D-Scythe

Interesting - I remember another F-117 suffering *minor* damage and two A-10s suffering minor damage from MANPADs and AAA. AFAIK no helicopters were damaged at all. The CSAR operations were textbook IIRC.

BIOLOG, the entire point of the F-22 is to make the world not ideal against enemy fighters. The ability to stealth and supercruise allows it to detect its bandit first, position itself for an ambush, and slip away after the attack. It stacks the odds completely in its favour - it makes its own conditions. And the enemy doesn't have a choice. Some people though don't seem to realize the importance of setting up a BVR battle the way you want it without the enemy knowing about it. BVR battles are won miles before the first Fox 3. Take the F-15 for example - why is it widely regarded as a superior BVR fighter to the F-16? The Viper can carry AMRAAMs too, plus its radar can detect the F-15 before either can get within range of their AMRAAMs. It's because in those precious seconds where the Eagle is tracking the Viper, but it is still outside the F-16's detection range, it's able to set up the engagement the way it wants to. And that's enough to give it a huge edge. Now take the F-22, with stealth. It has years to set up the engagement compared to the F-15.

While I sympathize with your position, it doesn't always work out that way. The allocation of time and resources are not always ideal, and are limited by a number of factors that you probably haven't considered. For example, ED may have a lot more 3D programmers than software programmers - how can more time and resources be spent on the AI when the guys who specialize in 3D model construction are unable to do any extensive programming? Should they just sit around instead? But I think we can all agree that Lock On's AI needs a bit more work. There have been some very good improvements (although I can't be more specific), but these have been limited to the scope LOBS is currently focussing on (i.e. helicopter operations).

Everyone has an opinion I guess. I, for one, would like to see some facts like...what aircraft was damaged by Serb air defenses? Well, if you really read the book, you would know that the Serbs were using civilians as human shields at times.

It's been a while, but IIRC, you can either keep evading their AA-9s (until they run out - works better if you gradually take the fight to lower altitudes where missile range is less) or you can let the other friendly CAPs grab their attention before you kill them.

She may not be curvey like her Russian counterparts, but the Raptor is still a gorgeous aircraft in a futuristic sort of way. IMO anyway.

Haha, no. I was under the impression that people wanted ED to prematurely integrate sea/land combat into the LOMAC and it's successors. I had no idea you were talking about third party mods. Besides, ED has so far only allowed us to replace 3D models - the source code (or any code, for that matter) is still being kept under wraps. I don't think there are any plans to release the info or the tools necessary to modify LOMAC to such an extent - if a air/land/sea sim does happen, it's gonna be by ED, not by third parties.

How is that different from BF2? According to your statement, there would be no difference between Steel Beasts Pro PE and BF2. I'm sure BF2 has "realistic range, and damage" as well. But what you seem to be missing is that Steel Beasts is so much more than that. For example, take tank gunnery. According to your words, it has no significance - just zoom the optics, aim and shoot, just like in BF2 and OFP. You think *any* sim trying to pass off even as a semi-realistic tank combat would have such a primitive gunnery system? Some things, you just can't "undermodel" to whatever extent that you please. There are only so many shortcuts you can take; e.g. bullet ballistics - you have to factor in muzzle velocity, velocity drop off of the bullet(s) and gravity at the very least (AFAIK). And in terms of tanks, guided missile cruisers, etc. there are a LOT of basics that *must* be factored in lest the effort be passed off as "arcadish". Again, if "undermodelled" features are all some of you care about, then pick up OFP or BF2 and knock yourself out. I actually recommend OFP over BF2, but realism and fidelity doesn't seem to matter anyway, so whatever.

If that's all you're looking for, try BF2. It's right up your alley.

...what are you talking about? The quote you pulled are *my* words, not yours. Unless you agree with me, your reply makes no sense. I was referring to you saying how I wanted ED to stick to air combat (which I don't, only for current games to establish a firm basis first), and how you defended the idea of a air/land/sea sim by ED for the public based on the recent military projects (like TBS) they've been working on. So yeah, I think the statement that "you have a knack for drawing conclusions from statements/facts taken out of context" has some truth to it. Again, where do I say that I don't want the sim to expand into other types of warfare? I think it's pretty clear I don't want to see it happening too soon, and because Tank killers and 16vs29 have made no mention of such an expansion, it is my opinion that it would be better to work out the kinks first. Unless you think 16vs.29 is the final game ED is ever gonna release?

And where, again, have I said that? You seem to have a knack for drawing conclusions from statements completely drawn out of context. I'm all for a air/sea/land simulation, but I don't believe it's going to happen for a while. And Lock On, and it's follow ons like Tank Killers and Falcon vs. Fulcrum (whether they are completely new games or not), simply would not benefit too much if ED tries to make it into something that it's not (in fact, I firmly believe its detrimental). I'm simply being realistic here - this TBS-like game you guys are all raving about is NOT going to happen anytime soon (at least, not unless it was half-as$ed). The current generation of games and those projected in the near future would benefit much more from establishing a firm foundation (such as features that are important in the *single* play aspect) from which a battle-simulator can be built - until then, you might as well play BF2. Heard that was a fun multiplayer game and you could drive/fly/do anything you want.

Firstly, just because some future product is acquiring a new name doesn't mean it is not of the same lineage, and vice versa. Lock On acquired a new name after Flanker 2.5, despite retaining a large part of its predecessor's engine, while Falcon 4.0 was a completely new game that shared the same name as previous versions of Falcon. Furthermore, even if the entire game engine was re-written and was branded with a new title, it still doesn't mean that ED has suddenly acquired a new focus and would be shifting towards ground/sea combat for its commerial entertainment products. Thus, even if Lock On ends completely with LOBS, it still does not support your position of expansion into other forms of combat. ...and yet you still have not provided any proof that ED is looking into incorporating other forms of warfare besides air combat into any future public product. It's okay, take your time - it takes a while to find proof when it's non-existent.

Do you have proof to back up that statement? AFAIK, there is absolutely no evidence whatsover to support your position that "Again, Lockon Modern Air Combat ends with Black Shark." I heard of Tank killers and F-16vs.MiG-29, but absolutely no plans to incorporate any other forms of warfare other than AIR combat into any future ED products of public entertainment. And FYI, this thread *is* talking about Lock On, it's expansions, and possible future updates to its lineage, *not* a new ED product. So not only does your position that air combat ends with V1.2 LOBS have absolutely no support whatsover, it is also completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

Programming smarter AI will be a much, much better alternative IMO. Relying on multiplayer to make a game interesting is definitely not the way to go IMO. The vast majority of players do *not* multiplay. TBS, A-10 FAC and other projects ED is working on are NOT commercial products of entertaining - they are programs designed to familiarize members of armed forces to basic military operations. Again, Lock On Modern Air combat.

LOMAC - Lock On Modern AIR combat ;) I'm in the camp of people who think this would be a waste of time and resources. Don't try to make Lock On into something it can never be - you might as well try to turn Flashpoint into Falcon 4.0. The time and resources can be INFINITELY better spent on improved SAM AI. Tactics like blinking, ambush, etc. None of the "let's leave our radar on as long as possible and get HARMed" stuff that it is now.

You're right that SEAD operations during Allied Force expended a lot of HARM missiles for little gain. However, the SDBs the F-22 would be carrying (small, 250lb glide bombs) are GPS guided - they're not like HARMs. You can't just turn off the SAM radar and assume the SDB will miss. Again, the F-22 is not likely going to be the definitive SEAD/DEAD jet. But it can, using its RHAW/datalink and determine the position of an enemy SAM site if it turns on its radar for even a few seconds (RHAW will pick it up, determine its location either on its own or/and by triangulation via datalink with other F-22s). Then it can make a HSAR map of the area with its AESA radar, target individual radars, launchers and support vehicles, pass the GPS co-ordinates to its SDBs, and initiate the attack. Thus, you see how on its own the F-22 can (theoretically) hold its own against SAMs. Furthermore, when used in tandem with HARM/ALARM-carrying aircraft, strikers with JSOW/JASSMs and stand-off jamming E/F-18s (especially if they are all datalinked to each other), the entire picture has just got a lot more dangerous for enemy SAM operators.

Obviously, someone in NATO screwed up, because they didn't adjust their planning to enemy tactics in the Allied Force F-117 shootdown. Obviously, there must be a continual adjustment/variation in tactics to ensure that ambush opportunities are few and far between. I don't think the F-22A is gonna be deployed in any type of DCA. According to *public* speculation, the U.S. will utilize the F-22 to "kick the front door down" for other aircraft types - i.e. offensive air operations, not defensive. Many are gonna be committed to OCA fighter sweeps and the others are gonna be committed to eliminating key nodes in the enemy radar network (either AWACs or ground-based EWR) and SEAD. DCA and strike package escorts are gonna be left to F-15Cs and Eurofighters. The Raptor was designed to work alone in enemy airspace in the first place - it'd be a waste to task them with DCA CAPs or tie them to strike aircraft. Once the door is kicked down, the enemy air force broken, then the Raptor would take on more conventional air-to-air taskings like DCA and escort operations. For obvious reasons, it's not gonna escort B-2s - not in the first days of conflict at least. It might sweep the target area before the bombers arrive, but again, tasking the Raptor with escort duties are a waste of its abilities. Why won't it take on S300s? SDBs have a range of 40-50 nm when tossed at Mach 1.7 from 50 000ft, and the F-22 can carry a bunch of them. Couple this with the RHAW/datalink/AESA radar (not to mention E/A-18Gs and F-35s a couple miles back flinging HARMs), and you get a pretty lethal SEAD jet right there. In fact, the "kicking down the door" part of the F-22's mission includes the destruction of SAMs as well as enemy fighters.

Besides the fact that I'm agreeing with you Iguana, why are we factoring pilot complacency here? First of all, only the best can fly the F-22, and second of all, usually don't we all just assume that pilots are equal in these types of discussion?

Um, what's the F-15 kill ratio against fighters of an older generation? So, scratch the 9 MiG-29 kills and you get about 100 to 0? Think about it, between each kill the F-15s had to land and rearm didn't they? Nobody scrapped the MiG-21/23/25 when the F-15 showed up. The F-15 wasn't even revolutionary when it appeared- it cannot avoid dogfights, it wasn't significantly faster than the previous generation of fighters, it wasn't all that more maneuverable. Yet, we *expect* the F-15C with AMRAAMs to fight vastly outnumbered against SARH-armed MiG-21/23s and win. Same scenario here with the Raptor, just a generation newer. Except the Raptor *is* revolutionary. What? Did you miss the point where I said that the F-22 pilots must not be dumb enough to stick to the same ingress/egress routes/tactics? Again.

He probably thought the fight would progress into WVR after the BVR slaughter. Provided that enemy AWACs/GEWR is completely intact (unlikely), and that all enemy radars (fighter, GCI, AWACs, ship) are all datalinked seamlessly (unlikely even in NATO), and the enemy somehow picks up the F-22s to provide all combat elements with real-time data on the Raptor's position (unlikely), and that the F-22 pilots are dumb enough to use the same ingress/egress routes repeatedly (unlikely repeat of Allied Force), and the F-22s were not supercruising (unlikely over enemy territory), and finally that somehow all friendly AWACs and the F-22 themselves either didn't pick up on the flanking enemy or their datalinks all failed simultaneously (highly unlikely), then yes, there is a possibility that the enemy can outflank and ambush a few Raptors.

Again, you missed the part where I said "it doesn't have to be Flankers - they can be F-15s, Falcons, MiGs, whatever." Unless the fighters supporting the Flankers are F-22s, the Raptors are gonna win. 1000 Su-27s + 500 MiG-29s is the same as 1500 Su-27s (or 1500 F-15Cs, or 1000 F-15s + 500 F-16Cs, etc.) as far as I'm concerned. The point of having supporting fighters on the Raptor side is to keep them safe while they re-arm, not to achieve air superiority (in this scenario). Again, provided that the one F-22 can land and rearm safely, why not? The Flankers have no ability to take out the F-22 BVR, and the F-22 pilot can choose to KEEP the fight BVR. Take out the first 5 or 6 with AMRAAMs, land, come back, take out another 6, land, come back, take out *another* 6....get the idea now? It's not that complicated. For crying out loud, you even QUOTED the part where I said "land and rearm safely." Do all of you have trouble reading or are you simply choosing not to?

Um, you must've missed the part where I said a 100 F-22s AND supporting fighters vs. 1000 Su-27s. GG only agreed because he thought that the 100 F-22s had to take the 1000 Su-27s *straight* on (i.e. once all AMRAAMs have been shot, the F-22 goes WVR). Tell me, provided that the Su-27s cannot attack the F-22 airbase (i.e. supporting fighters defend it), how can the Flankers *possibly* force the stealthy, Mach 1.7 supercruise F-22s to commit to a dogfight? Answer: it can't. Ergo, so long as the Raptors can land and rearm safely, there is nothing stopping the F-22s from winning even if they are outnumbered 20 to 1. BTW, it doesn't have to be Flankers. They could be F-15s, F-16s, Mirages, anything for all I care. The F-22 is NOT a weapon you can beat by sheer numbers, mainly because supercruise and stealth allows it to dictate the start of an engagement as well as the end of it, according to its pilot's will. No other plane has that ability. If a BVR-only fight is desired, the F-22 can *make* that happen. Moral of the story: read other people's posts next time. That would be great. Back on the Eurofighter please.

Where does ANYONE ridicule anything in ANY thread? As far as I know, the "pentavarate" only said that there isn't any fighter in the world that would be able to pick up an F-22 until it's too late (AESA, IRST, etc. included). That's just how the Raptor was *designed*, to be stealthy to RF and IR sensors. That *includes* late-gen IRSTs (as in Eurofighter) or AESA radars (as in F-15/16/35s). Anyway, if that's your definition of ridicule, than maybe you should open a dictionary and find out what the word really means. Cause saying the F-22 is gonna beat the Eurofighter easily air-to-air is not ridiculing the Europeans at all.

Yeah, but what's the point of leaving it off until the moment you suspect that missiles maybe launched against you? Defeats much of the point of having it in the first place. The system is designed to warn the pilot of missiles fired from a guy he never sees, and has no idea where he is, so by turning it on only when the pilot thinks he might be under attack, he's still vulnerable to that guy he never sees. The thing actually doesn't really make you more detectable, much like turning on your radar doesn't double your RCS. It just lets the enemy know you're there, and your general direction, provided that they have the right equipment to pick you up. Of course, if they have 3 aircraft each datalinked to each other, they can triangulate your RF signals to quickly find you, but turning on your radar has much the same affect (unless, of course, you have one of those newer AESA/PESA radars - those afford a level of protection from triangulation if cleverly utilized/programmed).

Photoshop.