Increase load on F16s/Migs

[Hotrod525]

Is it possible to change the load of aircraft ? i mean, like add maverick missile or 1 bomb to a wing, when you look at A10 it's carryin about 5 different weapons, so why the fighters cannot have some too ? 2 sidewingers, 2 AIM120s, 2 Mavericks(working whit laser system), that will allow F16/Mig to give some close support

Dev already made one "Maverick" model:
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f201-j ... nance.html

[LeadMagnet]

You're comparing apples to oranges. The A10 has a far higher wing loading than the F16 and can therefore carry more stores. Besides the last thing we need balance wise is a flying swiss army knife.

[HughJass]

I think its the whole jet balance ; Mec and USMC get great CAS jets while their fighters are only to be fighters.

GB and PLA get slightly worse CAS jets while their fighters get an add on with the bomb drop. I think its a well thought out balance.

[77SiCaRiO77]

i will prefer diferent loadouts for diferent maps , for example , f16s armed for airsuperiority in one map and f16s armed with dumb bombs and/or rocket-pods in another .

the j10 for example , can have 5 dumb bombs and 2 IR-guided missils , making it a perfect ground attack version with some air defences .

[turnpipe]

Hot damn! A maverick?
I can shoot that all by my self!
Even a dumb bomb would feel like I'm my own man.

[CAS_117]

You better be careful saying things like "wing loading" to people, you might confuse them.

F-16 can carry 6 AGM-65's with the current fuel load, I don't see weight or anything being a problem. The MiG-29 has so many versions I'm not sure which one the one in PR is. I think it would be closer to 2 KH-29's and 4 missiles, so the OP was pretty close I think.

If A-10 has AIM-9's, I don't see why the other jets don't have AGM's. I mean with the A-10 sporting 5 weapons I don't think I'm gonna worry about the MiG-29 turning into a swiss army knife.

[SuperTimo]

don't put bombs on the wing whatever you do, its totally unrealistc if you drop only one bomb the plane has 500lbs on one side and nothing on the other it doesnt work dammit!!

Also i dont think fighter jets should have maveriks and all that jazz, personally id love it but i think it would make jets tooo powerful, if anything i want more medium range missiles

[Hotrod525]

You better be careful saying things like "wing loading" to people, you might confuse them.

F-16 can carry 6 AGM-65's with the current fuel load, I don't see weight or anything being a problem. The MiG-29 has so many versions I'm not sure which one the one in PR is. I think it would be closer to 2 KH-29's and 4 missiles, so the OP was pretty close I think.

If A-10 has AIM-9's, I don't see why the other jets don't have AGM's. I mean with the A-10 sporting 5 weapons I don't think I'm gonna worry about the MiG-29 turning into a swiss army knife.

So can i hope some change in a close future ?
May be a missile pod on a side of the Airplane...

[LeadMagnet]

So tell me then, what's the first thing jettisoned when a multi-role fighter is getting ready to engage other aircraft? Since we can't imitate that I find it more unrealistic to have a jet that loses no maneauverability when fully loaded with bombs, AGM's and fuel tanks compared to one setup for a CAP mission. Like the other poster suggested, different loadouts for different maps I can live with though and would be very refreshing. For that matter, have 2 different jets with different loadouts on the same map but I'll stick with the swiss army knife comparison.

[CAS_117]

So tell me then, what's the first thing jettisoned when a multi-role fighter is getting ready to engage other aircraft?

Fuel tanks.

Since we can't imitate that I find it more unrealistic to have a jet that loses no maneauverability

Its perfectly possible, but since you think jets are too hard now, I will spare my myself.

but I'll stick with the swiss army knife comparison.

If you really want I don't understand how a MiG-29 with AGM's would be a swiss army knife, while the A-10 isn't. I like double standards almost as much I like balancing for the sake of gameplay. But as long as those double standards apply to everything I'm happy as a clam.

[Gunwing]

Fuel tanks.



Its perfectly possible, but since you think jets are too hard now, I will spare my myself.



If you really want I don't understand how a MiG-29 with AGM's would be a swiss army knife, while the A-10 isn't. I like double standards almost as much I like balancing for the sake of gameplay. But as long as those double standards apply to everything I'm happy as a clam.

Well sence the A10 is only realy still in service with the Army Natinal Guard of which many aircrews are over seas right now. You could have on some maps F16s fitted for a role much like what the Frogfoot dose ingame now. IE There are many times with USMC, and Army SF troops that they call in F16s with 500LB bomb loads to do close low to the ground high precesion strikes on bunkers, and even gun runs on ground troops.

I think the only on some maps option would work best. IE if both teams don't have jets then by all means make the US/MEC/EU/PLA fighter for what ever team that has them be loaded out for ground attack missions instead of air combat. It would make life as a pilot interesting as you would have to change tactics for your loadout, as well as if there was another plane in the air.

It also is realistic that jets are fitted for the mission at hand in the first place, and not just given all the weapons they can carry into battle for every mission ala Flight sim style.

Most F16s that go into air combat never carry the bombs they could, instead they carry fuel tanks for extra flight time, as well as an extra AIM-9 or two.

BTW Is there any way to make AIM-9s work like in real life? Where they hit the target sidwase instead of dead on from the rear like they do now? IMHO If we could get each weapon to work as it dose in real life then we would be on to a totaly different flight machanic in PR.

[AnRK]

So tell me then, what's the first thing jettisoned when a multi-role fighter is getting ready to engage other aircraft?

Aren't fuel tanks only used for very long range missions? I'm not sure but as far as I was aware, fuel tanks don't always need to be part of a jets loadout.

[Hotrod525]

Aren't fuel tanks only used for very long range missions? I'm not sure but as far as I was aware, fuel tanks don't always need to be part of a jets loadout.

Well it dont need it, but when deployed most of them have it to increase flight time... Anyway it dosent realy care since they're no fuel gage.

And Falcrums and Falcons are totaly capable of carrying a wide range of weapons. Rocket, Anti-Air missile, Air to Ground missile, Anti-Ship missile, all king of bombs, thats why we call them Multi-Role aircraft...

[Sirsolo]

Le *GASP*

Methinks of an idear.

What if we could request Loadouts?!?!?!?!

*Breathes*

It would rocks. Requesting bombing loadouts... AA loadouts... or multi purpose loadouts!
It would be kinda cool to have a super dogfight at the begining of maps and then having the winners land and rearm for bombing runs!
It would also give a sense of realism... the Ammo thing doesnt really work for me... Since bombs dont just.. pop on your jet. (Obviously some time would be used to change loadouts)

This could also work for Tanks. (Im not sure of they have like... 40 shells, 20 HEAT and 20AP just sitting around in the thing at all times =/

Heli's SHOULD NOT CHANGE.
They ARE supposed to be pwnsome Gunships.

~Sirsolo

[Hotrod525]

Le *GASP*

Methinks of an idear.

What if we could request Loadouts?!?!?!?!

*Breathes*

It would rocks. Requesting bombing loadouts... AA loadouts... or multi purpose loadouts!
It would be kinda cool to have a super dogfight at the begining of maps and then having the winners land and rearm for bombing runs!
It would also give a sense of realism... the Ammo thing doesnt really work for me... Since bombs dont just.. pop on your jet. (Obviously some time would be used to change loadouts)

This could also work for Tanks. (Im not sure of they have like... 40 shells, 20 HEAT and 20AP just sitting around in the thing at all times =/

Heli's SHOULD NOT CHANGE.
They ARE supposed to be pwnsome Gunships.

~Sirsolo

In real life TANK carryes both ammo, like represented in P.R., and i think its impossible to allow player to choose the "wings load" In-game.

[M.Warren]

Well in all honesty I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. Let's be patient as most of us are aware that the Fighter/Bomber class of jets is coming. The introduction of the GR4 Tornado is on it's way and I'm sure many other jets of that sort will be soon to follow.

So please...
Let the A-10 Warthog, Q-5 Fantan and the SU-39 Frogfoot remain Ground Attack jets.

Let the F-15 Strike Eagle, GR4 Tornado and the SU-37 Flanker remain Fighter/Bomber jets.

Let the EF2000 Eurofighter, F-16 Fighting Falcon and the Mig-29 Fulcrum remain Fighter jets.
<Note: Or atleast toss on 2 laser guided bombs and call it even.>

And while your at it... Will someone tear off the external fuel tanks to all our jets, it looks silly and impractical for such a small map. Not to mention the fact that if someone could explain to me why the AIM-9 Sidewinders on the F-16 are all purple? That is also in need of being addressed.

[Viper5]

WHy not just establish 3 classes of jets

Class I: Fighters, Limited Air-Ground Ability
F16, F18, Eurofighter, Mig 29, J10
2x AIM9
4x AIM120
2x Maverick or 1x JDAM

Class II: Multi-role, medium air to air and air to ground
F18 (Different Configuration), Tornado, F15, Su37 + 39? (Whatever the bombers were in vanilla BF2 for MEC + PLA)
2x AIM9
2x AIM120
4x Maverick
OR
4x JDAM
OR 2x JDAM, 2x Maverick

Class III: Ground Attack: A-10, Gr.9, AV-8B, Su25, Fantan
2x Rocket Pods
4x Maverick
2x JDAM

[Liquid_Cow]

(Takes deep breath)

A dose of aircraft reality.

Wing loading refers to wing area vs. weight of the aircraft. A high wingloading aircraft is generaly fast and unmanuverable. An example of a high wingloading aircraft is the F-4 Phantom. Actually the A-10 has a much lower wingloading than an F-16.

IRL most aircraft can carry an amazing variety of ordinance, but the package is always tailored to the mission. I worked on A-6's during the 1st gulf war, and they could carry more ordinance than any other aircraft short of the B-52 bomber. There are 5 "hardpoints" on the A-6 for weapons. A typical sortie would call for a fuel tank (more on that in a sec) on the center (under belly) hard point, a pair of AIM-9 sidwinders on the right outer point, a jammer pod on the left outer, and a mission load on the inner pylons. The mission load would depend on, well, the mission. I saw the following packages:
ten 500lbs dumb bombs, FAE, or clusterbombs,
six 1000lbs dumb bombs, smart bombs, or naplam,
four 2000lbs smart or dumb bombs

Never mixed up, you can't load an aircraft asymetrically.

F-18's at my base would usually have 2-3 fuel tanks which would leave just a pair of hardpoints for weapons. They were much more limited in the weight they could carry.

Wing tip hardpoints always carried sidewinders or AIM-120's depending on the mission threat level.

Four 500lbs or cluster or FAE or Maverick
Two 1000lbs or 2000lbs bombs (dumb or guided).

Load out was chosen by the command who chooses the mission. Pilots could not request "an extra clusterbomb" before a flight.

Fuel tanks are ALWAYs carried and never ejected on a routine flight. Our A-6's worked with F-18's all the time, the F-18's needed to fuel 3 times per mission, our planes didn't need to fuel at all, so it could be argueed that since we had to wait for the lawn darts to fuel up at the gas station, why not carry extra ordinance and fuel up ourselves. I don't know why this was option was not used, but it wasn't, we always carried extra fuel.

The only plane I saw routinely fly w/o external fuel was.... drum roll please... the A-10. I suspect that the external tanks might have been a little too vulnerable to the low and slow flying they do.

The only time you dump your external stores was in an Oh-Shit moment. Loose an engine, take major damage, get jumped by a superior force. I can only remember one time when a bird came back w/o its fuel tanks, and that was when he lost an engine on take off and needed to loose weight to climb out, lest he go splat in the middle of a North Carolina residential neighborhood.


So, in summary, as it applies to PR:
*Aircraft loadout is not variable before the mission, though I would support different loadouts for different missions.
*All aircraft would loose some external stores due to fuel tanks even though we don't worry about fuel.
*An aircraft is loaded for the specific mission, ie take out bunkers with JDAM's or LGB's, it would have a light AA load for self defence.
*CAS/Interdiction aircraft like the A-10 would have a wide load or ordinance since it does not have a specific target but rather engages anything it sees.

Personally I would like to see the return of dumb munitions which can be used w/o laser designation for some maps. I'd also love to see some clusterbombs added to the choices, less guided munitions.

[77SiCaRiO77]

agree with liquidcow

[CAS_117]

Liquid was the A-6 clear to return to base with full stores? I know that on occasion the F-18 would have to dump some ordinance in order to make a carrier landing.