F-35 for British

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-07-12 17:01

We'd better hope the enemy is all in tanks then or the Harrier's Brimstones will be useless.

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-07-12 17:02

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']if you knew how hard it was to model, unwrap and skin a carrier you may understand why we aint going to make one for PR just yet.

maybe after v1

Psh, a carrier's just a great big long oblong with some more, smaller oblongs stuck on top along one side, surely?! *grin*

Been a long long time since I last did any modeling... I could probably knock up a tiny scale one but a full size beast for BF2 would be well beyond my capacities sadly, or I'd offer to make a start on it lol.

benjaminosauras · Post by **benjaminosauras** » 2007-07-12 18:10

and will the GR9 have a cannon when it comes into full service?

Its already in full service, there are already 5 of them in 800 NAS and not sure how many with the RAF.

El_Vikingo · Post by **El_Vikingo** » 2007-07-12 22:32

What's wrong with the Eurofighters?

-=ToD=-KNIFE · Post by **-=ToD=-KNIFE** » 2007-07-13 07:01

The Harrier Gr7/9 , if it Does not have Any Cannon or the Brimstone System Should stay the way as Rocket Packs can do the Same Job as a Cannon so the Ground Attack Guys can still do thier Job. But on the Topics Subject of the F-35 us UK, i believe that with PRs Time Era and when the F-35 Arrives is that the F-35 Arrives too Late, It would also be Much more Easier on the Devs then having to Use a Entirly New F-35 Model and Skin to just stick with the Gr7.

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-07-13 07:03

El_Vikingo wrote:What's wrong with the Eurofighters?

There is no current or planned "navalised" version. For a carrier map the only planned proper fighter for the RN in the F-35.

Naldo · Post by **Naldo** » 2007-07-13 08:11

Correct sorry......

Brimstone is not in service with the Harrier ATM,
On Opps in Afghan, the weapon of choice is the Rocket, For CAS role.

The Eurofighter is planned to be deployed early next year.
It is not just an air superiority fighter, It is and always was designed for multi role task. If it is any good, we will have to see.

Looks good at air shows though

The RAF are sending the first team to Edwards early part of new year for evaluation on the F-35.

Please can a dev tell me what the polly count is for your air vehicles.
I may be able to help you

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-07-13 17:39

The Typhoon is already in service with the RAF.

A navalised STOBAR version has been suggested but the MoD have determined that the F-35B STOVL will be used for the Carrier-Vessel Future programme.

benjaminosauras · Post by **benjaminosauras** » 2007-07-13 18:24

The Typhoon is already in service with the RAF.

Not fully, its on the active squadrons but no frontline duties as of yet as they are still evaluating its use

Post by **Rhino** » 2007-07-13 19:00

'[R-PUB wrote:Masaq']The Typhoon is already in service with the RAF.

its in service, but not fully and not yet deployed into any combat roles.

'[R-PUB wrote:Masaq']Psh, a carrier's just a great big long oblong with some more, smaller oblongs stuck on top along one side, surely?! *grin*

ehhh ye, thats the basic shape, then just think about how many doors, walk ways, rails, arial masts, weapons, radars, nuts/baults (thou thous are only textured, not modeled), ramps, stair ways, etc etc are on the carrier, let alone how many are inside it if the inside was made, thats a hell of alot of work.

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-07-13 19:48

Rhino chap, the *grin* after that paragraph was supposed to indicate that I was joking

And yeah, RAF Conigsby is about 90 minutes drive from me, and virtually on the route from my place to my family's - seen the EF a few times on evaluation flights.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-07-13 21:47

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']
ehhh ye, thats the basic shape, then just think about how many doors, walk ways, rails, arial masts, weapons, radars, nuts/baults (thou thous are only textured, not modeled), ramps, stair ways, etc etc are on the carrier, let alone how many are inside it if the inside was made, thats a hell of alot of work.

i know trhe solution ! , dont make interiors !

Mouse · Post by **Mouse** » 2007-07-14 09:09

EF is pointless, F35 does everthing tht thing can, but go vertical, and has better stealth profile.

Could someone please tell me what the EF has goin for it that the F-35 dosnt I'm in a pickle

Bonsai · Post by **Bonsai** » 2007-07-14 09:40

Mouse wrote:Could someone please tell me what the EF has goin for it that the F-35 dosnt I'm in a pickle

Haven`t compared the detailed specifications, but according to these two articles about the Eurofighter and the F-35 it`s better range and dogfighting capability.

LeggyStarlitz · Post by **LeggyStarlitz** » 2007-07-14 09:41

Mouse wrote:EF is pointless, F35 does everthing tht thing can, but go vertical, and has better stealth profile.

Could someone please tell me what the EF has goin for it that the F-35 dosnt I'm in a pickle

Jobs for European aviation engineers?

[=TC=]nuetron · Post by **[=TC=]nuetron** » 2007-07-14 09:53

i almost hate to ask this but.........i dont care......any ways, i was wondering when the F35 will be in PR? if it is

side-note, is(was) the Tornado going to be in PR? if so wat versoin (was) is it going to be in?

Post by **Rhino** » 2007-07-14 09:57

we would be talking this carrier:

or this carrier, thou its not ment for JSF.

both are very complex things to model, even without any interior.

and why are we getting the EF2000? EF2000 is a very effective aircraft for the RAF who dont need the VTOL bit of the EF2000. the RAF hardly use the VTOL on there harriers as it uses up to much fuel, where as the Fleet Air Arm do as its the best way to land on a carrier.

The EF2000 is also faster having a top speed of Mach 2.25 where as the JSF only has a top speed of Mach 1.8.

other few things that are more or less the same, the JSF dose have a longer range thou, but its also slower mind you.

Over all the EF2000 and the JSF will only complement each other if they are ever used together, much like the spitfire and the hurricane did in WW2

benjaminosauras · Post by **benjaminosauras** » 2007-07-14 14:15

the RAF hardly use the VTOL on there harriers as it uses up to much fuel

Also because it adds another dimension to flying which the RAF pilots cant cope with..... ^^

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-07-14 19:38

RAF pilots can't cope with a vertical axis? Where do they think they're going when they climb?

"Up? No no no, we don't fly upwards. Sideways only for us, don'tcha know old bean!" *grin*

benjaminosauras · Post by **benjaminosauras** » 2007-07-15 14:53

"Up? No no no, we don't fly upwards. Sideways only for us, don'tcha know old bean!"

Yup you got it in one.

"Let me consult the user manual one second whilst I watch doors fall off my helicopter"