I was thinking, maybe after you win a campaign, you can be rewarded with unlockables. Maybe experimental vessels, like that British mothership concept?
or maybe not?
or maybe not?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Multiplayer will always be on a level playing field, so no unlockables in that sense. But the scenarios will gradually introduce bigger and better units to the player, so in that sense, you do unlock new stuff by finishing missions.
The mothership is a good candidate for DLCs later, I'd think.
The mothership is a good candidate for DLCs later, I'd think.
Would work well with your projected force theme for the Royal Navy being made up of specialist vessels as well.
Queen Elizabeth carriers do the specialist job of delivering manned airpower and power projection as well as Airborne early warning. While the BAE UXV opens up the specialist job of delivering unmanned long range, long endurance elements to the fleet.
That said I have a question?
How would DLC be integrated and featured in pre-designed scenarios and the campaigns and in any "order of battle". Would it be possible to integrate them on a multiplayer level if both opponents have that DLC?
I want to say +1 to Future Weapons/Experimental Weapons DLC
1. (FAR) Future, Experimental, Concept, and (Black Budget) Secret Ships added so it is usable in User made and an option in MP
2. Dev Made Challenge Mode Scenarios aka the advanced ships vs yours for the guys who want a challenge (Noobs can always make their own scenarios
)
3. Maybe add some maps from future regions to tease upcoming DLC and let players have a taste of the Pacific or the Med before the units rare all done and pac/med DLC is released.
Please steal my ideas
1. (FAR) Future, Experimental, Concept, and (Black Budget) Secret Ships added so it is usable in User made and an option in MP
2. Dev Made Challenge Mode Scenarios aka the advanced ships vs yours for the guys who want a challenge (Noobs can always make their own scenarios
)3. Maybe add some maps from future regions to tease upcoming DLC and let players have a taste of the Pacific or the Med before the units rare all done and pac/med DLC is released.
Please steal my ideas
Some interesting ideas there. Obviously, existing and planned platforms and weapons provide more than enough challenges to deal with! For example: Having only non-stealth fighters and go up against stealth is a pretty nasty experience.
I can imagine so, though I would like to point out there are plenty of reports of Aircraft like the Typhoon more than holding it's own (or beating) stealth aircraft in engagements.
Stealth will only help so much, the news and media loves to place a large hype on it however it comes at a real price to make something truly stealthy!
There is an oft-reported exercise pitting one F-22 against five F-15s, which I heard about from one of my RAF friends. All the pilots were very experienced and had flown both aircraft. The F-15s didn't have any chance to ever see or lock on to the raptor, which took out all the eagles.
Then again, there is the more famous Indian-US exercise, where the Indian air force won simply by targeting the US tanker planes. The stealth only made sure nobody saw the raptors fall out of the sky (virtually, of course, as it was an exercise)...
Then again, there is the more famous Indian-US exercise, where the Indian air force won simply by targeting the US tanker planes. The stealth only made sure nobody saw the raptors fall out of the sky (virtually, of course, as it was an exercise)...
Pretty sure the RAF have flown Typhoon against the F-22 and won every single scenario... Will look up the incedent because it could just be rumour.
I recall reading about a group of F-18 pilots who tried to fly against the F22. From what I recall it was a frustrating experience, because if they got visual contact, the F22 would just make a hard turn and simply disappear. I dont think they managed to get a missile lock either.
edit :
or maybe it was F-15's.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that is the case. I know there are a few incidents like the Indian one or the Swedish sub that managed to score a kill on a US carrier, but the Typhoon against the F-22? I doubt it.
Yeah sounds good to be true. After all they are almost a generation apart.
Um they are nowhere near as far apart as people think they are... Especially with the huge number of problems with the stealthy coating on the F-22. Not to mention the loss of the side radar arrays and numerous other reqiurements.
Also I've found it very interesting that the F-22 wasn't deployed to Libya whereas the Typhoon was. For plane that is supposed to be decided for stealthy multi-role strikes against a target that kind of suggests they aren't delivering on capability!!
Finally I refer you to;
"internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" - year 2006, issue 20, page 45. - ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917."
Specifically the following quote;
"more recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have peformed better than was expected. There was little suprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight, but the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long range. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagement was canceled, and "the USAF decided they didn´t want to play any more."
I don't know what it is about US equipment but the belief it is so able to smash apart EU equipment always makes me wonder. Harrier for example was more than capable of holding it's own and proving a nightmare to the F-15. Eurofighter has taken on 2 or more F-15 and won hands down. America sends the officers it wishes to become truly capable submariners to the RN to take part in perisher.
Just some things I think people need to consider. Obviously we all have our bias but saying "Stealth will beat everything" is clearly not the case and I would like to remind everyone that often "just good enough" is the true nemesis to "the best" because of the significant drop in numbers and raising in time required to become the best.
Also I've found it very interesting that the F-22 wasn't deployed to Libya whereas the Typhoon was. For plane that is supposed to be decided for stealthy multi-role strikes against a target that kind of suggests they aren't delivering on capability!!
Finally I refer you to;
"internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" - year 2006, issue 20, page 45. - ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917."
Specifically the following quote;
"more recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have peformed better than was expected. There was little suprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight, but the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long range. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagement was canceled, and "the USAF decided they didn´t want to play any more."
I don't know what it is about US equipment but the belief it is so able to smash apart EU equipment always makes me wonder. Harrier for example was more than capable of holding it's own and proving a nightmare to the F-15. Eurofighter has taken on 2 or more F-15 and won hands down. America sends the officers it wishes to become truly capable submariners to the RN to take part in perisher.
Just some things I think people need to consider. Obviously we all have our bias but saying "Stealth will beat everything" is clearly not the case and I would like to remind everyone that often "just good enough" is the true nemesis to "the best" because of the significant drop in numbers and raising in time required to become the best.
The Typhoon is based on a 4th generation design, started in 1971. The F22 is based on a concept originating almost a decade later. You cant possibly be serious when you claim the F22 is not superior in design?
Why should it? Its not like the Libya campaign required a lot. after all, were talking about the west vs a third would country running on Soviet surplus.
A report. Right. The US is at leat 20 year ahead of Europe and even farther a head of Russia when it comes to military technology. I also read a report about the F35 not being able to maneuver and climb.
Stealth beats non-stealth in the same way the jet engine beat non jet engine planes in the 40's and 50's. Were talking about a whole generation apart. Dog fighting capabilities means very little if you cant see your enemy.
Hitchens a couple of things if you will;
Stealth does not beat non stealth all the time. Such arguments are flawed straight from the start. Just like the argument that a jet engine beats a non-jet engine. Lets start off with Stealth and dog fighting and that whole complete mess.
Stealth aircraft by their nature have more stealthy, and less stealthy cross sections. While an F-22 is very hard to detect from the front the whole picture changes once an opponent is using more than a single radar and also from a different cross section. Also as soon as an F-22 manouvers in anyway to change the angle of deflection and absorption of it's radar absorbing and reflecting materials it alters the radar signature. In effect it becomes LESS stealthy. If the F-22 emits, it is no longer stealthy. As soon as the F-22 uses an active emission of any sort the enemy will be able to track it. And then vector in many many more opponents onto the Aircraft.
There are also many other considerations; while it can be hard to get a direct fix on an F-22 low frequency radars are very effective at doing so due to the fact that being stealthy against a high frequency radar makes it harder to be stealthy against a low frequency radar. While a low frequency radar cannot necessarily pin-point an F-22's position it can provide an area. It can allow that area to be boxed in. It can ensure that all other assets are removed from that area.... A flight of F-22's might not even be aware of this because to remain stealthy they have to remain passive with regards to their emissions.
Then there is weapons load-out. An F-22 can only carry 6 BVR & 2 WVR missiles stealthily. However WVR means the F-22 can now be seen. If it can be seen it can be engaged, nothing can make you invisible and infra-red is often difficult to hide from. Thats 6 BVR missiles which is around 50% of what other comparible 4th and 5th gen fighters can carry.
Just on a numbers game alone you start to see problems. I can get 2 Typhoons for 1 F-22. Each Typhoon can carry 13 missiles. 2 of which have to be WVR the rest can be a mix. Suddenly things become difficult for the F-22's. A squadron of F-22's is outnumbered 2:1. It is facing between 3 and 4 times the number of missiles. As soon as any F-22 fires a missile, or emits active radiation a bearing only launch will occur. Furthermore the Eurofighter started in 1971, however like the Superhornet it is not a basic 4th generation fighter... It is closer to a 4.5, or maybe a 4.75 with the latest models. IRST and ASEA arrays mean it has an exceptional avionics suite. Especially when coupled with some of the data sharing and data link capability.
I think we are all being exceptionally blind if we think that stealth is the be all and end all. Eurofighter is not just a "dog fighter". The RAF version at the very least has some exceptional avionics capabilities that really do match the F-22.
Theres more than 1 report. That was off the top of my head, I shall endeavour to find them all. You are right that they are not all going to be true however please remember that most rumours have some basis in fact. It is that which you have to consider.
Also the US is not 20 years ahead of Europe. Don't even get me started on the foundation of a large number of US technologies being European, Russian or a manner of other countries. Or that the US criticises the radar approach of the T-45, or Horizon class, or Dutch/Dannish escorts and then mysteriously started to adopt those same radar practices on the Zumwalt class and will probably carry that practice (ASEA high definition scanning array up top with a paired long range search radar) through to the Gerald R Ford.
I just think people should really be careful when going on about how "amazing" the F22 is. And yet how often scheduled combat exercises, fly overs or other situations have been cancelled without reason. It is untested. Stealth has also been shown to not be as powerful as people think it is.
There are very powerful ways to make stealth (and the lack of numbers due to the expensive nature of stealth tech) count for very little... If a physicist like myself can see those ways then you can bet that countries are already designing ways to counter the said technologies.
That said;
The US and the EU have cordial relations. Britain definitely has good relations. NATO is still a strong organisation. So it's more likely that Eurofighter would work with F-22... And at that point I would not want to be the opponent... Trying to nail down an agile fighter with world class avionics/sensors is hard enough... Trying to do it while worrying about the stealth fighters that are difficult to detect and can use the data from the agile fighter to fire on you would be exceptionally difficult is suspect.
EDIT;
Also I would like to add that while obviously Jet Engines are now far superior to non-jet engine combat aircraft it wasn't so obvious to start with. Despite jet engines being the "newest" most "high tech" and preferred option when they started to come into service around the Korean war the FAA Hawker Sea furies managed to engage Mig fighters and shoot them down.
Stealth does not beat non stealth all the time. Such arguments are flawed straight from the start. Just like the argument that a jet engine beats a non-jet engine. Lets start off with Stealth and dog fighting and that whole complete mess.
Stealth aircraft by their nature have more stealthy, and less stealthy cross sections. While an F-22 is very hard to detect from the front the whole picture changes once an opponent is using more than a single radar and also from a different cross section. Also as soon as an F-22 manouvers in anyway to change the angle of deflection and absorption of it's radar absorbing and reflecting materials it alters the radar signature. In effect it becomes LESS stealthy. If the F-22 emits, it is no longer stealthy. As soon as the F-22 uses an active emission of any sort the enemy will be able to track it. And then vector in many many more opponents onto the Aircraft.
There are also many other considerations; while it can be hard to get a direct fix on an F-22 low frequency radars are very effective at doing so due to the fact that being stealthy against a high frequency radar makes it harder to be stealthy against a low frequency radar. While a low frequency radar cannot necessarily pin-point an F-22's position it can provide an area. It can allow that area to be boxed in. It can ensure that all other assets are removed from that area.... A flight of F-22's might not even be aware of this because to remain stealthy they have to remain passive with regards to their emissions.
Then there is weapons load-out. An F-22 can only carry 6 BVR & 2 WVR missiles stealthily. However WVR means the F-22 can now be seen. If it can be seen it can be engaged, nothing can make you invisible and infra-red is often difficult to hide from. Thats 6 BVR missiles which is around 50% of what other comparible 4th and 5th gen fighters can carry.
Just on a numbers game alone you start to see problems. I can get 2 Typhoons for 1 F-22. Each Typhoon can carry 13 missiles. 2 of which have to be WVR the rest can be a mix. Suddenly things become difficult for the F-22's. A squadron of F-22's is outnumbered 2:1. It is facing between 3 and 4 times the number of missiles. As soon as any F-22 fires a missile, or emits active radiation a bearing only launch will occur. Furthermore the Eurofighter started in 1971, however like the Superhornet it is not a basic 4th generation fighter... It is closer to a 4.5, or maybe a 4.75 with the latest models. IRST and ASEA arrays mean it has an exceptional avionics suite. Especially when coupled with some of the data sharing and data link capability.
I think we are all being exceptionally blind if we think that stealth is the be all and end all. Eurofighter is not just a "dog fighter". The RAF version at the very least has some exceptional avionics capabilities that really do match the F-22.
Theres more than 1 report. That was off the top of my head, I shall endeavour to find them all. You are right that they are not all going to be true however please remember that most rumours have some basis in fact. It is that which you have to consider.
Also the US is not 20 years ahead of Europe. Don't even get me started on the foundation of a large number of US technologies being European, Russian or a manner of other countries. Or that the US criticises the radar approach of the T-45, or Horizon class, or Dutch/Dannish escorts and then mysteriously started to adopt those same radar practices on the Zumwalt class and will probably carry that practice (ASEA high definition scanning array up top with a paired long range search radar) through to the Gerald R Ford.
I just think people should really be careful when going on about how "amazing" the F22 is. And yet how often scheduled combat exercises, fly overs or other situations have been cancelled without reason. It is untested. Stealth has also been shown to not be as powerful as people think it is.
There are very powerful ways to make stealth (and the lack of numbers due to the expensive nature of stealth tech) count for very little... If a physicist like myself can see those ways then you can bet that countries are already designing ways to counter the said technologies.
That said;
The US and the EU have cordial relations. Britain definitely has good relations. NATO is still a strong organisation. So it's more likely that Eurofighter would work with F-22... And at that point I would not want to be the opponent... Trying to nail down an agile fighter with world class avionics/sensors is hard enough... Trying to do it while worrying about the stealth fighters that are difficult to detect and can use the data from the agile fighter to fire on you would be exceptionally difficult is suspect.
EDIT;
Also I would like to add that while obviously Jet Engines are now far superior to non-jet engine combat aircraft it wasn't so obvious to start with. Despite jet engines being the "newest" most "high tech" and preferred option when they started to come into service around the Korean war the FAA Hawker Sea furies managed to engage Mig fighters and shoot them down.
Last edited:
2 things.
The Abrams isnt 100% US. If Germany stopped selling you parts, youd sit on unarmed tanks. So much for US tech being so far into the future, its going back to European stuff just to get a working tank. (Overexaggeration, but it works
)Stealth is nowhere a tested technology. Yes it works admirably. It has been tested in labs and simulations without end. It has proven it can defeat surplus Soviet stuff. But it has not seen a symmetrical war. And stealth does not make you invisible. It only makes you LESS visible. Which is exactly the weakness that a more conventional force can exploit.
Plus going back on the Jet engine debate. As already mentioned. Jet engines give you ALOT less time to engage something and make you less maneuverable than a propellerdriven craft. At least back then during the Korean War. Sure it was clear to everyone where the direction was; but that didnt mean that newer was better YET.
Its like LASERs. Yes they might be nice and powerful, but sometimes carrying two dozen missiles instead can be so much more powerful.
there is a case where a f/a-18 usn navy pilot was doing a mock dogfight against a f-22 the f/a-18 has the f-22 clearly in its gunsight in the picture so when it comes right down to it. its come right down to the pilots. f/a-22s arent completely blind when they put there radars on silent on there sa page which stands for situation awareness which is fed by AWACS aircaft which means the raptors can position them selves on the six o clock of the typhoons mig-29s su-35s or any aircaft if ever gos up against.and launch the aim-120ds when ever they feel like it lol.
Of course... Silly me.
It's as simple as putting an AWACS in the field. Putting up 2 Raptors and watching them get to the 6 o clock of the enemy... Who isn't going to deploy in wall formation, engage your AWACS, use Jamming, use AWACS and ELINT of his own.
I know F-22's are not blind when running passive. However the resolution and capability of their passive sensors is less than their active... Simply because of how active/passive sensors work.
Citing you can use an AWACS introduces further elements of risk and gain. You then have to protect your AWACS... Except the F-22 is very expensive to be relegated to "protecting" an asset that allows it to remain stealthy and engage the enemy... Especially when it loses an element of stealth to protect the AWACs.
It really does depend on huge numbers of factors and stealth is only one. An important one but no more important the numbers, crew experience, training, moral, inteligence, AWACS, information... It's not quite as simple as
"OMG WE HAVE THE F-22 WE WILL PAWN/PWN (However you say it) YOUR FIGHTER... LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLL" (Please note I hate that type of language and when people do lololololol... they keep missing the extra l.... so you get laugh out loud, out laugh, out loud, out laugh... which is just silly hehe)
Thats like saying a ME-262 wont always beat a Spitfire. Sure that nmight be that case, but the Me-262 would have a great/incredible advantage.
See the earlier referal to a friendly dogfight where F-15's could not get a lock on the F22due to stealth and manoverability.
This is of course true. But a stealth fighter will stay hidden and engage you without you even knowing its there. Just like a submarine. The whole notion that a non stealth fighter will have much chance is redicilous, unless you make uop a scenario that caters the non stealthy plane. The stealth fighter will see you before you can see it, and if will engage you without you even knowing it. So by the time you are aware you are not alone, it will be too late. Stealth alters the battle field completely.All this talk about numbers and loadout is really irelevant.
It is amazing. Its the undisputed king of air superiority. Traditional dogfights is a thing of the past. Visual range dogfights is increasingly also a thing of the past.