Battlefield 3 - Air Supremacy - General

[video=youtube;hJBe7SgufXg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJBe7SgufXg[/video] HOLY SHIT! THAT QUALITY!

I hate to be the one to say it, but so much blue. I didn't mind BF3's in-game blue (i didnt even notice it) but this video is actually slightly hurting my eyes for whatever reason. I don't know why. Pretty cool video nonetheless.

[QUOTE=t h e;39536467]I hate to be the one to say it, but so much blue. I didn't mind BF3's in-game blue (i didnt even notice it) but this video is actually slightly hurting my eyes for whatever reason. I don't know why. Pretty cool video nonetheless.[/QUOTE] Its so noticeable here since it's the normal BF3 blue overlay+frostbite engine's blue nighttime lighting. BFBC2 had the same night effect to it. [editline]10th February 2013[/editline] blue overload

I didn't like it, long and boring.

Sorta died when the BF3 jets just go 50 km/h

In real life the jets would have shot the C-130 down from miles away. Dog-Fights like this never happen in real life, the outcome of the battle are decided miles before either plane can see one another with the naked eye. Kind of a shame, it'd look boss as fuck to see Jets dog fighting.

I was hoping for a trailer for the mode in Aftermath not some overacted machinima.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39536791]In real life the jets would have shot the C-130 down from miles away. Dog-Fights like this never happen in real life, the outcome of the battle are decided miles before either plane can see one another with the naked eye. Kind of a shame, it'd look boss as fuck to see Jets dog fighting.[/QUOTE] Are you saying jet combat should be like that in BF3? Doesn't sound fun tbh.

Any idea what program he could've used, where he had that technical overview with the jets and AC?

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39536791]In real life the jets would have shot the C-130 down from miles away. Dog-Fights like this never happen in real life, the outcome of the battle are decided miles before either plane can see one another with the naked eye. Kind of a shame, it'd look boss as fuck to see Jets dog fighting.[/QUOTE] BVR missiles can lock on and fire when the target is basically a speck in the distance, but modern jets still only carry between 2 and 4 at maximum payload, certain jets like the F15 which are armed to the teeth can carry up to 8. Anything more is dumbfire missiles, which are strictly for air to ground use. Dogfighting is actually a very plausible occurrence, even when jets are loaded for air superiority, since you can't just throw 20 guided missiles on a jet and expect them to be firing at targets many miles away as that's not how it works- and even if this was Ace Combat, planes don't just sit still as a missile homes in on them. They have lock-on warnings and most have stealth features that throw off lock-on and radar.

those aren't su34s lol [QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;39537003]BVR missiles can lock on and fire when the target is basically a speck in the distance, but modern jets still only carry between 2 and 4 at maximum payload, certain jets like the F15 which are armed to the teeth can carry up to 8. Anything more is dumbfire missiles, which are strictly for air to ground use. Dogfighting is actually a very plausible occurrence, even when jets are loaded for air superiority, since you can't just throw 20 guided missiles on a jet and expect them to be firing at targets many miles away as that's not how it works- and even if this was Ace Combat, planes don't just sit still as a missile homes in on them. They have lock-on warnings and most have stealth features that throw off lock-on and radar.[/QUOTE] um most of this isn't really true. the whole of the US' air-superiority and even multirole fleet can carry at least 4 but more commonly 6 AIM120s (or a combination of those+AIM7s+AIM9s). the flanker family has an even greater capacity. there's no such thing as a 'dumbfire' missile... that would be called a rocket. air-to-ground missiles vary hugely in their operation and are often more complex in their operation than air-to-air missiles most aerial engagements are about bvr superiority and who positions themselves the best, has the greatest access to information, the best technology, and the training to use that technology. in most aerial engagements, the losing aircraft will not even know what was going on, what hit them, from where, or from who. in the history of bvr, it's very rare that there's been more than something like 4 aircraft ever involved in a single engagement and so use of missiles is entirely where the fighting happens

Too bad the jets in BF3 are pretty pathetic

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;39537189]those aren't su34s lol um most of this isn't really true. the whole of the US' air-superiority and even multirole fleet can carry at least 4 but more commonly 6 AIM120s (or a combination of those+AIM7s+AIM9s). the flanker family has an even greater capacity. there's no such thing as a 'dumbfire' missile... that would be called a rocket. air-to-ground missiles vary hugely in their operation and are often more complex in their operation than air-to-air missiles most aerial engagements are about bvr superiority and who positions themselves the best, has the greatest access to information, the best technology, and the training to use that technology. in most aerial engagements, the losing aircraft will not even know what was going on, what hit them, from where, or from who. in the history of bvr, it's very rare that there's been more than something like 4 aircraft ever involved in a single engagement and so use of missiles is entirely where the fighting happens[/QUOTE] Nowhere in my post did I signify I was talking strictly about the US's fleet but rather what you should expect- AKA, the rest of the world. If you want to argue semantics about what is and what isn't a missile then feel free but do remember it is irrelevant. An aircraft carrying more than 8 BVR missiles isn't going to be in the fleet of most nations which are not superpowers. Yes sure Russia has plenty of aircraft and just about all of them rival American aircraft but again, they're a superpower. Something you have to realize is basically every aircraft carrying a missile like that in the modern day has plenty of ability to evade the missile or at least know it was coming- unless it was fired too close by, at the perfect angle, or the pilot wasn't paying attention to the fact he had lock-on warnings all that time. In a larger scale engagement or with pilots who are a little more than your run of the mill airmen, you're probably going to see missile evasions and you're going to see them attempt to take each other down with guns. It's all speculation but that's what you get when you say "dogfighting is completely implausible," it simply isn't. Aircraft, even those not developed two generations ago, are very agile and have the ability to outmaneuver an incoming missile. On top of that, just about all of the fifth generation aircraft in use today have some kind of stealth capability, some so great that they can't be detected by other jets unless they are an AWACS or the other aircraft has their nose to them. While IFF, AWACS, etc. can assure that no aircraft do not get in a range close enough to fight with guns, it's not like the jets disappear and reappear further back so that BVR missiles can be used, it might even be a tactic for some pilots to simply swoop in as fast as possible to get out of the effective range and initiate tighter-quarters fighting, whether it's a good one is not a part of this discussion. You just can not say that dogfighting hasn't happened with modern jets even though air to air fighting has been virtually nonexistant and you can definitely not say it's implausible. If you had thirty aircraft going head to head, yes some would probably cook off BVRs, but let them get close enough to each other for whatever reason (let's not argue hypotheticals and just get to the point), they're going to use guns- they are there for a reason, it's not just an air to ground fighting tool, because like you said, they might have air to ground missiles already. It's like saying because we have sniper rifles for infantry, close quarters fighting won't happen. Where does that logic come from or am I missing something that you forgot to say?

lol wow i never said dogfighting/guns combat was implausible or anything even like that i just pointed out where your post wasn't accurate you're right in some sort of ww3 scenario there probably would be a lot of guns combat involved after payload expenditure. i'm getting confused at one point though because you're somewhat overestimating certain things like the ability to evade missiles and the ability for pilots to know what's hitting them and from where in a situation where you have two 3rd or 4th generation fighters going up against each other in matched combat, without ECM, both with active/semi-active radar-homing missiles, you're going to have a decent chance of evasion as both parties will know where the other is and they'll get lock-on and launch warnings. the thing is though, in a mad ww3 sort of environment or in any combat involving ECM and/or 6th generation stealth fighters and even long-range infrared-seeking missiles, there's a high chance that there'll be no RWR spike, no lock-on warning, and no launch warning. it may be that pilots won't have a clue where they're getting hit from and it'll all be over before it's even begun but hey this is all ww3 speculation. we'll probably never see modern 6th generation fighters in combat

Well, that's where we ended up at two different points on the line. I was talking about one thing and you were talking about another. I really wasn't being specific and yes I myself can see where it looks inaccurate, but where you disagreed with me, you pretty much agreed anyway, so yeah. Like you said, when payload becomes an issue, guns will be used. Some will argue "oh, aircraft only have a few seconds of guns," but it takes less than a second of the relevant caliber gunfire to cripple most aircraft to the point where the pilot either needs to eject or say his prayers. Maybe I am overestimating the ability for pilots to evade missiles, but I think it isn't without reason. Fighter jets are getting more and more agile as time goes on, and stealth is becoming a must-have for every self-respecting nation's military, so that's where most of my estimation comes from: how many instances of aerial combat have we seen in the past 20 or 30 years, and how many have actually been anything but very advanced aircraft flown by expert pilots shooting down lesser trained pilots in much earlier generation aircraft? Not many. Which is where the speculation comes in- it's very hit or miss in your example as it is in mine, and that was the point I wanted to convey.