Database realism

[grinch2020]

Hi all. Recently saw this game on Steam and found it pretty interesting. As an E-2C Hawkeye Naval Flight Officer, looking at the screenshots I saw some similarities in the way that the presentation looks when compared to what we use. I am curious where the database is pulled from for different Naval, Air, and SA threats. I'm almost afraid that this would be like taking my work home with me! Thanks to all for any info that you can provide.

[mikmykWS]

Hi Grinch.

Numerous books and open sources. You can kind of get a sense of how the process begins in our db request strings but there is a lot of internal research and vetting of sources that goes on.

Thanks!

Mike

[grinch2020]

Thanks for the info Mike. I'm not real familiar with the hardcore strategy genre so apologies if these questions have been answered. While I'm pretty proficient with my own weapon system, I'd wonder if this game would have a little too steep of a learning curve for people brand new to this type of thing. I could see myself knowing what I want to do but not knowing where to go to execute!

[dandin384]

The learning curve can be tough, but the community is great at helping you answer questions and generally helping you through the process. A good thing to check out if you're on the fence is Baloogan's Youtube channel and the Command Streams located here - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2F5VV ... CxoUppJoWA. This chat room is full of people who can help answer questions, and the devs pop in quite frequently. -https://jabbr.net/#/rooms/baloogan.

Of course the forums here are a great tool as well, browsing the AAR section is a great way to learn. If the learning curve is holding you back from this sim the community is here to help.

[scottb613]

Hey - welcome aboard Grinch - really - the interface is pretty simple - is so easy even a bubblehead can manage...
[:)]

You'll get the hang of it in no time... Most of us have brought our work home with us in one form or another..,

Regards,
Scott

[Spookyashell]

About realism in DB. The F-35 looks a bit overrated.

It has the same Climb and turnrate as a F-22 and the agility of a F-16 in the DB (1.05 B370).
The F-35 has gotten alot of flack from so called experts in various partner countries with characteristics like "Can't Climb, Can't turn, Can't run". Critisism for being too heavy, too slow and lack of agility.

While in the Command DB it's very agile and Climbs like ....

[DeltaIV]

Welcome, Grinch.

You can browse the Command database entries at Baloogan's wiki

That should give you general impression what platforms are currently represented and how deeply detailed they are.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell

About realism in DB. The F-35 looks a bit overrated.

It has the same Climb and turnrate as a F-22 and the agility of a F-16 in the DB (1.05 B370).
The F-35 has gotten alot of flack from so called experts in various partner countries with characteristics like "Can't Climb, Can't turn, Can't run". Critisism for being too heavy, too slow and lack of agility.

While in the Command DB it's very agile and Climbs like ....

It is worth noting, however, that the F-35 can out-turn and out-climb F-16s and F-18s, at least at combat speeds below .85 mach. [1] Claims of it being a pig seem to relate mostly to it's transonic acceleration, where it fall short of 4th generation birds. [2] I'm not sure how the latter would be modeled in CMANO, but it would be nice to see the F-35's take a while to get through the sound barrier. The crappy transonic acceleration is likely due to design choices that optimized RCS over high-mach airflow (Shape matters a lot- compare the F-102 to the F-106). At least according to the head of the ACC it makes the F-35 stealthier than the F-22. [3]

[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /f-35a.htm
[2] http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-381683/
[3] http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen- ... -starts/3/

[Tomcat84]

Maybe the comparisons are also about a clean Viper with tip missiles only. Load that Viper up with a combat air to ground load and load the F-35 internally with the same loadout and then compare. Would be more interesting.

[Spookyashell]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell

About realism in DB. The F-35 looks a bit overrated.

It has the same Climb and turnrate as a F-22 and the agility of a F-16 in the DB (1.05 B370).
The F-35 has gotten alot of flack from so called experts in various partner countries with characteristics like "Can't Climb, Can't turn, Can't run". Critisism for being too heavy, too slow and lack of agility.

While in the Command DB it's very agile and Climbs like ....

It is worth noting, however, that the F-35 can out-turn and out-climb F-16s and F-18s, at least at combat speeds below .85 mach. [1] Claims of it being a pig seem to relate mostly to it's transonic acceleration, where it fall short of 4th generation birds. [2] I'm not sure how the latter would be modeled in CMANO, but it would be nice to see the F-35's take a while to get through the sound barrier. The crappy transonic acceleration is likely due to design choices that optimized RCS over high-mach airflow (Shape matters a lot- compare the F-102 to the F-106). At least according to the head of the ACC it makes the F-35 stealthier than the F-22. [3]

[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /f-35a.htm
[2] http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-381683/
[3] http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen- ... -starts/3/

Good links. Good read.
But all the hype about the F-35's great dog fighting abillity come from Lockheed Martin, what are they supposed to do say "our plane stinks". The lead designer of the F-16 says the F-16 would easily take the F-35 in a dogfight. He even calls the F-35 a turkey.
But I sure hope its good, coz my country Norway are getting them, and is even a partner in the JSF program. And our F-16's has cracks in their fusalage, most of them are grounded now. Apparently Norwegian F-16 has the highest Hours in the air average in the world. So we need our F-35's asap and they need to be capable.

[Coiler12]

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell
The lead designer of the F-16 says the F-16 would easily take the F-35 in a dogfight. He even calls the F-35 a turkey.

Pierre Sprey worked on the initial requirements for the F-16, did nothing on the F-16 itself, vigorously condemned it when they added a radar and air-to-ground capability, and opposes everything more advanced than an F-5.

Sprey is also a veteran of the 1960s Pentagon and has that obvious mentality of that time, not just in technology but also in analysis. All of his analyses are focused in terms of numbers without any examination of context or what the numbers mean. This is why he viewed the F-86 as the high point of American fighter design-not because of any physical performance, but because of the (exaggerated) 10-1 victory ratio. This is also why he talks about high sortie rates as automatically good and low ones as automatically bad.

All of his histories are biased, Manichean tales of the Bomber/Bad Technology struggling to keep down the Great Lightweight CAS Fighter. So he's one of the least reliable sources for anything about military technology.

[Spookyashell]

ORIGINAL: Coiler12

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell
The lead designer of the F-16 says the F-16 would easily take the F-35 in a dogfight. He even calls the F-35 a turkey.

Pierre Sprey worked on the initial requirements for the F-16, did nothing on the F-16 itself, vigorously condemned it when they added a radar and air-to-ground capability, and opposes everything more advanced than an F-5.

Sprey is also a veteran of the 1960s Pentagon and has that obvious mentality of that time, not just in technology but also in analysis. All of his analyses are focused in terms of numbers without any examination of context or what the numbers mean. This is why he viewed the F-86 as the high point of American fighter design-not because of any physical performance, but because of the (exaggerated) 10-1 victory ratio. This is also why he talks about high sortie rates as automatically good and low ones as automatically bad.

All of his histories are biased, Manichean tales of the Bomber/Bad Technology struggling to keep down the Great Lightweight CAS Fighter. So he's one of the least reliable sources for anything about military technology.

I wasn't saying I agreed with him, just that people and companies talk up what they've made. But the F-35 has taken simular concerns from military personel in Canada and Australia. Lets hope its as good as Lockheed Martin claim.

[Dutchie999]

I started out as a hater of the F35 just like anyone else. Very cool you know [:D]. Then I started reading, researching and thinking a bit and came to my senses. Don't get me wrong there are still things that the 'haters' out there are right about: cost, delay, concurrency etc. But the subject is a lot more complicated then: can't run, can't turn, can't climb. And please stop listening to Pierre Sprey. Been there done that. Very nice man, but he is living in another time.

[AFIntel]

As one who's followed aviation for many years, I've learned that just about every platform has been labelled "turkey", "overrated ", etc in its prototype and early operational stages. Even the F-15 and F-16 were lambasted at points of its early life.

[DismalPseudoscience]

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell

About realism in DB. The F-35 looks a bit overrated.

It has the same Climb and turnrate as a F-22 and the agility of a F-16 in the DB (1.05 B370).
The F-35 has gotten alot of flack from so called experts in various partner countries with characteristics like "Can't Climb, Can't turn, Can't run". Critisism for being too heavy, too slow and lack of agility.

While in the Command DB it's very agile and Climbs like ....

I believe that climb rates are standardized across aircraft of different ages; maneuverability too, but to a lesser extent. F-22, F-35, Rafale, and Typhoon all have identical climb rates. This seems to be largely for simplicity's sake, since differences in climb rates within the range typically available to modern fighters have approximately zero impact on effectiveness in-game.

Most 5th gens get 5.5 maneuverability (T-50, F-22, J-20), while the Eurocanards get 5.2, so putting the F-35 in line with later F-16 and Mig-29 variants at 5 seems reasonable to me. This is a very abstracted stat (turnfights basically don't happen when everyone has AMRAAMS and HOBS heaters) and while the F-35 might come out lower on sustained turning, it supposedly has very high angle of attack and instantaneous turn capabilities. Supposedly it flies like a hornet, but with thrust more like a viper, so giving it the same / slightly better maneuverability in game is reasonable.

If anything, the F-35 is arguably lowballed in game because it doesn't have any reflection of its jamming capabilities (at least abstracting this as a modern DECM suite would work), and because the later block variants from 2020 or so don't access the 6-AMRAAM internal payload they are supposedly getting, which substantially constrains their air-to-air capabilities. I understand omitting DIRCM, since that is pretty speculative though planned, but the AMRAAM payload increase is pretty firmly laid out and doesn't involve speculating about the capabilities of new and rumored systems.

The database is fantastically expansive, so the occasional weird omission or error has to be expected. But I have asked about one such anomaly (or so it seems to me) and found it was deliberate before - there is usually a reason.

[Klahn]

I've also noted that the F-35B and F-35C both carry internal guns in the game. Neither of these aircraft are actually gun equipped, (only F-35A is,) although the B and C can mount one externally on the centerline hardpoint. The USN and USMC are slated to receive 1 gun pod for every 2 aircraft procured. While the gun can be taken off a returning aircraft and moved to a launching aircraft, it's probably not realistic to have every F-35B/C carrying a gun everywhere it goes.

[Spookyashell]

ORIGINAL: AFIntel

As one who's followed aviation for many years, I've learned that just about every platform has been labelled "turkey", "overrated ", etc in its prototype and early operational stages. Even the F-15 and F-16 were lambasted at points of its early life.

Really? I was under the impression that the F-16 was never under any serious critisism. But rather seen as a revelation from the very beginning (low cost, great capabillity).
But you have most probably read and followed development of these Crafts alot more than me.

[Spookyashell]

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999


I started out as a hater of the F35 just like anyone else. Very cool you know [:D]. Then I started reading, researching and thinking a bit and came to my senses. Don't get me wrong there are still things that the 'haters' out there are right about: cost, delay, concurrency etc. But the subject is a lot more complicated then: can't run, can't turn, can't climb. And please stop listening to Pierre Sprey. Been there done that. Very nice man, but he is living in another time.

I'm not a hater of the F-35. I'm just concerned since Norway are getting these planes and theres been so much smoke around the JSF that I think there might acctually be a fire.
Specially since the Russians are very active again outside the Norwegian coast, they are also using newer planes than before aswell. SU-34's has been identified by Norwegian F-16's in october 2014 along the Norwegian coast.

As for Sprey, I do believe him about the F-16 outperforming the F-35 in a dogfight (Visual range combat). HOWEVER, if a Group of F-16's were to og up against a Group of F-35's I don't belive it would come to Visual range combat, but rather the F-16's falling from the sky before it comes to that.
But that's just my opinion, I'm no expert.

[Tomcat84]

ORIGINAL: DismalPseudoscience

and because the later block variants from 2020 or so don't access the 6-AMRAAM internal payload they are supposedly getting, which substantially constrains their air-to-air capabilities. I understand omitting DIRCM, since that is pretty speculative though planned, but the AMRAAM payload increase is pretty firmly laid out and doesn't involve speculating about the capabilities of new and rumored systems.

The database is fantastically expansive, so the occasional weird omission or error has to be expected. But I have asked about one such anomaly (or so it seems to me) and found it was deliberate before - there is usually a reason.

Next patch will feature a new DB that includes 2024 F-35A and C versions with 6 x internal AIM-120D [8D]
(Is the B model also supposed to get it?)

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell
As for Sprey, I do believe him about the F-16 outperforming the F-35 in a dogfight (Visual range combat). HOWEVER, if a Group of F-16's were to og up against a Group of F-35's I don't belive it would come to Visual range combat, but rather the F-16's falling from the sky before it comes to that.
But that's just my opinion, I'm no expert.

Again, if comparing an F-16 with only two wingtip missiles and nothing else, BFMing at 12000 feet, then yeah.

However, add targeting pod, fuel tanks and start the fight at 30 thousand and I expect the F-35 to run rings around the F-16, especially the European MLUs with the PW engine which is pretty lousy at higher altitudes. And as you mentioned the F-35s strengths are that it takes a lot of things to another level.

My country is in the same boat as Norway and I am very glad that we are going with the F-35. The alternatives would make me very sad.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell
Really? I was under the impression that the F-16 was never under any serious critisism. But rather seen as a revelation from the very beginning (low cost, great capabillity).
But you have most probably read and followed development of these Crafts alot more than me.

John Boyd (the "Father" of the F-16 and Sprey's mentor) was absolutely furious when the Air Force went with a 300 square foot wing as opposed to the 320 square feet he wanted, which removed some of the aircraft's turn performance. He felt the AF had ruined his project.