good luck locking on to it.

During a recent Red Flag exercise, a RAF pilot mentioned that even if you can see it, you can't lock on to it. Or we could take a look at at a recent Northern Edge exercise, in which the Raptor used it's high altitude (over 65,000 ft) and supercuising capabilities to routinely swat down everything in the air, all the while not being detected by "Red" planes, SAM, or AWACS.

Am I saying the Raptor is the best thing since a pencil sharpener?

Well, yes I am.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maxpontiac,

I don't know...a pencil sharpener is pretty darn useful. And you could field millions of them for the cost of one F-22.

I'll have to disagree there.

Plus, a single pencil sharpener could take out an F-22. We know what FOD can do to a turbine engine.