Orca thingys?

[UltimateAero123]

I don't know about anyone else but I think the orca things would be cooler and more realistic if they got rid of the circles around they vertical propellers that provide lift to those things.

[Kyang]

I think it's perfectly realistic with the rings.

http://aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/nord-500.php

http://aviastar.org/foto/nord-500.jpg

http://aviastar.org/foto/nord-500_2.jpg

More modern American craft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dynamics_AD-150

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/AD-150_10035.jpg

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1139.0
http://i.imgur.com/wk28H.jpg

[Cinderella_EX]

I think it's perfectly realistic with the rings.

http://aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/nord-500.php

http://aviastar.org/foto/nord-500.jpg

http://aviastar.org/foto/nord-500_2.jpg

More modern American craft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dynamics_AD-150

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/AD-150_10035.jpg

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1139.0
http://i.imgur.com/wk28H.jpg

I think apache will be better

[Commander32]

Or something like this...
http://www.thewallpapers.org/photo/22114/Avatar-Movie-010.jpg


And heres a concept on the Unit.
http://www.commandandconquer.com/en/media/images/promo-tile-home-generals-join_en.png
Don't mind the Marketing. :P

This VTOL concept has been around for years...
I guess I can live with it... :/

OH!!! BTW we should give it a good name!!! Like the

Goshawk Gunship

[Kyang]

I think apache will be better

Wouldn't you prefer the WZ-10?

[UltimateAero123]

Since it appears to be the European Union there not supposed to be this advanced.

[Kyang]

Since it appears to be the European Union there not supposed to be this advanced.

Why isn't the EU supposed to be "this advanced" in the mid 2030's...?

[Commander32]

Ok, lets give the EU Steam Powered Planes then :)

Even China would have some neato stuff by then...

[Cinderella_EX]

Wouldn't you prefer the WZ-10?

I'd prefer an advanced Helix

[sgtmyers88]

I guess if they do keep it they should name it the Osprey MK II or Osprey Fighter
in correlation to this vehicle:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/V-22_Osprey_tiltrotor_aircraft.jpg

[Commander32]

Looks nothing like an Osprey...

[WeedWhacker92]

Goshawk Gunship

I like the name, but it always makes me think of the RotR unit (which I also love the design of):
http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/5/4333/eugoshawk.jpg

Regardless, I think the rotors should stay on the G2 VTOL unit, it gives it a distinct look and just "feels" right from what we've seen so far from the EU aesthetic design

[Commander32]

I like the name, but it always makes me think of the RotR unit (which I also love the design of):
http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/5/4333/eugoshawk.jpg

Regardless, I think the rotors should stay on the G2 VTOL unit, it gives it a distinct look and just "feels" right from what we've seen so far from the EU aesthetic design

Well, if EA aint gonna use the ROTR design, might as well take its good name lolz.

[WeedWhacker92]

Well, if EA aint gonna use the ROTR design, might as well take its good name lolz.

Might as well, it just rolls of the tongue lol

Also, because of RotR, I'm really hoping for a huge German tank for the EU, realistic or not, super heavy multi-barreled tanks are a must have in C&C games.

[Commander32]

Might as well, it just rolls of the tongue lol

Also, because of RotR, I'm really hoping for a huge German tank for the EU, realistic or not, super heavy tanks are a must have in C&C games

Maybe we should leave that to the Chinese... :/

[StormWolf]

I like the design of the unit. It looks like something that may be used in a few decades.

[WeedWhacker92]

Maybe we should leave that to the Chinese... :/

Assuming that they'll be in the vanilla release, by all means, can't have generals without redefining "spawn moar overlords"

[Commander32]

Assuming that they'll be in the vanilla release, by all means, can't have generals without redefining "spawn moar overlords"

Well I guess we can have many more Heavy tanks then. :P

[Cinderella_EX]

Assuming that they'll be in the vanilla release, by all means, can't have generals without redefining "spawn moar overlords"

Double cannon tank is a vital element in C&C series

[Commander32]

Double cannon tank is a vital element in C&C series

Well, at least we have Upgraded GLA Marauder tanks...

[R315r4z0r]

I don't understand why everyone is complaining about these VTOLs... What is wrong with them? They are just miniaturized V-22s. I think they look pretty cool.

[Commander32]

Again, they are nothing like the Osprey...

Well its not that bad.

[Alex06]

Double cannon tank is a vital element in C&C series
"But it's futuristic and unrealistic for Generals!"

Aaaaand to that, I ask, why would it be unrealistic and futuristic to have DOUBLE ROTORS, if we can have DOUBLE BARRELS, hm? ;)

Ever since EALA took over, there has always been a double rotor aircraft in C&Cs.


I don't understand why everyone is complaining about these VTOLs... What is wrong with them? They are just miniaturized V-22s. I think they look pretty cool.
More like the same 2 people making new accounts to make it appear that more people actually seem to be whining on this subject.

[R315r4z0r]

Again, they are nothing like the Osprey...

Well its not that bad.
How so? The only differences between this and an Osprey is:
1. Ospray is a transport, this is an attack craft.
2. Ospray is larger, this is smaller.
3. Ospray has propellers built onto wings, this has propellers in place of wings.

You shrink down an Ospray, and this VTOL is essentially what you get.

[Commander32]

I say they ripped off Avatar. :D

[Kyang]

And Avatar ripped off real life.

Or is that just called, "inspiration".

...Hm.

[Alex06]

I say they ripped off Avatar. :D
Bah, who cares, it looks fine. xD
Can we just worry about more important things? Like, going to sleep, or finals (for those still in them)?

[FreezingDeath]

Amusingly the first thing I thought when I saw the avatar gunships was "Looks like an orca from cnc!"

[Commander32]

Bah, who cares, it looks fine. xD
Can we just worry about more important things? Like, going to sleep, or finals (for those still in them)?

Final? Meh. Sleep? Meh. Generals 2? YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[sgtmyers88]

Amusingly the first thing I thought when I saw the avatar gunships was "Looks like an orca from cnc!"

And the circle is complete... lol

[Alaskan_Viking]

better question would be why have "Orca thingies" in generals anyways? What is wrong i wth a regular helicopter?

[Nerdfish]

my guess is orca thingies make a better boom when they crash. because they can gib better with more parts.

[stephanovich]

Assuming that they'll be in the vanilla release, by all means, can't have generals without redefining "spawn moar overlords"

LoL that was a good one :D

Besides the über double barreled tank, I'd really like to see a heavy tank like the one from RA1 again.

[Magnus20]

Since it appears to be the European Union there not supposed to be this advanced.
Why not?
They are more advanced the US

[Alex06]

Why not?
They are more advanced the US
Exactly. Why are the EU not supposed to be advanced? Look at some of the European tanks and other vehicles! Some of their current vehicles are better and more recent than the US' own. Leopard Tanks, Fenneks, Dassault UAVs, etc.

[00margo]

better question would be why have "Orca thingies" in generals anyways? What is wrong i wth a regular helicopter?

Helicopters are too mainstream.
Not to mention really, really easy to shoot down. Slow as well.

[Commander32]

this is 2030 the game takes place, its highly plausible.

[Tuahaa]

I'd like to see VTOL fighter jets rather than gunships such as the F-35

http://www.jeffhead.com/f35/f-35b-03.jpg

[Commander32]

Thing is though Gunships provide Close Air support to Ground forces whenever possible.

Jets, even hovering ones aren't suitable to such roles.

Only exception is if the Jet is a dedicated gunship and capable of long times away from refueling.

[Coolness7]

So no one else is wondering why this matters?

[Tuahaa]

Thing is though Gunships provide Close Air support to Ground forces whenever possible.

Jets, even hovering ones aren't suitable to such roles.

Only exception is if the Jet is a dedicated gunship and capable of long times away from refueling.

Ground attack aircraft will fill that role well

Remember VTOLs = Vertical TakeOff and Landing. It doesn't mean it can/should hover

Those things in the pics just seem to be dual-fan helis

I'm not a fan of VTOLs implemented this way, they pretty much fill the role of an attack heli

[bombspy]

Ok, lets give the EU Steam Powered Planes then :)

Even China would have some neato stuff by then...China already copied the F22 Raptor. What do you expect will they have in 2030?

[Kyang]

China already copied the F22 Raptor. What do you expect will they have in 2030?

The J-20 is not an F-22 copy, lol.

[Commander32]

China already copied the F22 Raptor. What do you expect will they have in 2030?

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/610/j20t50f22.jpg

Looks nothing like it, and its all about functionality.

BTW if Russia and China are in(whenever that is), they better have their RL respective fighters at least.

[Kyang]

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/610/j20t50f22.jpg

Looks nothing like it, and its all about functionality.

BTW if Russia and China are in(whenever that is), they better have their RL respective fighters at least.

Commander32, no, just no. That image is just so filled with PLA fan-boyism it's not even funny.

Here's the real deal:

http://i.imgur.com/w1e2t.jpg

[bombspy]

It does look different from outside but everyone knows that they hacked into the computers of Lockheed Martin and stole all technical data a few years ago.

[Commander32]

Commander32, no, just no. That image is just so filled with PLA fan-boyism it's not even funny.

Here's the real deal:

http://i.imgur.com/w1e2t.jpg

Beats me, I just take the nearest source lolz :D

Its still not a Chinese Copy though...

[Kyang]

I does look different from outside but everyone knows that they hacked into the computers of Lockheed Martin and stole all technical data a few years ago.

The hack was in 2010, and the J-20 prototype is flying around less than 1 year later.

Now unless you want to tell me that the Chinese are such super geniuses that they could steal, digest, then put into practice, cutting edge American research, in a single year, into a prototype that's ready to go into service within the next 6, then no, the hack has little to do with the J-20.

Assuming that it's true, then you really have to start wondering wtf is wrong with American industry that it takes them 30 years to do what the Chinese do in 1.

[GeneralCCCP]

Не только в США шли разработки такой схемы вертолетов. Вот ми-12 он не пошел на вооружение но был очень хороший образец.
Первый полет 10 июля 1968 года.(СССР)

Not only in the United States were developing such a scheme helicopters. That E-12 he went into service but it was a very good model.
The first flight July 10, 1968.(USSR)

http://www.mi-helicopter.ru/rus/gallery/46036742.jpg
http://www.kartinki24.ru/uploads/gallery/comthumb/164/kartinki24_helicopters_0001.jpg

[bombspy]

The hack was in 2010, and the J-20 prototype is flying around 1 year later.

Now unless you want to tell me that the Chinese are such super geniuses that they could steal, digest, then put into practice, cutting edge American research, in a single year, then no, the hack has little to do with the J-20.They aren't morons. If you have the blue prints of a working product, competent engineers and enough money you can rebuild it within a few months. The chinese built planes like the J-10, they know how to build modern fighter planes.

[Kyang]

They aren't morons. If you have the blue prints of a working product, competent engineers and enough money you can rebuild it within a few months. The chinese built planes like the J-10, they know to build modern fighter planes.

Lol, yes, the Chinese can rebuild an entire cutting edge stealth fighter program in a few months from some bits of stolen data, but it takes them over 10 years to recreate a decades old fighter, the Su-27, even with Russian supplied kits and direct assistance from Russian engineers.

Think about how ridiculous the contrast is, and reconsider.

[Coolness7]

I'd bet my life that if the next generation U.S craft looked like this (probably not):
http://static.binscorner.com/p/planes-from-the-future0/131373292555.jpg
Guess what the E.U, China, and Russia craft are gonna look like??

[Commander32]

I'd bet my life that if the next generation U.S craft looked like this (probably not):
http://static.binscorner.com/p/planes-from-the-future0/131373292555.jpg
Guess what the E.U, China, and Russia craft are gonna look like??

Besides the J-20, F-22, and T-50?

Well just take what the Major Arms of the World have right now and tweak em.

[Kyang]

Guess what the [...] China [...] craft are gonna look like??

http://i.imgur.com/3OaO9.jpg

[Coolness7]

Besides the J-20, F-22, and T-50?

Well just take what the Major Arms of the World have right now and tweak em.

Not if the only way we (know how) to get a small craft like that to go Mach 6 is with a saucer and new engines. :p

[Commander32]

http://i.imgur.com/3OaO9.jpg

WOWZERS!! So the next war will have Flying Pink Ponies too!!?!?!?!

[Kyang]

WOWZERS!! So the next war will have Flying Pink Ponies too!!?!?!?!

You bet'cha.

[Coolness7]

Tis the tech of the future.

[Commander32]

you bet'cha.

yay!!!!!!!!!!

[Timmaigh]

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/610/j20t50f22.jpg

Looks nothing like it, and its all about functionality.

BTW if Russia and China are in(whenever that is), they better have their RL respective fighters at least.

F22 is the beauty. Russian thing looks like on steroids and i do not like those small wings on the Chinese one.

[Kyang]

F22 is the beauty. Russian thing looks like on steroids and i do not like those small wings on the Chinese one.

That image is all wrong anyway.

They all look pretty good to me:

Original size:
http://i.imgur.com/s8Ot4.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/s8Ot4.jpg

[Commander32]

That image is all wrong anyway.

Yeh, told me its all biased.... DAMN YOU INTERNETZ.

[GeneralCCCP]

F22 is the beauty. Russian thing looks like on steroids and i do not like those small wings on the Chinese one.

Сам ты на стероидах. На самом деле вроде бы наш поменшьше. Русский т-50 на 2 тонны легче чем ф-22. Амереканский жирный:)

You're on steroids. In fact, as if our pomenshshe. Russian T-50 to 2 tons lighter than the F-22. Amerekansky bold:)

[Commander32]

Now what about the EU avatar Ripoff? Have we forgot?

[UltimateAero123]

The Us doesn't have anything that advanced. That thing is to big to have those circles(it's not a drone), the osprey which is way bigger doesn't have them.Osprey is just a troop transport, however that thing is a tactical vehicle made to destroy.

[Alex06]

This realistic enough for you guys?

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9800/commandconquergenerals2.jpg

[nickjuyfty13]

i dont think it looks like an osprey at all. First it is an attack chopper. 2nd it is smaller. 3rd this has sharp edges with flat surfaces so i assume a stealth aircraft. If u say it looks like an osprey cause of the rotors u mite as well say it looks like every vtol in the world with rotors. This thing is essentially a modern commanche. Everyone saying remove it! should take a closer look. It is just a modernized commanche which i wouldnt want all the same units as in generals 1 im glad theyre making changes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nXsqbGx5Mc

[Coolness7]

This realistic enough for you guys?

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9800/commandconquergenerals2.jpg

Where'd you get this?

[Kyang]

Where'd you get this?

http://www.commandandconquer.com/forums/showthread.php?4992-New-tiny-screenshot

[Revanchist]

I saw the Orcas.

I couldn't help my self. My exact words were "Orcas. Are you kidding me?"

It's not that I don't like Orcas. It's that I think they should leave GDI as the only Orca using faction.

[Troopzor]

I think it looks pretty bad ***.

Better then a Chibi venom:

http://images.wikia.com/cnc/images/9/95/CNC4_Venom_Render.png

[Coolness7]

Yeah I see it.

[Nerdfish]

less awful does not imply awesome.

[Kyang]

I liked the mini-Venoms... :( .

And the EU VTOLs don't look like Orcas.

[sgtmyers88]

No.. just no...

[DiverDux]

Just make it look like a regular modern stealth apache or you must...

Just make the unit model look like a cross between an osprey and an AC-130 gunship and everyone's happy.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/V-22-Osprey-The-Multi-Year-Program-04823/

[Commander32]

I liked the mini-Venoms... :( .

And the EU VTOLs don't look like Orcas.

Lolz I just like em for the Cuteness. lolz.

[Troopzor]

Lolz I just like em for the Cuteness. lolz.

If I saw that unit as a fan art, with everything else chibi, I think it would be hilariously awesome. But as a canonical unit in a universe that I feel the units should look more realistic and not cartoonish, then no. I hate them. (but my inner Nod fanboy mainly hates them.)

[Alex06]

Yeah, I think the poll is pretty conclusive. Twice as many people think it's fine. So I guess it stays? :P

[Kyang]

If I saw that unit as a fan art, with everything else chibi, I think it would be hilariously awesome. But as a canonical unit in a universe that I feel the units should look more realistic and not cartoonish, then no. I hate them. (but my inner Nod fanboy mainly hates them.)

Awww... It looks almost exactly like the original Orca to me.

[Elearen]

I liked the mini-Venoms... :( .

And the EU VTOLs don't look like Orcas.

Yes they do....

http://images.wikia.com/cnc/images/7/75/Orca_Fighter_2.jpg

[Alex06]

Yes they do....

http://images.wikia.com/cnc/images/7/75/Orca_Fighter_2.jpg
In the sense that they use two circle thingies and are gunships, yes, but aside from that, the Orca is much more similar to the Venom of C&C3 and C&C4 than the EU Chopper.

[Kyang]

Yes they do....
http://images.wikia.com/cnc/images/7/75/Orca_Fighter_2.jpg


No, they look like everything else.

http://i.imgur.com/XCbet.jpg

[GammaCobra]

So ...... what now? Yes or No?

[Kyang]

So ...... what now? Yes or No?

Consensus is that they look like every other V/TOL design out there.

http://i.imgur.com/XCbet.jpg

[Elearen]

Ah ok right

[Alaskan_Viking]

I would much rather ahve a slightly modified, kind of futuristic version of the Eurocopter Tiger, or just a stright up TIger.

[Borreh]

I like the name, but it always makes me think of the RotR unit (which I also love the design of):
http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/5/4333/eugoshawk.jpg

Regardless, I think the rotors should stay on the G2 VTOL unit, it gives it a distinct look and just "feels" right from what we've seen so far from the EU aesthetic design

Stop it, this unit looks awful.

It's the essence of pew pew! T_T-like design. o.O

[Nerdfish]

how about this one:
http://bf2142.free-gfx.com/bf2142_vehicles/bf2142_EU_vehicles/eu_gunship_ud6_talon/eu_gunship_ud6_talon.png

[Borreh]

how about this one:
http://bf2142.free-gfx.com/bf2142_vehicles/bf2142_EU_vehicles/eu_gunship_ud6_talon/eu_gunship_ud6_talon.png

I think that, with the short tail, and jet engines, it looks a little bit too unplausible, altough designs with both those elements are around, so actually it's fully possible.

----------

As for the EU VTOL design, best comment:


I like the design of the unit. It looks like something that may be used in a few decades.

[WeedWhacker92]

Stop it, this unit looks awful.

It's the essence of pew pew! T_T-like design. o.O

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions :) Besides, how else would a cross between a A-10 and EA-6B look?

Back on topic, I still can't see why everyone keeps going back to "Orca". It's a VTOL heli, and from previous examples, there are so many different (and more closely looking) examples of other VTOL's all over the place in sci-fi.

Also, just to say this on the record,

Orca -> Twin Turbofans -> thick jet engines
EU VTOL -> Twin Ducted props -> thin heli blades

Again, the game's setting is 2030, so trying to look realistic by today's standards would be outmoded in the generals universe. Heck, our current top of the line in use military hardware is outmoded by the time the first generals is taking place. It's not suppose to be "what would a war look like if it started tomorrow", but "in a best case grounded-to-pseudo-reality scenario, where every single experimental tech was fully realized in military use, what could war look like?"

Besides, this is the way to go for future gunships, it has numerous advantages over the traditional heli blade setup:

By reducing propeller blade tip losses, the ducted fan is more efficient in producing thrust than a conventional propeller, especially at low speed and high static thrust level.
By sizing the ductwork appropriately, the designer can adjust the air velocity through the fan to allow it to operate more efficiently at higher air speeds than a propeller would.
For the same static thrust, a ducted fan has a smaller diameter than a free propeller, allowing smaller gear.
Ducted fans are quieter than propellers: they shield the blade noise, and reduce the tip speed and intensity of the tip vortices both of which contribute to noise production.
Ducted fans can allow for a limited amount of thrust vectoring, something normal propellers are not well suited for. This allows them to be used instead of tiltrotors in some applications.

[IonorRea]

Well it makes sense to have rings becouse
1.C&C1 Orca design herritage
2. Ring actualy protect blades, not stupid for aircraft to be used in urban inviroments with wires, lights, etc.
3. Rings properly designed can help better disipate heat from engines thus making aircraft less Stinger friendly.
4. There is plenty of technology that was simply too advanced for its age or battlefield reqiurements didn't arise this don't means that was failure or evolution end (reinvention of Gattling with electric engine for instance used up to present).
5. similary designed mashines in Avatar actualy agree that design is plausible, Cameron is perfectionist in his designs (Terminator?)

For potencial two barrel german tanks fans - Germany actualy developed two barrel destroyers similar to Strv 103 "S tank" called Versuchsträger.

[P1nkalicious]

Isn't the STRV 103 that Swiss or Swedish or whatever abomination without a turret?

[IonorRea]

I think that world destroyer pritty much cover this sub tank category, actualy you can find in WW2 a lot ughlyer pieces than Strv 103 and certainly not as revolutionary.

[P1nkalicious]

I know of WWII's tank destroyers, but there was a reason they died out. And then someone brought them back.

[IonorRea]

Well in Scandinavia full of forrest is glorious Leopard 2A6 or Challenger 2 with 120mmL55 canon ackward battering ram, not to mention that both have higher siluete. In time when Strv 103 was developed, there was no good enough stabilization to fire from tank on the move at long range so there was no big loss in performance. For his place of operation was S Tank best antitank vehicle at that time in world.

[Alex06]

Look at the poll results. I don't think we need to debate this any longer.

[P1nkalicious]

I guess environment is always a consideration, but in the heavily wooded pine forests of Scandinavia why not invest in handheld or crew served anti tank weapons and aiming systems? They could camouflage in the snow quite nicely and have far more mobility in the forest than, as you said, a large tank. I do realize that an RPG will hardly kill a tank, but with appropriate development in the field and investments in training to make soldiers use their common sense and go for the least armored areas of a vehicle, some success could be found.

[IonorRea]

Well this is for long time discusion and is faster recommend some books about pros and cons of weapons in diferent periods that react on every your replacement possibility. Simple to say, people behind making decisions have wide military knowledge and pass S tank into production as best solution for its time and place.

As for Orca, from me its definately way to go in Generals 2 and most protesting people are mostly just unimformed about his full potencial.
And this is all in this thread from me.

[P1nkalicious]

So, you say books, and not tell me which ones to buy, hey? Anyway, I understand the drawbacks of the solutions I suggested. Crew served weapons are essentially obsolete in comparison to the tank, but in the forests of Sweden I believe they have several advantages: low silhouette and a small target, being cheap, and requiring less training than a tank, and easier to maneuver in the woods. The same is for a man with a handheld antitank weapon - if he is camouflaged and prone, he'll be hard to find and hit except of course after the first shot, but the idea of handheld antitank weapons is you use them en masse, so that's not so much of a problem, and they require little training. Sweden must have a small standing army, right? So, if war comes and the Russkies want to do the Winter War again and invade Finland or whatever, the Swedish army will be filled with draftees. And getting them on the field earlier is something you want and can do by supplying the army with cheaper, less training-intensive weapons. Such as crew-served and handheld AT.

[EddySaf]

To me there has been all sorts of experimental things in the past which some certenly do work. But all things considered and what is actually being applied today is this.

F-35 a 5th generation Stealth Fighter and one of the variants can easily do this and is already aboard the USS Wasp. Meant to provide direct ground support to Marines plus be able to be an air superiority fighter over the battlefield. They can hover or fly slowly over a battlefield, but to be out of harms way they would use supersonic speeds and altitude to advantage along with their steath capabilities.

Helicopters appear to being replaced by the MV-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotor aircraft to deploy troops. This at greater distances and at faster speeds than what helicopters can do.

More countries are obtaining LDH ships like the following which can also accomodate thousands of troops, and some can accomadate Abrams Tanks. A whole fighting division of land forces could easily be moved and even be supported, and why a number of countries are obtaining LDH ships and are seriously looking at what aircraft they will use on such ships. Think about the following videos and images, for military people around the world are looking and thinking, and which more likely will impact into the future.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjrPvSBGXE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVj4vC81Ea4&list=PLDF92451CB0870E9E&index=1&feature=plpp_video

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(LHD-1)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b0/USS_Wasp_LHD-1.jpg/640px-USS_Wasp_LHD-1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/MV-22Bs_on_USS_Wasp.jpg/640px-MV-22Bs_on_USS_Wasp.jpg

[P1nkalicious]

But that's not helping with my Swedish anti-tank problem, which is why this thread was made. Right?

[EddySaf]

But that's not helping with my Swedish anti-tank problem, which is why this thread was made. Right?

You fail again as this topic was started by UltimateAero123 and has nothing to do with your Swedish anti-tank problem. If you want to take care of tanks from an infantry perspective then I may suggest this in the FGM-148 as seen in this. But then maybe you are just a troll and stearing me off from the topic, but then this is interesting which some maybe interested in.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3iA5KCa16s

[Alaskan_Viking]

F-35 a 5th generation Stealth Fighter and one of the variants can easily do this and is already aboard the USS Wasp. Meant to provide direct ground support to Marines plus be able to be an air superiority fighter over the battlefield. They can hover or fly slowly over a battlefield, but to be out of harms way they would use supersonic speeds and altitude to advantage along with their steath capabilities.

You are misinformed.

The F-35 is not an attack helicopter, it is not going to be hovering around low to the ground in combat, that is absurd. VTOL stands for Vertical Take Of and Landing. The entire purpose of the VTOL capability is to take off in situations where there is not an improved runway available, that's it.

The F-35 is very slow, sluggish and even DANGEROUS to it's pilot when it is using vertical take off, so even the VTOL capable F-35B version will use conventional take off when a runway is available. They don't just use super sonic capability to "get out of harms way" they use it to get into harms way, and to BE in harms way without being shot down by a simple AK-47, as could happen to an F-35 if it's pilot was stupid enough to just hover in a battlefield. I am not even sure it's weapons could be deployed while hovering.

VTOL is not some magical new technology of the future. Aircraft design has trade offs like every other kind of engineering. VTOL systems are heavy, and they take up internal space that could be used for other things. So most fixed wing combat aircraft, even planed future systems, will be conventional take of and landing, even the much vaunted F-35's VTOL version is SECONDARY to the Conventional and short take off versions --of the three initial versions of the F-35, only one is VTOL, and the VTOL version is the least maneuverable, slowest, shortest ranged, and carries the least armaments, it doesn't even have a gun.

The entire JSF program, has gone over budget and the shared design and airframe components have gone over weight in large part because the F-35A and C have to use these heavy, inefficient components shared with the F-35B.


Helicopters appear to being replaced by the MV-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotor aircraft to deploy troops. This at greater distances and at faster speeds than what helicopters can do.

See above, VTOL is not the end all be all. Conventional helicopters are more stable and maneuverable at low speeds and while hovering, and conventional fixed wing aircraft are more efficient in straight flight, so the Osprey very much fills a very specialized niche role.

When Seal Team 6 whacked Osama, they didn't use Ospreys, they used Chinooks and Blackhawks. Now that says a lot because that unit would have had practically unlimited resources and access to the entire US arsenal, yet they chose designs from the 60's and 70's over the Osprey.

[EddySaf]

You are misinformed.

I don't think so. The videos and images I included I think say a thousand words and where people can easily find out more information if they want to.

[Warthog167]

There is no VTOL fixed wing aircraft right now that can engage its weapons while it is hovering. The harrier can't do it and I doubt the F-35 will. Furthermore, rarely will helicopters ever just hover and shoot (like in games) because hovering makes the aircraft an even easier target. An attack helicopter is always going to be essential, and I think the EU aircraft looks just fine and totaly believable.

It makes perfect sense to me that an aircraft would have enclosed rotors. Enclosed rotors would allow for greater protection against debris, especially at low altitude. Theres already helicopters today with enclosed tail rotors, so why not enclosed main rotors as well?

[Alaskan_Viking]

I don't think so. The videos and images I included I think say a thousand words and where people can easily find out more information if they want to.


...they can hover or fly slowly over a battlefield,...

Only an uninformed person would say such a thing about the F-35.

[Kyang]

Some right points being made here, but they're sort of red herrings. There's different ways to getting V/TOL capability, and the particular method used in the EU gunship isn't going to suffer from any problems that a regular helo wouldn't.



It makes perfect sense to me that an aircraft would have enclosed rotors. Enclosed rotors would allow for greater protection against debris, especially at low altitude. Theres already helicopters today with enclosed tail rotors, so why not enclosed main rotors as well?

There's pros and cons, and they're enclosing the rotors for reasons different than the ones you're thinking of.

Look at the advantages and disadvantages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan

[Commander32]

Still babbling about the EU copter?

[Kyang]

Still babbling about the EU copter?

It's a big world.

[EddySaf]

Hovering at low altitude within a battlefield would be very dangerous and stupid, unless you are at the very least thousands of yards from enemy fire and manpads and using things like mountains to provide cover.

[StormWolf]

Hovering at low altitude within a battlefield would be very dangerous and stupid, unless you are at the very least thousands of yards from enemy fire and manpads and using things like mountains to provide cover.

Real world physics don't have to be realistic in a video game.

[EddySaf]

Well some want reality in a game, and if some want that then I could provide some information. BUT it's just a game and if people are happy with the Orca circular thingys of what this topic is about, then I'll go along with that. Till there is some sort of suitable situation to all I might decide to provide some more information which some might find usefull to the topic.

[Borreh]

Well some want reality in a game, and if some want that then I could provide some information. BUT it's just a game and if people are happy with the Orca circular thingys of what this topic is about, then I'll go along with that. Till there is some sort of suitable situation to all I might decide to provide some more information which some might find usefull to the topic.

Am I the only one thinking that demanding to stop advancement in technology (in a game which takes place in the 2030's) for the sake of realism is unrealistic ..?

[Troopzor]

Jesus this thread is still going o.O

[EddySaf]

Am I the only one thinking that demanding to stop advancement in technology (in a game which takes place in the 2030's) for the sake of realism is unrealistic ..?

If you were a senior dev for Gens2, and after reading this topic plus other topics here on the forum, what would you decide in doing regarding Gens2. Keeping in mind that as each day that passes is costing EA money, where game developers involved with various things need to be doing something towards producing Gens2. Does the game go in your direction or what, make a decision, and keep in mind that there will be people who will NOT be happy with your decision, regardless of what your decision is.

[Alex06]

But, guys, the poll results!

Why is this topic still going?

[Alaskan_Viking]

Hovering at low altitude within a battlefield would be very dangerous and stupid, unless you are at the very least thousands of yards from enemy fire and manpads and using things like mountains to provide cover.

It's called terrain masking...

[hellodean]

interesting, this poll has a time limit

This poll will close on 01-01-2012 at 08:05 PM

is that by cire? meaning the winning results of the poll get there way?

[StormWolf]

I think that they should keep the side covers on the VTOL because don't they need them to be able to hover. And if the blades were open it could make them more vulnerable to attack and they would probably be moving in a strange pattern.

[Kyang]

I think that they should keep the side covers on the VTOL because don't they need them to be able to hover. And if the blades were open it could make them more vulnerable to attack and they would probably be moving in a strange pattern.

I don't get what you mean by, "Moving in a strange pattern", and, "Need them to be able to hover.".

[StormWolf]

I don't get what you mean by, "Moving in a strange pattern", and, "Need them to be able to hover.".

By moving in a strange pattern I mean that they may be moving slightly up and down or right to left, if the hover mechanism is unbalanced. But I guess that would be the choice of the developers to add that animation.

[Kyang]

Oh. What about the, "Need them to be able to hover" part?

[[GR]Agm]

I don't think so. The videos and images I included I think say a thousand words and where people can easily find out more information if they want to.

Sorry Eddy, but Alaskan_Viking's post was spot on. You simply would NOT use the F35 as a gunship, you simply wouldn't be able to. A helicopter is capable of aiming downward while hovering in place. That would not be possible with the design of the F35. Moreover, a helicopter IS IN FACT more stable than an F35. Lastly, a helicopter mounts articulating guns, so they can aim without having to actually move the aircraft's position to do so.

Besides, have you forgotten about the Harrier? We've had VTOL planes for years, but never once has the Harrier been used as a substitute for a helicopter. The F35 would make no sense in the context of a persistent air support unit.

[Nerdfish]

It makes perfect sense to me that an aircraft would have enclosed rotors. Enclosed rotors would allow for greater protection against debris, especially at low altitude. Theres already helicopters today with enclosed tail rotors, so why not enclosed main rotors as well?
How much protection are you speaking of. there is no protection against debris being sucked in from above.

Even if duct fan is made to work, the ring on the concept art is too thin to form a proper duct. They have to make it thicker for it to be a duct fan, and that would make its appearance resemble orca even more.

[stephanovich]

interesting, this poll has a time limit


is that by cire? meaning the winning results of the poll get there way?

The OP gave it a time limit.

[hellodean]

The OP gave it a time limit.

oh right, didnt know we could do that, or why you would do that anyway.

[Warthog167]

How much protection are you speaking of. there is no protection against debris being sucked in from above.

Even if duct fan is made to work, the ring on the concept art is too thin to form a proper duct. They have to make it thicker for it to be a duct fan, and that would make its appearance resemble orca even more.

I was wrong about my original statement. Kyang gave me this link a few pages ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan

It has its advantages and disadvantages. Wiki does mention that a design such as that would have enhanced ground safety because the rotors are enclosed.

EDIT: Kyang, nice use of red herring too. I didn't think people actually used that.

[Nerdfish]

I was wrong about my original statement. Kyang gave me this link a few pages ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan

It has its advantages and disadvantages. Wiki does mention that a design such as that would have enhanced ground safety because the rotors are enclosed.

EDIT: Kyang, nice use of red herring too. I didn't think people actually used that.

Warthog: Please notice the difference between the length of the engine between the wiki picture and the one in the concept art. A duct fan is only a duct fan if it has a duct :D

[EddySaf]

Sorry Eddy, but Alaskan_Viking's post was spot on. You simply would NOT use the F35 as a gunship, you simply wouldn't be able to. A helicopter is capable of aiming downward while hovering in place. That would not be possible with the design of the F35. Moreover, a helicopter IS IN FACT more stable than an F35. Lastly, a helicopter mounts articulating guns, so they can aim without having to actually move the aircraft's position to do so.

Besides, have you forgotten about the Harrier? We've had VTOL planes for years, but never once has the Harrier been used as a substitute for a helicopter. The F35 would make no sense in the context of a persistent air support unit.

The F-35 would fly just out or range of AAA and short ranged missiles. There the pilots would pick their targets and drop lazar guided bombs on them. This like planes recently did in Libya and previously at other places. They can loiter over a battlefield and provide close air support to boots on the ground, where the troops can let the pilots know specifically what targets they want taken out. If any air targets appear on the battlefield then the F-35 could fire missiles or light the fires to go and engage the air targets.

[Kyang]

Sure, but his point is that they're not going to do that by hovering around.

[EddySaf]

Sure, but his point is that they're not going to do that by hovering around.

Call it whatever you like, but in Libya the jet planes high up in the air just went along slowly in a circle over the battlefield, and now and then they dropped lazar bombs on targets. The F-35 is replacing a lot of US planes where the older planes will be retired or sold off.

[Kyang]

Right, but it's not hovering around like a V/TOL. As you said, it's loitering at high altitude.

[EddySaf]

Right, but it's not hovering around like a V/TOL. As you said, it's loitering at high altitude.

If an F-35B pilot wanted to hover on the spot high up in the air over a battlefield well they could do it. But it would be better to do what I previously mentioned and so that they can keep an eye on the whole battlefield.

[[GR]Agm]

If an F-35B pilot wanted to hover on the spot high up in the air over a battlefield well they could do it.
And they would be shot down. You don't hover in place in a plane. A plane's only defense is speed.

Physics is NOT the F-35's side. Do you know what momentum and inertia are? If a heavy aircraft like the F35 is just stationary, it needs to exert a lot of energy to get up to a cruising speed. This takes a long time - time during which the plane is vulnerable.

And besides you're reaching at this point. The units hovering in the screenshot we see are NOT doing what pilots in Libya did. If the pilots in Libya did that, RPGs would shoot them out of the sky VERY, VERY easily.

[P1nkalicious]

Just saying, but making a jet hover kind of ruins the point of a jet. VTOL is obviously good, you can't have an airbase 100% of a time.

[Alex06]

If an F-35B pilot wanted to hover on the spot high up in the air over a battlefield well they could do it. But it would be better to do what I previously mentioned and so that they can keep an eye on the whole battlefield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZeDFwTcnCc

[EddySaf]

"You don't know what you're talking about, do you?"

I think that I do and today this is a reality fact.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjrPvSBGXE

.

And they would be shot down. You don't hover in place in a plane. A plane's only defense is speed.

Libya had heaps of missiles to counter air and AAA even in things like quads, yet fighters were up high well above that and anything that posed a treat was taken out. The planes there just loitered around the battlefield keeping an eye on things where they occassionaly dropped a lazar guided bomb. Now these new planes are better in that they are stealth fighters, which I think that things like radar and missiles may have some problems in trying to lock on, or staying locked on if they happened to manage to lock on for a moment.

[Alex06]

I think that I do and today this is a reality fact.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjrPvSBGXE
I highly doubt it can hover like that for longer than 20-30 seconds. Just enough to take off and land.

And I just needed an excuse to use that video. x)

EDIT: Hey, you're from Australia. Nice!

[Golan2781]

I think that I do and today this is a reality fact.Hovering of theF35 is purely used for maneuvering to land etc., not in direct combat. It is way too sluggish and unstable to even remotely rival the mobility of a helicopter.


Libya had heaps of missiles to counter air and AAA even in things like quads, yet fighters were up high well above that and anything that posed a treat was taken out. Now these new planes are better in that they are stealth fighters, which I think that things like radar and missiles may have some problems in trying to lock on, or staying locked on if they happened to manage to lock on for a moment.The important thing is that the fighters were up high not in hover mode for a helicopter-like gunship ground support role. The F35 simply doesn't have the weapon systems for this. The stealth design isn't worth a damn if the F35 is hovering, as it makes it a perfect target for visual and heat based targeting, as well as drastically reducing the stealth features as hovering requires opening several covering plates.

[EddySaf]

Hovering of theF35 is purely used for maneuvering to land etc., not in direct combat. It is way too sluggish and unstable to even remotely rival the mobility of a helicopter.

The important thing is that the fighters were up high not in hover mode for a helicopter-like gunship ground support role. The F35 simply doesn't have the weapon systems for this. The stealth design isn't worth a damn if the F35 is hovering, as it makes it a perfect target for visual and heat based targeting, as well as drastically reducing the stealth features as hovering requires opening several covering plates.

Just let go of the stick and these babies can hover under the planes AI assist, think of it like autopilot.

I think that people in the topic assumed I meant hovering for hours like a helicopter, but I did mention circuling high above the battlefield to have a better view of the entire battlefield and where targets may receive lazar bombs. I did not want to go further but if people want to I may add more. Including just outside the battlefield would be air to air refuling capabilities. To those wondering in what weapons an F-35 could have well here is a list. In regards to helicopters, in Libya the French and British were very selective in what missions they deployed their helicopters, which included the Apache and Tiger/Tigre.

Missiles: Air-to-air missiles:
AIM-120 AMRAAM
AIM-132 ASRAAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder
IRIS-T
MBDA Meteor (Pending further funding)[316]
JDRADM (after 2020)[317]

Air-to-surface missiles:
AGM-154 JSOW
AGM-158 JASSM[146]
Brimstone missile
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
SOM

Anti-ship missiles: JSM

Bombs:
Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
JDAM-series
B61 nuclear bomb

[Golan2781]

Just let go of the stick and these babies can hover under the planes AI assist, think of it like autopilot.Yeah, hover in the air, on the spot. Not like a helicopter, thanks for clearing this up yourself. Thing is, for proper ground support that isn't even remotely enough. While the F35 can pack a wide variety of weapons, it can only carry a very limited number, the F35B not even having an inbuilt gun while much of the ground-support capabilities of modern helicopter gunships is due to their fully articulate heavy autocannon. And a shitload of missiles. An airplane like the F35B has the advantage of being able to fill a different role provisional when need be - it would not be used to fill such a role on a regular basis, however.

[EddySaf]

The F-35 has an internally mounted GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm cannon. BUT with the other air to air capability loadouts the F-35 can have I don't think that the cannon would be used unless as a last resort.

The F-35 has been designed to be a multirole fighter, loadouts can be customised to suite what is the current situation over the battlefield, including what might possibly appear.

The F-35 will replace quite a number of planes, including planes that were tailor made for specific purposes.

[[GR]Agm]

which I think that things like radar and missiles may have some problems in trying to lock on, or staying locked on if they happened to manage to lock on for a moment.

That's not how stealth works..... at all. Stealth merely reduces the effective range of radar, it does not "confuse" missile locking.

And stealth is irrelevant if the aircraft is hovering just a couple hundred feet above ground, well within RPG range.

Please take a second to actually look at the screenshot of the "orcas" hovering. Notice how they're only about 200 feet above the ground? If you did that with an F35, it would be RPG food. It cannot move quickly enough out of harm's way.

[Golan2781]

The F-35 has an internally mounted GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm cannon. BUT with the other air to air capability loadouts the F-35 can have I don't think that the cannon would be used unless as a last resort.*sigh* The F-35A has an internal GAU. It also does not have VTOL capabilities. The F-35B does have VTOL capabilities but no internal GAU. Neither has a gun comparable to that of the Tiger or Apache, which have fully articulate autocannons (read: they don't have to point their nose at the target, which the F-35B probably even cannot do on a vertical axis in hover mode).


The F-35 has been designed to be a multirole fighter, loadouts can be customised to suite what is the current situation over the battlefield, including what might possibly appear.

The F-35 will replace quite a number of planes, including planes that were tailor made for specific purposes. Key word is planes. More specifically, jets. It does have neither the capacity nor agility to replace dedicated CAS planes (A-10) or helicopter gunships fully.
(I'm aware that Wikipedia does not agree on the former. The source it is referring to does, however.)

[EddySaf]

To me it's just all thoughts and talk on probabilities and on what people may know. In today's conflicts one can see some reality, and the military around the world have seen that and which will determine what military apparatus they will build or obtain. In the latest in Libya the military would have seen, even in regards to helicopters, in Libya the French and British were very selective in what missions they deployed their helicopters, which included the Apache and Tiger/Tigre. Yet planes were there every day way up high keeping an eye on the battlefield where now and then they dropped lazar bombs. Gees they even dropped bombs which had NO explosive but were filled with concrete.

[Golan2781]

Get your facts straight. The international Libya military intervention was not a regular combat situation, it was deliberately restricted in both methods and targets. Did you see a large number of american tanks in Libya? No? Well, I guess they're gonna replace the Abrams with the F-35 soon, then.
By the way, the planes being there, way up high, were used for air superiority and bombardment, not for hovering around. The only plane even technically capable of that was the Harrier, all other planes in use were regular jets.

[EddySaf]

I think it was by the military a real life experience in capabilities and what could actually happen in a battlefield.

[Golan2781]

Then we are done discussing because you have no idea what you are talking about. The Libya intervention was not a full deployment and deliberately so.

[EddySaf]

After being in the military for many years I think that I may have some idea of what I am talking about.

[Warthog167]

By the way, the planes being there, way up high, were used for air superiority and bombardment, not for hovering around. The only plane even technically capable of that was the Harrier, all other planes in use were regular jets.

Another thing you might want to consider: a harrier that is hovering consumes A LOT of fuel. This is why you will rarely ever see a harrier taking off verticaly, or even hovering for long periods of time. Landing isn't so bad because the plane already has momentum. If an aircraft capable of VTOL would be "hovering" around the battlefield, it would need some massive aux fuel tanks (making it heavier and less able to carry munitions) or it would need to RTB often for more fuel.

Golan also mentioned some good points about the articulating cannon (which is the primary weapon of most attack helicopters). The harrier's cannon (the gau 12) is a complicated and heavy peice of work that holds about 300 rounds. So, a ten to twelve second trigger pull expends all of the ammunition. Therefore, a helicopter can supress fire with its cannon much longer, and with much greater accuracy.

There will be no replacing a helicopter's role on the battlefield with a jet that can hover, period.

Don't believe what you see in these movies: True Lies (Harrier hovering and firing) and Live Free or Die Hard (F-35B hovering and firing).

[Golan2781]

After being in the military for many years I think that I may have some idea of what I am talking about.You obviously don't know or don't take into account the circumstances of the Libya intervention. No amount of serving in the military changes that.

[Alaskan_Viking]

Notice how I stopped posting several pages ago? Yeah, I don't think he literally thinks that the F-35 will be hovering around the battlefield like in Live Free or Die Hard...No need to flame and beat the guy up for 4 pages.

I'd much rather talk about how **** the EU Orca thingy is.:p

[Golan2781]

I'd much rather talk about how **** the EU Orca thingy is.:pGood point. It just feels so out of place compared to the other sleek, compact kick-your-***-awesome units.

[Nerdfish]

Notice how I stopped posting several pages ago? Yeah, I don't think he literally thinks that the F-35 will be hovering around the battlefield like in Live Free or Die Hard...No need to flame and beat the guy up for 4 pages.

I'd much rather talk about how **** the EU Orca thingy is.:p

As I said earlier that ring isn't long enough to work as a proper duct.

[Dartan]

Since it appears to be the European Union there not supposed to be this advanced.

WTF dude?
You really have some bizarre misconceptions about Europe...

[ZeroHour0]

The orca-like aircraft is far too advance for a modern era Generals 2. If anything, they need to keep it to a likeness of an Osprey.

[OrcaLeader]

If the Orca is gonna stay, maybe that should be the overarching theme for the faction
i.e. They have an vtol fighter (line in the vid) but they also have a dedicated vtol bomber

[Golan2781]

It doesn't look very orca-ish to me, tbh. The Orca was always about using very compact engines whereas the EU-VTOL has very pronounced, openly visible fans more akin to the UT3 Manta ground glider.

[Commander32]

It doesn't look very orca-ish to me, tbh. The Orca was always about using very compact engines whereas the EU-VTOL has very pronounced, openly visible fans more akin to the UT3 Manta ground glider.

Yeap, and we had this concept in RL as well, so its not too out of place.