Will we get a hybrid of Block2B and Block3F?

[rocaf2003]

Hi,There!As far as I know, the earliest version of F35 that we can get combat capability is Block2B that can launch 120C7,GBU12/31/32 in 2015, and ED is also very interested in Block2B. At the beginning, ED said that he was interested in making Block2B, but I also noticed that the FAQ has questions about F35 weapon capabilities Description of the force: It can use a wider variety of weapons (AIM9X 25mm cannon... Does this mean we will get a Block2B with Block3F weapons capability?Thx for reply!

[Revelation]

They don't know the exact version they are going to do just yet. As development progresses they will provide more details. 

[Pilotasso]

The FAQ stated block IIB, and since stealth edited ( ) . However while they may get the data from that version what we will get ingame probably wont suffer the same operational limitations and restrictions due to the many issues all blocks up to IIIF have had. Also none of the other aircraft in DCS are using weapons like JSOW, stormshadow or LRASM. So we likely will never get the difference between what are the blocks implemented, i.e. from our perspective that wont make much of a meaning because the F-35 will have similar restrictions to weapons loadouts and classified systems just as other aircraft currently in game have. (note: many of the aircraft in service will be updated to that standard and keep the engine so...).

Edited January 19 by Pilotasso

[rocaf2003]

In my opinion,ED's confidence has some basis. Because if you look at Block2B in 2015, its total weapon capability is 120C7+GBU31/32/12. If you want to play the trigger role on Block2B, all you need to operate is Radar +EODAS/EOTS. Because all your AA weapons are AIM120C7 and all your AG weapons are GBU12/31/32,Thats it. With a lot of the information that is publicly available and more that ED may have, it is not impossible to achieve some radar functionality and some (probably more because they are more publicly available)EODAS/EOTS operational content.(Aircraft should also be able to pass EW sensors; Team datalinks and more ways to fire AA/AG weapons, but these are too sensitive....)

Having said that, I still hope that our F35 can show some EW content as much as possible... Yes, the first second the F35 is launched, I will pay my money. I saw a lot of people yelling OMG this is terrible, there's so little information available, the FBI won't say yes... Yes, if you look at it carefully, these factors are there, but I would say that any non-military simulator aircraft has more or less a mixture of functional deficiencies that are not realistic... I started to contact BMS4.32 in 2011 when I was 8 years old, and have been using F16CM Block50 until the current 4.37.6. To be honest, even BMS cannot achieve a very complete copy. In BMS, the F16CM has the ability to use JASSM, but this is obviously after the M6 tape, and the closest BMS F16CM B50 is the M5.1 tape. The biggest role of HTS until now is to measure the distance between the source and the radiation, because it basically has no degree of completion, and observing the distance does not require any operation on HTS. So, a lot of times they are not highly realistic. We need to know what we need (for me, or most people who like to play Trigger by themselves, knowing how to start the plane, how to operate the sensors to fire the weapon to destroy the target, is enough, because that is all the tactical significance of a single air combat platform).

[Tango-17]

On 1/19/2025 at 3:09 PM, rocaf2003 said:

Hi,There!As far as I know, the earliest version of F35 that we can get combat capability is Block2B that can launch 120C7,GBU12/31/32 in 2015, and ED is also very interested in Block2B. At the beginning, ED said that he was interested in making Block2B, but I also noticed that the FAQ has questions about F35 weapon capabilities Description of the force: It can use a wider variety of weapons (AIM9X 25mm cannon... Does this mean we will get a Block2B with Block3F weapons capability?Thx for reply!

Wow thanks you ruined our chance for SDB...

[rocaf2003]

2 hours ago, Tango-17 said:

Wow thanks you ruined our chance for SDB...

I don't and I can't make that.I just say people may get a Block2B with SDD weapon

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

They literally said that the Block IIB statement was made in error. We don't know what we're getting.

[rocaf2003]

3 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

They literally said that the Block IIB statement was made in error. We don't know what we're getting.

ED initially showed a strong interest in Block2B, only to change the argument at a later stage because of the weapon capability issue, which basically means that the simulation is still based on Block2B, but ED said he would reconsider it because of the weapon capability issue, and the early relaese for Block2B are the closest to reality because they are in U All of the SAF has been replaced or updated.

ED was initially interested in Block2B, only to change the statement at a later stage because of the weapon capability issue, which basically means that the simulation is still based on Block2B, but ED said it would be reconsidered because of the weapon capability issue, and the early relaese for Block2B are the closest to reality as they have been Be replaced or updated entirely (in usaf).

[EA-18G_BlockII]

i guess we wont see Stormbreaker anytime soon, maybe we will when they started developing B and C Panther though

[Temetre]

I imagine the days of "we gonna use the weapons that X variant carried at Y date" are over, if that was ever more than an excuse. With the F-35 theyre taking a more speculative approach anyway.

Afaik the F-35 block IIB was never even considered a combat capable plane by the air forces receiving it.

Am 21.1.2025 um 02:24 schrieb rocaf2003:

ED initially showed a strong interest in Block2B, only to change the argument at a later stage because of the weapon capability issue, which basically means that the simulation is still based on Block2B, but ED said he would reconsider it because of the weapon capability issue, and the early relaese for Block2B are the closest to reality because they are in U All of the SAF has been replaced or updated.

ED was initially interested in Block2B, only to change the statement at a later stage because of the weapon capability issue, which basically means that the simulation is still based on Block2B, but ED said it would be reconsidered because of the weapon capability issue, and the early relaese for Block2B are the closest to reality as they have been Be replaced or updated entirely (in usaf).

Tbh that doesnt boost confidence in EDs ability to make a believable F-35.

Edited January 25 by Temetre

[rocaf2003]

6 小时前，Temetre 说：

我想“我们将在 Y 日期使用 X 型号携带的武器”的日子已经一去不复返了，如果这不仅仅是一个借口的话。无论如何，对于 F-35，他们采取了一种更具推测性的方法。

据我所知，接收 F-35 block IIB 的空军从未将其视为具有作战能力的飞机。

说实话，这并不能增强人们对 ED 制造出可信的 F-35 的能力的信心。

In 2015, block2b basically disclosed all major operational content: it mainly relies on TSD for combat, and TSD is a centralized display of sensor fusion. It aggregates information from multiple local and other aircraft sensors (radar,ASQ239 electronic warfare system,MADL,Link16) for centralized display and direct support for weapon strikes. It can display AA targets,SAM targets,SEA targets, fixed/moving AG targets. For a single machine, the main source of information acquisition for these targets should focus on the local radar and EW sensors. As far as EO sensors and ASRs were more used for visual identification and confirmation of targets to be struck in TSD (at that time, all AG weapons were only GBU12/31/32 AA weapons or even only 120C7),EO sensors could also be used for GBU12 attacks. A look at the user simulator video of an early version of the F35 shows some clues; They exhibit a very single strike mode: they always specify and engage targets through TSD, then identify AA/AG targets with EOTS/ASR, it's as simple as..... For AA targets, 120C7 is specified and fired on TSD, the target is seen destroyed on EO sensor, for AG targets, the ground target is specified on TSD, SAR images are generated with ASR to see the target details (or EOTS for moving targets), then JDAM is dropped (GBU12 for moving targets), and passed on EO I saw the target hit on the sensor. This should probably be the main combat mode of the F35 block2b machine in 2015..... So ed's confidence should be based on a rather ingenious historical fact: that of the 2015 F35 in the real world block2b is that simple: Throughout 2015, software development teams struggled with a number of flaws introduced by Block2B, and Block3F with full operational capabilities (including but not limited to full weapon capabilities, better positioning accuracy, reliable sensor fusion results, enhanced radar capabilities, and EW system bug fixes) The Block2B of 2015 is relative to the current F35 The TR2 was a rather incomplete version: the radar lacked electronic attack capability, still could only achieve limited sensor fusion, the EW components were still not fully functional, and the AG weapon capability was only JDAM/GBU12. This has seriously affected its integrity. When it comes to the classified content, I think it lies in the cooperative combat ability of multiple aircraft (such as the specific content and operation mode of MADL network to transmit and share target information) and some confidential content of ASQ239 system.

Edited January 26 by rocaf2003

[EchoOneOne]

[ricnunes]

Greetings,

About the subject at hand, it makes absolutely no sense to model Block 2B! IMO, the earliest Block of the F-35A that makes sense to model is obviously Block 3F for several reasons:

- No F-35A Block 2B ever entered in service, not even as IOC. The only F-35 that entered in service as IOC with Block 2B was the F-35B (STOVL variant) with the USMC. The first F-35A version that entered in service as IOC was the Block 3i. Granted that there isn't much of a diference between Block 3i and Block 2B but then again there isn't also a big diference between Block 2B/3i and Block 3F apart from some extra weapons integrations, bug fixes and "one or two" added capabilities. As such modeling a F-35A in service with Block 2B isn't realistic and regarding Block 3i, it was only realistic for a period of 1 year (between 2016 and 2017 when Block 3F entered in service).

- With the point above in mind, it makes just as sense to model the F-35A Block 2B as it would make to for example model the YF-16 instead of the current F-16C Block 50 (I'm exaggerating a bit here but I hope you understand my analogy).

- I also remind that the 25mm gun GAU-22/A internal gun only became operational with the Block 3F. So this means that a realistically modeled F-35A Block 2B wouldn't have a working gun (it would carry the gun internally but it simply wouldn't work)! So, if the 25mm gun GAU-22/A internal gun is to be modeled (and according to the FAQ it is and IMO, rightly so!) then Block 3F is the way to go.

- Moreover, all these F-35 Blocks are basically software updates much similar to how an application such as for example DCS gets updated. Resuming, the diference between Block 2B and Block 3F is basically software only which allows the aircraft to have more capabilities such as using new weapons including again, the gun. Apart from this, the capabilities between Block 2B and Block 3F are quite similar. If there's a capability or two of Block 3F have which for some reason can't be initially modeled then this shouldn't be a problem because the same happened and happens with all other DCS modules (for example, remember when DCS F/A-18 module came out that it didn't even have a TWS radar mode? This doesn't mean that for example a YF-18 should have been modeled in the place of the current F/A-18C lot 20).

- Block 3F allows modeling more weapons (and realistically so) such as GBU-39 SDB which IMO is among the most important weapons of the current F-35A inventory. Another weapon that can be modeled is the dual mode (GPS and Laser) GBU-49, another important weapon of the current F-35A inventory (similar in capabilities to the GBU-54).

- Block 3F was the first version that have full warfighting capability to the F-35. The F-35 entered in full service (as opposed to IOC) with Block 3F. It we want to use a more traditional line of thought, the Block 2B and Block 3i were more like "prototypes" or more accurately, early production aircraft instead of full service aircraft (like Block 3F).

 

Well, for what's worth and IMO the ideal would be a F-35A Block 4 (should be in service by the time the module comes up) with GBU-53 (a.k.a. SDBII) besides other weapons but if this is not possible then Block 3F all the way!

 

My 2 cents, anyway...     

Edited February 12 by ricnunes

[hotrod525]

To the point we are, they should go for the most capability, otherwise their will be no point. It would only be a stealthy aesa equip less capable F16/F18...

[Dragon1-1]

Stealth and AESA will be reasons enough to pick the F-35, even if the loadout selection is scant.

[Wizard_03]

4 Amraams will make it the best A2A fighter in the game because they will come out of nowhere. You won't know your fighting, until you get a pitbull spike on RWR.

[felixx75]

40 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

4 Amraams will make it the best A2A fighter in the game because they will come out of nowhere. You won't know your fighting, until you get a pitbull spike on RWR.

But only if it were possible to operate without our own radar. A radar contact at the RWR can be seen despite a low rcs.

[Wizard_03]

36 minutes ago, felixx75 said:

But only if it were possible to operate without our own radar. A radar contact at the RWR can be seen despite a low rcs.

So it's both possible to operate in complete emcon by engaging on DL only tracks from only off board sensors, meaning you can shoot at a DL only contact and still have Amraam loft and get reasonably High Pk, Fourth Gen fighters like the hornet can already do that, and so can the F-35 it also has passive sensors like DAS, and ETOS that can detect IR/Optical tracks at BVR ranges completely passively Number one.

 

But number two the AESA radar is Also LPI so you will likely be able to use the radar in search and track modes modes that may not trigger RWRs or at least before the Missile's does. In any case lo observables mean more then just the shape of the jet and RAM application the jet is designed to fight undetected.

Edited February 22 by Wizard_03

[NytHawk]

1 hour ago, felixx75 said:

But only if it were possible to operate without our own radar. A radar contact at the RWR can be seen despite a low rcs.

As @Wizard_03 stated, the F35 has a vast array of internal passive sensors which can be used for target detection and engagement (DAS/EOTS/ASQ-239/CNI etc) . But the F35s datalink (MADL) is unmatched by anything the public is aware of.

Most current A2A datalink systems merely allow aircraft to share positions/vectors of targets. However each MADL node allows each flight member to share every individual piece of sensor information available on threats. Basically allowing a single F35 to gain access to its entire flights combined sensor capabilities.

Each individual F35 can then individually fuse, or reject each piece of information from both MADL and onboard sensors into its own trackfile in order for weapons employment.

(Image just as an example of how different data sources can be fused)

MADL is also an LPI system with each of its nodes only sending highly-directional beams directly between each aircraft, among other features.

Edited February 22 by NytHawk

[Snappy]

3 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

4 Amraams will make it the best A2A fighter in the game because they will come out of nowhere. You won't know your fighting, until you get a pitbull spike on RWR.

It will also make it the most boring one. No challenge at all. Push to win button. Is it a highly effective weapon system? yes. Fun? not much if ask me.

[NytHawk]

18 minutes ago, Snappy said:

It will also make it the most boring one. No challenge at all. Push to win button. Is it a highly effective weapon system? yes. Fun? not much if ask me.

Many people just play DCS to mess around, or learn more about fighter aircraft/air combat. The F35 is a great aircraft for both playerbases imo.

[Snappy]

24 minutes ago, NytHawk said:

Many people just play DCS to mess around, or learn more about fighter aircraft/air combat. The F35 is a great aircraft for both playerbases imo.

Fair. Each to their own.

[felixx75]

6 minutes ago, rocaf2003 said:

Gentlemens,I really hope ED can start the develop before June...

Gentlemens,I really hope ED can start the develop before June...

why...?

[rocaf2003]

Gentlemens,I really hope ED can start the develop before June...

On 2/13/2025 at 3:06 AM, ricnunes said:

Greetings,

About the subject at hand, it makes absolutely no sense to model Block 2B! IMO, the earliest Block of the F-35A that makes sense to model is obviously Block 3F for several reasons:

- No F-35A Block 2B ever entered in service, not even as IOC. The only F-35 that entered in service as IOC with Block 2B was the F-35B (STOVL variant) with the USMC. The first F-35A version that entered in service as IOC was the Block 3i. Granted that there isn't much of a diference between Block 3i and Block 2B but then again there isn't also a big diference between Block 2B/3i and Block 3F apart from some extra weapons integrations, bug fixes and "one or two" added capabilities. As such modeling a F-35A in service with Block 2B isn't realistic and regarding Block 3i, it was only realistic for a period of 1 year (between 2016 and 2017 when Block 3F entered in service).

- With the point above in mind, it makes just as sense to model the F-35A Block 2B as it would make to for example model the YF-16 instead of the current F-16C Block 50 (I'm exaggerating a bit here but I hope you understand my analogy).

- I also remind that the 25mm gun GAU-22/A internal gun only became operational with the Block 3F. So this means that a realistically modeled F-35A Block 2B wouldn't have a working gun (it would carry the gun internally but it simply wouldn't work)! So, if the 25mm gun GAU-22/A internal gun is to be modeled (and according to the FAQ it is and IMO, rightly so!) then Block 3F is the way to go.

- Moreover, all these F-35 Blocks are basically software updates much similar to how an application such as for example DCS gets updated. Resuming, the diference between Block 2B and Block 3F is basically software only which allows the aircraft to have more capabilities such as using new weapons including again, the gun. Apart from this, the capabilities between Block 2B and Block 3F are quite similar. If there's a capability or two of Block 3F have which for some reason can't be initially modeled then this shouldn't be a problem because the same happened and happens with all other DCS modules (for example, remember when DCS F/A-18 module came out that it didn't even have a TWS radar mode? This doesn't mean that for example a YF-18 should have been modeled in the place of the current F/A-18C lot 20).

- Block 3F allows modeling more weapons (and realistically so) such as GBU-39 SDB which IMO is among the most important weapons of the current F-35A inventory. Another weapon that can be modeled is the dual mode (GPS and Laser) GBU-49, another important weapon of the current F-35A inventory (similar in capabilities to the GBU-54).

- Block 3F was the first version that have full warfighting capability to the F-35. The F-35 entered in full service (as opposed to IOC) with Block 3F. It we want to use a more traditional line of thought, the Block 2B and Block 3i were more like "prototypes" or more accurately, early production aircraft instead of full service aircraft (like Block 3F).

 

Well, for what's worth and IMO the ideal would be a F-35A Block 4 (should be in service by the time the module comes up) with GBU-53 (a.k.a. SDBII) besides other weapons but if this is not possible then Block 3F all the way!

 

My 2 cents, anyway...     

Thanks for your reply. I would love to get a 3F too, I've been doing endless research since the F35 was announced and there's all the publicly available information about the F35, so I haven't paid much attention to the forums. Earlier versions of Block3F added GMTT,Interim Full Motion Video,Automatic Target Recognition, and possibly enhanced OECM capabilities. How to solve OECM? The NSA disagrees, the FBI disagrees....

[felixx75]

38 minutes ago, rocaf2003 said:

Gentlemens,I really hope ED can start the develop before June...

You've written that three times now, but why before June?