LOMAC/TFCSE and breathing new life into a dead airplane

[NightTrain]

I purchased LOMAC gold a few weeks ago and I'm impressed with it's improvement over the first/release version. I also posses a better computer and graphics card than I did when the first version came out. Version 1.1 is very enjoyable. I like aircraft like the SU-25T that have multi-role capability.

 

On one of the LOMAC fan sites they had posted a new product that is in development: The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine.

 

I visited the web site and read a line about a feature in the software:

 

Custom Data Capability

TFCSE will accommodate the ability for the client to enter specific parameters and performance variables permitting input of classified and sensitive data in a controlled environment. The LUA code base is exceptionally adaptable and flexible for optimum customisation.

 

That really got me going. With LOMAC(in the future) a developer can maybe take an idea(like a new aircraft) and place into a controlled environment.

 

I came up with my own ideas. What kind aircraft or weapons system would I develop? I could not imagine what role the aircraft would have or what it would look like. That's until I thought of an existing aircraft.

 

For me taking a dead vehicle(in this case an aircraft) reanimating into something deadly(like the Frankenstein monster) has an appeal.

 

The aircraft I have in mind: IL-102 Sturmovik. Not to be confused with the WWII ground attack aircraft. This one lost out to the SU-25.

 

http://legion.wplus.net/img.shtml?img=/guide/air/s/il102-1.jpg&alt=Штурмовик%20Ил-102

 

I would start my reanimation/modification process by moving back the nose/forward landing gear like it is on the SU-25. The nose and the tail would

be modified so pods/turrets can fit in them. One single bomb bay that either can be used for bombs or an ammunition drum for 30mm rounds like in the A-10(it seems the fuselage looks big enough). The airplane will not be designed for performance. It will be designed to destroy.

 

The plane would be multi-role(tank killing, SEAD, ground attack, and a concept I call Air Based Defense)

 

In the tank killing role it would only differ from the SU-25T by it's cannon. My idea would be a bigger version(30 mm) of the Gatling style gun that is in the Hind. Like the Hind the cannon will be in a pod/turret and linked to some guidance system that can lock on to a target. The same weapon system could also be mounted in the tail for short range air to air defense .It would use the same weapon systems as the SU-25T in the anti-tank role and some new ones in the ground attack role.

 

The new concept or role would be some type of air based defense. The idea is that once a group of IL-102's become airborne they form a network by each plane linking to each other electronically. Each airplane supports/protects each other. Each airplane within the network has a certain task. The IL-102 would be good for this role because of it's rear facing gunner position could be converted to a weapons officer position. The pilot would also take part in operating the weapon systems.

 

In the 1991 Gulf war ground based anti-aircraft defenses were easily overcome and destroyed. Why would any country want to invest in any ground based anti-aircraft system that will be destroyed the second it starts emitting some type of signal?

 

In an air based anti-aircraft defense the concept of each plane supporting/protecting each other is a concept that may work.

 

Planes performing tasks like:

 

Electronic counter measures. Able to engage multiple targets and jam them simultaneously with a powerful emitter.

 

The missile defense: Planes with rear firing as well as forward firing air to air missiles. One plane will be equipped with BVR missiles and long range missiles, one plane equipped with medium range AAM, another with short range AAM and cannon pod(s)

 

Anti AAM- going into the theoretical but into the realm of possibility. A plane equipped with a weapon system thats able to lock on to a AAM(or SAM) shot an electro magnetic pulse at it(via dish inside a pod/turret in the nose or tail) and destroy it. My understanding is the Russians lead the way in EMP technology. The issue would be power supply. A good size power unit would have to be strapped on the belly of the airplane. This weapon system can also be used in an offense capacity in penetrating/destroying enemy air defenses.

 

Air based control of ground based anti-aircraft systems- The weapons officer would take control of SAMS, AAA, and ground based systems by connecting to a receiver that is part of a ground based dedicated wireless network. The ground based systems would be in a network hot zones. A guidance system in the plane would provide information and a target/lock to the ground based weapon systems. The ground based systems would now be an extension of the airplane. I think the advantage of such a system would be is that there is a greater chance of a ground based systems to remain hidden because it won't be emitting a signal and the plane controlling the ground based weapon systems will be protected by the network.

 

I think such an idea put into a controlled environment(such as LOMAC) may work.

[britgliderpilot]

The Il-102?

 

The one that's been rejected and cancelled by Soviet and Russian governments in one form or another since 1953? :p

 

 

It's an awful lot of effort to go to to simulate a single aircraft, with unknown capabilities, that never made it past the prototype stage for good reasons . . . . .

 

Lomac is designed as a simulator - to simulate existing aircraft as well as possible. Fictional aircraft being thrown into the mix probably isn't a good idea.

 

 

The Simulation Engine is nothing more than Lomac, possibly made more modder-friendly. It's ED trying to squeeze some money out of defense departments over the world.

 

I think that that paragraph really refers to is modifying certain aspects of the game (like missile performance), if the end-customer has more detailed knowledge on the performance of certain systems which it isn't prepared to release to ED.

 

 

You've not been reading any Dale Brown books recently, have you?

Just wondering ;)

[355th_Paulie]

 

 

That is one ugly mofo.... no wonder they cancelled it.....:biggrin:

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

 

 

That is one ugly mofo.... no wonder they cancelled it.....:biggrin:

 

rgr, it would be cool to shoot it down tho, just so we wouldnt need to look at its uglyness.

cuz if it got close to us we would be dead from its looks nevermind its weapons.

[355th_Paulie]

This suddenly reminds me of the so called "Caspian Monster", an '80's hoax, what turned out to be real. :biggrin:

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

that caspian thing was leet, if i remember it was like a flying boat that used jet engines and travelled uber fast just feet from the water and could carry a crapload of russian tourists intent on populating your country :D

 

easy defence against them tho, just put up a net of steel wires all around your coast and they will cut themselves to bits at 600mph= pwnd

[Weta43]

They can fly at any hight they want - just are more efficient while using ground effect.

The LUN would be great in LO/FC - does about 500km/h, carries 6 (6!!!) Mosquito (NATO's designation SS-N-22 Sunburn) anti shipping missiles.

Even more in keeping is the fact that only 1 ever went into active service...

 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml

[355th_Paulie]

They can fly at any hight they want - just are more efficient while using ground effect.

The LUN would be great in LO/FC - does about 500km/h, carries 6 (6!!!) Mosquito (NATO's designation SS-N-22 Sunburn) anti shipping missiles.

Even more in keeping is the fact that only 1 ever went into active service...

 

 

Ugly but well hung ey!! :biggrin:

[britgliderpilot]

They can fly at any hight they want - just are more efficient while using ground effect.

The LUN would be great in LO/FC - does about 500km/h, carries 6 (6!!!) Mosquito (NATO's designation SS-N-22 Sunburn) anti shipping missiles.

Even more in keeping is the fact that only 1 ever went into active service...

 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml

 

 

I didn't think that was the case - the Russian Wing-In-Ground effect designs I've seen have required the lift engines and vortex-bouncing stuff to keep them airborne. You simply don't have enough power and lift to get them out of ground effect.

[Weta43]

They can drag themselves up - they'd have to be able to if only to avoid heavy seas.

See this for specs: (or just look at the last line of the post.)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/903.htm

Speed of motion:

at cruise flight

450-550 km/h (243-297 kts)

in displacement position

20-100 km/h (10.8-54 kts)

Range of flight 3,000 km (1,620 nm)

Range in displacement position 400 km (216 nm)

Sea endurance 5 days

Cruise altitude 1-5 m (3.3 - 16 ft)

Altitude of flight at search 500 m (1,640 ft)

Max altitude of flight 7500 m (24,600 ft)

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

Ugly but well hung ey!! :biggrin:

 

 

ugly but well hung LMFAO MANY TIMES :D :D :D :D

 

 

i wonder how many days it took to get that thing upto 7500m ? although i see it in the fas site, no way do i believe that one of the caspian sea monsters, the big one that we are talking about "not the smaller redesigned ones", could reach that altitude under normal circumstances. I believe that they were probably stripped of everything and then taking out for a spin, to see how far they could get it and also add another 25% on top if you factor in propoganda etc....

[33rd_bratpfanne.]

ugly but well hung LMFAO MANY TIMES :D :D :D :D

 

 

i wonder how many days it took to get that thing upto 7500m ? although i see it in the fas site, no way do i believe that one of the caspian sea monsters, the big one that we are talking about "not the smaller redesigned ones", could reach that altitude under normal circumstances. I believe that they were probably stripped of everything and then taking out for a spin, to see how far they could get it and also add another 25% on top if you factor in propoganda etc....

 

 

LMAO

 

This one reminds me of the SU 25 T (really ugly as well, perhaps a little less looking like a Cupboard :icon_jook )

 

S!

 

Brati

[NightTrain]

Well, I can see my idea went over like a led zeppelin with some of the members here.

 

Good ideas that are ahead of there time get ridiculed. That has been the case throughout history. Something like this could be accomplished with existing technology.

 

Here is another capability of my ugly Frankenstein monster. It has to do with control over AAA systems. The plane is equipped with some type of radar or tv/optics system

that is designed to scan for and target/lock on to a cruise missile. Once a lock is made on the cruise missile local AAA units that are along path are searched for. It would be hard for a AAA system to fire at something that's 50-150 ft. off the ground doing between 300-500 mph. The plane links with the AAA system though the wireless network or directly with something like a laser beam. A computer on the plane calculates a solution for a firing point plus other solutions in case the cruise missile changes it's path for the AAA system. Once the cruise missile reaches a certain point the AAA systems fire. The cruise missile is basically ambushed.

[GGTharos]

I tisn't a good idea. You're suggesting to take a SIMULATOR and change it into fantasy.

 

Furthermore, your understanding of current technology as well as logics and personnel combat loading is lacking.

 

Aircraft are a PART of defense, they are not THE defense. If you shove all your command gear into an aircraft and hope that your links are in the clear (and it's hard enough to keep comms clean when there is NO ECM in use, as the link-16 problems on patriots demonstrate) is one of the worst things you could ever do - it's literally putting all your eggs in one basket.

 

Insofar as your cruise missile example goes, this is already done via AWACS and EWR; fighter aircraft and attack aircraft are not put into a role where they'll effectively act as an overloaded and vulnerable C3 asset.

 

There's also a reason why 'a computer on a plane' doesn't handle all of these functions. Don't presume that your idea is oh-so-great - it's not new, and it is already implemented in reality to the extent it -can- be implemented, and given the modern combat environment it is rather unlikely that a small aircraft will ever be commanding any sort of large battle, or hunting cruise missiles and not shoot them down. What a waste of an asset!

 

Not to mention that the size of equipment you can put on the aircraft is limited by obviously available internal volume, and available thrust. Have you noticed how EA-6's don't command any battles whatsoever, despite having a 4-man crew? There's a good reason for this, as one example.

 

Communication with other assets is not magic, nor is target detection. It is DIFFICULT! An aircraft detects its own targets, for itself, unless it is a C2/C3 asset, and such an asset will almost certainly have long-range sensors and be kept FAR away from the battlefield.

[NightTrain]

I tisn't a good idea. You're suggesting to take a SIMULATOR and change it into fantasy.

 

Nope. Not suggesting the SIMULATOR(or LOMAC) be changed into a fantasy but taking an idea or theory and placing it into a controled environment. Never stated that this should be part of the sim. Something like this could be developed privately. Go back and re-read my post.

 

Furthermore, your understanding of current technology as well as logics and personnel combat loading is lacking.

 

Aircraft are a PART of defense, they are not THE defense. If you shove all your command gear into an aircraft and hope that your links are in the clear (and it's hard enough to keep comms clean when there is NO ECM in use, as the link-16 problems on patriots demonstrate) is one of the worst things you could ever do - it's literally putting all your eggs in one basket.

 

Yes aircraft are a part of a defense. In my scenario control of ground based weapon systems could also have control over themselves if they chose so. Where did I say in my post all the command gear is shoved into one airplane? Each plane performs a task ,not many tasks. One plane would have the command role or task for the network. Other planes would be tasked with managing or controling ground based weapon systems. How is that putting your eggs in one basket? As far as comms or a link goes they must be in a formation/position where they can support/protect each other. The planes would be in somewhat close proximity to each and more than likely the signal(radio, laser,etc) they use to link to each other will be that much stronger. Not to say it could never be broken.

 

Insofar as your cruise missile example goes, this is already done via AWACS and EWR; fighter aircraft and attack aircraft are not put into a role where they'll effectively act as an overloaded and vulnerable C3 asset.

 

I'm sure it's done with AWACS and EWR. Do AWACS and EWR have the capability to relay information and provide something like a firing solution

to a AAA system so a cruise missile can be intercepted?(Yes, no system has

that capability, it's theoretical) Again you think one plane is overloaded and performing 50 million tasks. It is one plane in a network of any given number of airplanes performing one or maybe two tasks/missions(for example a plane has two tasks: cruise missile interception and short range defense for the network. Do you think that these tasks or missions are impossible to perform especially when you have a crew of two where each can be doing one of them?)

 

There's also a reason why 'a computer on a plane' doesn't handle all of these functions. Don't presume that your idea is oh-so-great - it's not new, and it is already implemented in reality to the extent it -can- be implemented, and given the modern combat environment it is rather unlikely that a small aircraft will ever be commanding any sort of large battle, or hunting cruise missiles and not shoot them down. What a waste of an asset!

 

By reading this you would think I had one IL-102 performing a role of an AWACS plane. No way a few or one small plane could have command over a large battlefield and no where in my previous posts do I state that or state that one plane is commanding a large battlfield and hunting cruise missiles. Each network of planes would be assigned to an area not the entire country or large battlfield

 

Communication with other assets is not magic, nor is target detection. It is DIFFICULT! An aircraft detects its own targets, for itself, unless it is a C2/C3 asset, and such an asset will almost certainly have long-range sensors and be kept FAR away from the battlefield.

 

That's why when it comes to cummunication with ground based weapon systems a different approach will be taken. The plane connects to one of maybe of hundreds of tranponders/recievers(in case one is destroyed you have another one to connect to. That may be hard if their disguised like one of the surrounding trees) for a wireless network in one area. How is stability achieved? Your in contact with multiple recievers. If interference happens on one connection the information is redirected to another connection with a reciever.The plane is in contact with assets in one area not the entire country.

[Weta43]

BGP & Evil Scot - just FYI from the first site I linked above:

 

"Boeing has recently taken interest in the WIG phenomenon and proposed a concept for a massive craft to meet a US Army need for a long-range heavy transport. Called the Pelican, the 500 ft (153 m) span vehicle would carry up to 2,800,000 lb (1,270,060 kg) of cargo while cruising as low as 20 ft (6 m) over water or up to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) over land. "

 

The ground effect only happens within one wingspan of the ground (or water) so if you can get higher than that you're just flying a plane.

[britgliderpilot]

BGP & Evil Scot - just FYI from the first site I linked above:

 

"Boeing has recently taken interest in the WIG phenomenon and proposed a concept for a massive craft to meet a US Army need for a long-range heavy transport. Called the Pelican, the 500 ft (153 m) span vehicle would carry up to 2,800,000 lb (1,270,060 kg) of cargo while cruising as low as 20 ft (6 m) over water or up to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) over land. "

 

The ground effect only happens within one wingspan of the ground (or water) so if you can get higher than that you're just flying a plane.

 

500 foot wingspan?

 

2,800,000 lb?

 

 

Dear sweet Jesus, the power requirements for free flight on that thing . . . . .

 

Just to put that in perspective, that's more than double the size of the A380 - 262 feet span and 1.2 million lbs MTOW . . . . .

 

That's just crazy. Out of this world crazy. Biggest flying machine ever built . . . . . . I want to see either what Boeing are smoking, or what the hell kind of tech they've got to build something that big!

[Weta43]

It's not what they're smoking - it's what they're feeding off - Federal Pork.

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

weta i know that boeing is experimenting with that, but we are not discussing boeing, and i never said they couldnt fly, i said i dont believe they got that high under NORMAL circumstances, no way in real life would one of that russian aircraft, and the big caspian sea monster that can carry 540 tons could get that high under wartime conditions or any normal working condition...

 

and yea, if boeing make that thing the US gonna have another spruce goose on there hands... I guess it will go the same route as the russian ones, crash n burn or broken up for scrap.

[tflash]

Please more geek stories about Humpback Froggy's freak competition with beauty queen (or is it first runner-up?) Il-102 and the kaspian Sea monsters!

 

Ah, does were the - cold war - days, when we got these blurred black&white photos of bizarre Russian secret planes! Sure beats a good Area 51 story for me.

[britgliderpilot]

Please more geek stories about Humpback Froggy's freak competition with beauty queen (or is it first runner-up?) Il-102 and the kaspian Sea monsters!

 

Ah, does were the - cold war - days, when we got these blurred black&white photos of bizarre Russian secret planes! Sure beats a good Area 51 story for me.

 

I was too young in those days - however, my Uni has a full collection of Janes all the worlds aircraft, dating back . . . . forever, I think. Somewhere there's an entry for the Pterodactyl.

 

Anyway, if you check out the Cold War entries for the Russian aircraft, it's fascinating. Naming, capabilities, propaganda, performance, reporting names . . . . all slightly off compared to what we think today. And those fuzzy photos, and the reports of all the variants, and the VTOL stuff . . . .

[Weta43]

No this isn't a "little" one.

 

Length 73.8 m (240 ft)

Span 44.0 m (144 ft)

Height 19.2 m (65 ft)

 

& I wasn't saying that they cruised around at 10,000m all day, obviously they're not designed to do that.

 

They're wing on ground effect planes & are designed to fly under normal circumstances within one wingspan of the ground, but even fully loaded they are capable of flying above this, which means that :

 

"easy defence against them tho, just put up a net of steel wires all around your coast and they will cut themselves to bits at 600mph= pwnd"

 

Even as a joke - isn't a reflection of reality and gives a false impression of their capabilities.

 

Do I think Boeing will build that thing - no. The point in mentioning Boeing was to show that although you said:

 

"I believe that they were probably stripped of everything and then taking out for a spin, to see how far they could get it and also add another 25% on top if you factor in propoganda etc...."

 

Fully loaded to 7500m - don't know - but Boeing believed that if they build one of these things the operational ceiling will be about the same as the Russians claimed for their birds - & they've done more research about it than I have.

 

Notice Boeing intends to have the plane land on the ground, which means it will have to travel some distance over land, which means it's intended to be spending at least part of the time it's fully loaded flying higher than 50m off the ground (they say 6000m).

Unless they only ever fly it over Holland .

 

Is 7500m its true ceiling? Don't know.

 

But - Is the maximum climb rate quoted for an F15 recorded with full tanks & all the pylons full or just enough gass for the trip ?

 

But then agian - if I asked what the maximum climb rate for an F15 is what would number would you give ?

 

What's the maximum climb rate for an F15?

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

50000 fpm

[SUBS17]

lol, how about "Bounder"

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

you mean the russian bomber that never went into production ? meh no knows dat one, or should i say GOOGLE doesnt know that one :D :rolleyes: :tongue: