Effective use of F-35A/B/C?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Effective use of F-35A/B/C?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Effective use of F-35A/B/C?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/14/2017 4:50:43 PM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

Hi everyone.

I picked up CMANO today for the sole purpose of using the F-35 JSF (Yes, I'm fanatical).
I picked up Northern Inferno too and I'll certainly get COW DLC also.

My question(s) today is, how accurately do you feel CMANO represents the F-35?

And.. will there come a time where the DAS is implemented as well as the Datalink communications unique to the F-35, with capability of meshing with B-1B's and B-2s, specifically its ability to guide ordnance to target? (as well as the Aegis)

And how would you use the F-35 in CMANO to its fullest capacity?

Now obviously there's some stuff that can't possibly be added because most of the information is well.. secret.

My general overall question is, to what accuracy do you think CMANO represents reality and how accurate to reality can a scenario get? :)

Thanks everyone, very impressed with the 'game' so far.

Post #: 1

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/14/2017 7:36:06 PM

Peter66

Posts: 104
Joined: 11/13/2016
Status: offline

My personal experience with the F-35 is limited but I can add input to the other areas.

quote:

My general overall question is, to what accuracy do you think CMANO represents reality and how accurate to reality can a scenario get?

I think Command represents reality very well if used correctly. How accurate you can get a scenario really depends on how much effort your willing to put in to creating the scenario. If you put the time and effort in I'm sure you will get the results you want.

If you want to see F-35's in action check out this scenario by Coiler http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=911816366&searchtext=

PS: As a new user I'd recommend joining Discord too so we can help you with your many questions you are likely to have. https://discord.gg/dyQDesj This will take you right to the server.

_____________________________

"Is game hard to pick up?" <- easier to pick up than most women.

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 2

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/14/2017 8:14:38 PM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

it's about as close as you can get.

as for best use I'd say as a numerous medium-range strike platform to attack threatening and well-defended targets. the stealth is good, and for anything less you can send F-16/F-15E/B-52/something else

(in reply to Peter66)

Post #: 3

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/14/2017 8:15:02 PM

Sakai007

Posts: 279
Joined: 3/12/2012
Status: offline

I can say that my time in Command (since 2013) has pretty well sold me on the F-35. It's like having a stealth mini-AWAC that can be a shooter as well and a sensor. Some of the features you mention are somewhat abstracted as far as guiding weapons from other platforms. You can certainly use the targeting data you get from the F-35 to assign a target for another shooter, but I don't think you'll see specific datalink connections. There is a cooperative engagement capability (CEC) in game, as the Aegis system can guide AIM-120Ds fired by the F-35 and SM-6s fired by other ships and that is a direct, in game visible, data link connections.

As far as your specific interest, I think Chains of War is going to be a must buy. Anything set in the near future is pretty much has to include F35s in the OOB, lol. It is the 21st Century Fighter we're getting, even if some aren't very excited about the prospect.

(in reply to Peter66)

Post #: 4

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/14/2017 8:20:10 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon
And.. will there come a time where the DAS is implemented as well as the Datalink communications unique to the F-35, with capability of meshing with B-1B's and B-2s, specifically its ability to guide ordnance to target? (as well as the Aegis)

I'm pretty certain the general abilities of DAS are already modeled.

For comms, part of what you are asking for is in our Pro version roadmap. If your interest is professional please contact us privately. Thanks!

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 5

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/14/2017 11:02:32 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Scenario designers often place a severe penalty (vs other a/c) on losing the F-35. Use them carefully and bring them home alive. Never think they are invisible Star Trek types with 100 percent cloaking ability. Losing one would be a geopolitical embarrassment in scenario terms. I am not sure if the military exactly knows how to use them yet. Which makes this sim so interesting for players.

Kevin

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 6

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/14/2017 11:39:18 PM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

trick with the -35 is just to never get tangled up. leverage the stealth to get to an optimal shooting range, then blow down the enemy fighters (or ground assets, whichever) with a barrage of ordnance, then once you shotgun, RUN.

done correctly you can inflict losses on the enemy all day, without losing much if anything. the stealth helps strategically; you can generally choose the enemy's weakest point for your strike and the enemy will not be able to pool his resources to oppose you as he cannot see you coming until you are almost in WEZ.

once you are in WVR the plane suffers badly. once you start cranking or beaming the stealth basically stops working, and the very numerous high off boresight weapons that will be flying at you will inevitably hit something. you can win fights still at that range, assuming you brought external sidewinder X, but usually not by much, even if you outnumber the enemy handily.

basically: pool your -35 to target the pressure points, use the stealth to mask your approach, hit and run. make sure you include a trail element to pick up any bandits that may survive the first wave. you definitely do not want anything chasing you full defensive with no recourse.

(in reply to kevinkins)

Post #: 7

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 2:28:52 AM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

I would guess it's fairly accurate. Just remember that the F-35 isn't invisible, it's low obervable. You can get a lot closer to the enemy than you can in a 4+ generation aircraft. So you can't fly over top of enemy SAM sights...but once you detect them, you can plot a course that gets you within weapons range of your target and allows you to navigate around threats. Use it in conjunction with EW aircraft as well. Basically, if you send an F-35 in to destroy a sight like it's an invisible plane, you won't get the results you think you should

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 8

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 3:12:28 AM

Dragon029

Posts: 76
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

DAS is indeed modelled (and reasonable well), as well as the EOTS's IRST functionality.

I do have two problems with the CMANO F-35 however - the first is that its radar is seriously underpowered; the APG-81 should have about double the range as it does at the moment (a lot of AESAs in the database are rather messed up in relative performance; I've submitted recommendations).

The second is that if the database RCS values are in dBm, then they're about 10dBm (at least from the frontal aspect) too high. On the flipside, rear aspect RCS values are currently equal to frontal aspect RCS values - that shouldn't be the case. Side RCS values I have no idea about.

As mentioned, data links with the F-35 are currently fairly generic; using MADL for cooperative EW, passive IR / RF sensor fusion / triangulation, etc would be nice, but it doesn't sound like that'll be coming to the consumer version.

As for using the F-35 effectively:

1. Bring along some EW support; a pair of Growlers can seriously degrade enemy radar, allowing F-35s to get within and escape enemy missile engagement ranges without being detected.
2. When F-35's go or are about to go Winchester, you can let them stick around, but don't let them get close to the enemy.
3. If done right, flanking the enemy and harassing them can force enemies to divert forces to deal with an enemy of unknown (to them) size (just be sure to get those F-35s out of there as soon as the AMRAAMs launch; you want to be able to flank back around those enemies). This can tie up enemy assets while your main force overwhelms their other units.
4. If you're dealing with advanced threats (Su-35s, etc) then bring more than 4x AMRAAMs per target. If this means bringing 4th gens, then so be it, just be sure to make the 4th gens high-tail it after firing and let the F-35s provide target updates.

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 9

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 4:04:09 AM

Agiel

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

The F-35's EOTS is also incredibly handy for providing targeting data for other platforms, such as Tomahawks and non-stealthy aircraft armed with stand-off weaponry like JASSM, SDB, and JSOW.

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 10

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 4:07:43 AM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

DAS is indeed modelled (and reasonable well), as well as the EOTS's IRST functionality.

I do have two problems with the CMANO F-35 however - the first is that its radar is seriously underpowered; the APG-81 should have about double the range as it does at the moment (a lot of AESAs in the database are rather messed up in relative performance; I've submitted recommendations).

The second is that if the database RCS values are in dBm, then they're about 10dBm (at least from the frontal aspect) too high. On the flipside, rear aspect RCS values are currently equal to frontal aspect RCS values - that shouldn't be the case. Side RCS values I have no idea about.

As mentioned, data links with the F-35 are currently fairly generic; using MADL for cooperative EW, passive IR / RF sensor fusion / triangulation, etc would be nice, but it doesn't sound like that'll be coming to the consumer version.

As for using the F-35 effectively:

1. Bring along some EW support; a pair of Growlers can seriously degrade enemy radar, allowing F-35s to get within and escape enemy missile engagement ranges without being detected.
2. When F-35's go or are about to go Winchester, you can let them stick around, but don't let them get close to the enemy.
3. If done right, flanking the enemy and harassing them can force enemies to divert forces to deal with an enemy of unknown (to them) size (just be sure to get those F-35s out of there as soon as the AMRAAMs launch; you want to be able to flank back around those enemies). This can tie up enemy assets while your main force overwhelms their other units.
4. If you're dealing with advanced threats (Su-35s, etc) then bring more than 4x AMRAAMs per target. If this means bringing 4th gens, then so be it, just be sure to make the 4th gens high-tail it after firing and let the F-35s provide target updates.

Yea, I did some tests on it, it can't detect a Nodong-2 launcher even from within the AESA range, only the launches, which tells me DAS isn't completely implemented yet, but it does detect any radar outputs from other systems, like SA-12s

(in reply to Dragon029)

Post #: 11

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 4:50:18 AM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon
Yea, I did some tests on it, it can't detect a Nodong-2 launcher even from within the AESA range, only the launches, which tells me DAS isn't completely implemented yet, but it does detect any radar outputs from other systems, like SA-12s

Terrain? Flat valley or mountain ridge? (Has severe clutter effect on sensor calcs). LOS? Time of day? Weather? Other factors?

If you think there is a problem with the sensor models, please submit a suitable save for investigation on the Tech Support forum.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 12

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 6:54:02 AM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon
Yea, I did some tests on it, it can't detect a Nodong-2 launcher even from within the AESA range, only the launches, which tells me DAS isn't completely implemented yet, but it does detect any radar outputs from other systems, like SA-12s

Terrain? Flat valley or mountain ridge? (Has severe clutter effect on sensor calcs). LOS? Time of day? Weather? Other factors?

If you think there is a problem with the sensor models, please submit a suitable save for investigation on the Tech Support forum.

I wouldn't want to look silly and say there's a technical issue, particularly when my experience with the game it self is limited.

Using the God view I can see the Nodong is within AESA range, but it's only detecting the missile launch.

The launcher is on a flat surface, time day, no cloud.

It detected the launcher within 6.3nm which seems absurdly close and it actually detected it with EOTS IRST not DAS, even though I was still continuously launching the Nodong with the F-35 right on top of it.

I'm about 99% sure this is something I am neglecting, but from the things I've seen of DAS if this really is how it performs, it's pretty underwhelming, having to be right on top of something like a Scud or Nodong launch and even then only being able to see the rocket once it hits +30,000ft while the launcher is completely hidden.

I compiled images but I obviously can't post them yet : http://imgur.com/a/FLCD6

So for users who can point out what's going on I'd like that.
Still pretty fresh in the game so I in no way want to say the game has gotten anything wrong. :)

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 5/15/2017 3:39:05 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 13

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 8:08:07 AM

Dragon029

Posts: 76
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

DAS is only meant to be a short-medium range sensor intended primarily for detection incoming SAMs / AAMs; if you're thinking of the video where it detected and tracked a Falcon 9 rocket from >800 miles away, remember that a Falcon 9 is a heck of a lot brighter than an MRBM and that the test aircraft was also using the APG-81 to help maintain a track (you are correct in assuming that the AESA should have tracked the missile after launch).

Ground targets too are then orders of magnitude harder to see than an MRBM, especially if it's day time and the vehicle isn't moving - each DAS sensor is only 1 to 4MP, yet has a very wide FOV, so a TEL and a hot rock aren't going to look that different from tens of kilometers away. One thing I'd like to see with new 5th gen and ISR aircraft is either the automated / periodic or manual ability to perform synthetic aperture radar scans, where for a certain boxed area within radar FOV, any ground / surface targets that have an RCS some multiple (eg, 8x) of the radar's angular resolution is detected, and anything larger (eg, 16x) is classified.

I think one of the things that isn't exactly simulated well is the max range of the sensors - the DAS for instance has a set max range of 60nmi in CMANO, which is appropriate against other aircraft and likely appropriate against SAMs / AAMs, but not so much for special cases like ballistic missiles. With the current system, once a target goes beyond that max range, they become 100% invisible. Ideally those limits shouldn't exist and instead should scale with visual / IR / radar signature to infinite if a target is infinitely bright and remains above the horizon.

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 14

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 10:46:43 AM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

DAS is only meant to be a short-medium range sensor intended primarily for detection incoming SAMs / AAMs; if you're thinking of the video where it detected and tracked a Falcon 9 rocket from >800 miles away, remember that a Falcon 9 is a heck of a lot brighter than an MRBM and that the test aircraft was also using the APG-81 to help maintain a track (you are correct in assuming that the AESA should have tracked the missile after launch).

Ground targets too are then orders of magnitude harder to see than an MRBM, especially if it's day time and the vehicle isn't moving - each DAS sensor is only 1 to 4MP, yet has a very wide FOV, so a TEL and a hot rock aren't going to look that different from tens of kilometers away. One thing I'd like to see with new 5th gen and ISR aircraft is either the automated / periodic or manual ability to perform synthetic aperture radar scans, where for a certain boxed area within radar FOV, any ground / surface targets that have an RCS some multiple (eg, 8x) of the radar's angular resolution is detected, and anything larger (eg, 16x) is classified.

I think one of the things that isn't exactly simulated well is the max range of the sensors - the DAS for instance has a set max range of 60nmi in CMANO, which is appropriate against other aircraft and likely appropriate against SAMs / AAMs, but not so much for special cases like ballistic missiles. With the current system, once a target goes beyond that max range, they become 100% invisible. Ideally those limits shouldn't exist and instead should scale with visual / IR / radar signature to infinite if a target is infinitely bright and remains above the horizon.

Absolutely.
The developers must have a nightmare on their hands trying to accurately model stuff that is classified.
Speaking of...

Is the YF-12 due to be added? with AIM-47?
Or the D-21?

(in reply to Dragon029)

Post #: 15

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 2:52:21 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I compiled images but I obviously can't post them yet (:
it's on imgur with the URL: /a/FLCD6

Don't forget the save file when you can upload. Sunburn (and all of us) want to have as accurate F-35 as possible (if it is not already) since that platform will be around a long while.

Kevin

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 16

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 4:53:15 PM

Schr75

Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon

Is the YF-12 due to be added? with AIM-47?
Or the D-21?

It�s already in there and have been for some time

.
CWDB aircraft # 3105

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 17

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/15/2017 6:32:30 PM

CCIP-subsim

Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline

With DAS, like any system or sensor really, I'd always take the stated range (in the DB) with a grain of salt - there's virtually always interfering factors, of which the most important one isn't even the sensor itself but the unit's OODA loop.

I also thought I'd mention that I actually have had better experiences with the A-12 that's in the database than the F-35

They're not that different from each other, truthfully (at least in the direct comparison case, the F-35C).

(in reply to Schr75)

Post #: 18

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/16/2017 5:14:30 AM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schr75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon

Is the YF-12 due to be added? with AIM-47?
Or the D-21?

It�s already in there and have been for some time.
CWDB aircraft # 3105

Hmm.. I can't find it by searching for it under "YF-12"
I do mean the YF not the SR.

Must be my noobness.

(in reply to Schr75)

Post #: 19

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/16/2017 3:34:14 PM

CCIP-subsim

Posts: 695
Joined: 11/10/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schr75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon

Is the YF-12 due to be added? with AIM-47?
Or the D-21?

It�s already in there and have been for some time.
CWDB aircraft # 3105

Hmm.. I can't find it by searching for it under "YF-12"
I do mean the YF not the SR.

Must be my noobness.

Are you looking in DB3000 or CWDB? It's only in the CWDB list, so you wouldn't have it in post Cold War scenarios.

Here it is, by the way: https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataAircraft?ID=1003105

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 20

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/16/2017 11:15:12 PM

Eambar

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

If you're looking for a scenario where the F-35 is well represented, I recommend Under African Skies. The F-35 is the workhorse of the scenario, used it for everything including ground strafing!

Cheers,

(in reply to CCIP-subsim)

Post #: 21

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 5:19:12 AM

Dan109

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline

BTW, concerning the F-35, are there any reliable sources for the dimensions of the internal bays? Concerning stealthy delivery of standoff weapons, not a lot of options. I've only seen the JSM mentioned, but being developed by Norway, I imagine they made it to fit the F-35A, and don't care about the B/C. USN/USMC need a long range standoff weapon in stealth mode, that can skim the water. JSOW is about 16 inches longer than the JSM, which currently makes the SDB-II the best standoff weapon, but it won't obviously skim.

BTW, since all of the weapons abilities are simply software (to my understanding), why wouldn't all F-35As be able to use the JSM? Or are there different physically mounts/connectors for the weapon? Wouldn't NATO partners all be able to share ordinance? Same with the JDAM-ER, the Aussies wanted it, the US cancelled their order (I'm sure Boeing is pissed). BTW, this article shows the JDAM-ER is for the Mk84, as well as the MK42. Maybe the Mk84 wont fit in an F-35A though....length is fine, maybe too fat:

http://www.deagel.com/library/RAAF-FA-18B-Hornet-equipped-with-AIR-5425-JDAM-ER-weapons_m02007031900001.aspx

Would be nice if more firepower needed than the SDB baby bombs.

(in reply to Eambar)

Post #: 22

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 5:43:01 AM

Dragon029

Posts: 76
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

Due to the complexity of the bay's shape (how the inner wall hugs the engine bay), I don't think you'll find decent dimensions for it (not to mention, weapons can't be too close to the length / width of a bay for separation clearance requirements). As for stealthy standoff weapons, JSOW will be internally carried with Block 3F, JSM (and maybe NSM?) are confirmed for internal carriage, JSOW-ER (which has a jet turbine for propulsion) will have the same dimensions as the JSOW. There's also the SOM-J by Turkey which will be carried internally.

Note too that the F-35A and F-35C have the same size weapon bay; only the B has a truncated (in length) bay.

quote:

why wouldn't all F-35As be able to use the JSM?

They will be able to - there's no difference on the F-35 airframe / software side of things. The distinction between (eg) Norwegian F-35As and USAF F-35As being able to carry JSMs in CMANO would just be down to the database editors either being lazy (not trying to be rude; it is a massive database to manage) or the editors simulating the fact that the USAF and most JSF operators don't have any plans (to my knowledge, and for now) to acquire JSMs, meaning they'd have none in inventory, wouldn't be training to employ them, etc.

The F-35C / US Navy would probably benefit greatly from being able to use the JSM, but as far as I know it's only being integrated onto the F-35A - it'd fit / work on the F-35C, but they'd need to spend the money on load and separation testing, plus the Navy could just instead use JASSMs / JASSM-ERs, etc launched from further away at targets the F-35C designates.

quote:

BTW, this article shows the JDAM-ER is for the Mk84, as well as the MK42. Maybe the Mk84 wont fit in an F-35A though....length is fine, maybe too fat:

The Mk84 with the JDAM-ER wing kit might maybe not fit, but the standard Mk84 GBU-31 does; it's the first and (as of now with Block 3i 'beta' software) only JDAM the F-35A and F-35C can employ (the F-35B has the Mk83 GBU-32 JDAM; all 3 variants can also use the Mk82 GBU-12 LG and AMRAAM today with Block 3i).

< Message edited by Dragon029 -- 5/17/2017 7:25:10 AM >

(in reply to Dan109)

Post #: 23

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 6:05:42 AM

Dan109

Posts: 175
Joined: 4/27/2017
Status: offline

Well, looks like the F-35 will need lots of database updates! :) cheers for the info.

(in reply to Dragon029)

Post #: 24

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 11:16:25 AM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CCIPsubsim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schr75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamon

Is the YF-12 due to be added? with AIM-47?
Or the D-21?

It�s already in there and have been for some time.
CWDB aircraft # 3105

Hmm.. I can't find it by searching for it under "YF-12"
I do mean the YF not the SR.

Must be my noobness.

Are you looking in DB3000 or CWDB? It's only in the CWDB list, so you wouldn't have it in post Cold War scenarios.

Thanks, knew it was me.

they even modeled the low fuel which requires aerial refueling.
wonder if this was included on the SR...

(in reply to CCIP-subsim)

Post #: 25

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 11:19:56 AM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

So Dragon, I take you'd agree with me that the F-35 is the most impressive aircraft in the skies currently?

Granted, you could make a case the F-22 excels in other areas but doesn't have nearly the operational flexibility of the F-35?

(in reply to Dragon029)

Post #: 26

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 12:22:42 PM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

Command makes it look pretty good. Command doesn't model a lot of the things that have been habitual problems for it though; maintenance overhead, low numbers, high cost (well, debatable i suppose)

it's biggest weakness is the "low" payload. but the F-16 has the same "problem" and it worked out fine.

the real trick is just having a lot of them. that will be the real test for every user, acquiring sufficient mass for them to be dangerous.

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 27

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 1:30:50 PM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie3

If you're looking for a scenario where the F-35 is well represented, I recommend Under African Skies. The F-35 is the workhorse of the scenario, used it for everything including ground strafing!

Cheers,

Hey thanks for this!

(in reply to Eambar)

Post #: 28

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 1:33:49 PM

Cinnamon

Posts: 19
Joined: 5/14/2017
Status: offline

Thanks for reminding me!

The B-1 and B-2 and Aegis kind of make up for the lack of armament.
Being able to effectively guide weapons to target from aircraft outside the area is a real bonus

Pilots have been saying the F-35s performance fully loaded is significantly better than an F-16 with the same armament, I'll need to find the video..

(in reply to Cik)

Post #: 29

RE: Effective use of F-35A/B/C? - 5/17/2017 2:28:15 PM

Cik

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline

cross-platform datalinking is cool and all but the same is possible with your HAVE QUICK UHF radio. granted it's a little faster but it's still pretty much the same as creating a steerpoint at MGRS/lat/long and then blasting it. counting always on the fact that strategic bombers are there is kind of worrisome.

like i said though, it's payload is alright just you'll need a decent amount of them. the f-16 is a perfectly effective strike aircraft despite the fact that a formation of the things can't equal a single bomber because 1. precision munitions and 2. we have thousands of them everywhere.

you solve a tank with an F-16, you solve a battalion of tanks with a package of F-16s, you solve a tank division with a squadron of F-16

F-35 has the same thing going for it, you just need a lot of them.

(in reply to Cinnamon)

Post #: 30