Combat Air Patrol 2

[JudgeDredd]

I highly doubt this will have a good dynamic campaign.  People have been chasing the unicorn of dynamic campaigns ever since falcon and it took a 30 man team that ran over budget and broke the dev studio for good.  Looking at the track record of the cap2 devs, no way they pull off a great dynamic campaign.  Just because someone calls something dynamic or open world doesn't mean it will be great.  I've seen some aweful dynamic campaigns that were just repetitive and you quickly loose interest.  If a dev isn't going make it like a living conflict like falcon4 I'd rather just have really detailed immersive linear missions.

This post makes me want to slit my wrists.

It kind of does bring home what has happened to hopes in the past.

But I am not giving up that hope  :-X

[Yskonyn]

'The' Harrier and 'the' Hornet isn't getting us anywhere.
There have been several models of each aircraft and the older models of the F/A-18 have been equipped with the APG-65, just like the AV-8B.

But indeed, the latest models of both do not share the same radar. This is because the active development of the Harrier weapons platform has been ceased much earlier than the active development of the F/A-18 weapons platform.

And no, I wasn't suggesting the Harrier is comparable to the Hornet in any way other than both aircraft shared a similar radar at one time. :) In line with the BS'ing that went around. 

Anyway, I am with Skoop and Toonces with my expectations of the Dynamic Campaign in CAP2.
Il-2 had a dynamic campaign, to name one, but it was utter crap and repetitive.
The only true dynamic campaigns that make you feel part of a living and breathing air operation are found in Falcon 4 and Battle of Brittain 2: Wings of Victory. (And Falcon more so than WoV). IMO at least.
I chuckled at Skoop's statement about the manpower and them getting broke due to the DC. While I am not sure this is the cause, it does provide a nice story.

[RyanE]

The last F/A-18 in US service with the APG-65 was I think 2004.  There haven't been any active units with the 65 in 6-7 years.  There might be a few scattered around overseas, but a lot of them got upgraded.

My point has been that the Harrier is still a very capable aircraft.  It does need to be replaced, but not because it couldn't perform its job.  The F/A-18, right u until the late C models, were very short-legged and lost a lot of warload to drop tanks.

If anyone wants to end the Harrier/Hornet conversation, then just don't reply.

[mirth]

You guys got nothing on this Harrier v Hornet thread

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-9363-page1.aspx#startofcomments

[RyanE]

Funny...I was thinking of that exact thread when I started this.  Its good to have goals.

[JudgeDredd]

wow!  :D

[jomni]

The only true dynamic campaigns that make you feel part of a living and breathing air operation are found in Falcon 4 and Battle of Brittain 2: Wings of Victory. (And Falcon more so than WoV). IMO at least.
I chuckled at Skoop's statement about the manpower and them getting broke due to the DC. While I am not sure this is the cause, it does provide a nice story.

You missed out the Enemy Engaged series.
Strike Fighters, semi-dynamic campaign is good enough too.

[Yskonyn]

You guys got nothing on this Harrier v Hornet thread

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-9363-page1.aspx#startofcomments

Well, at least the timestamp on that discussion is as vintage as the Harrier.

[jomni]

You guys got nothing on this Harrier v Hornet thread

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-9363-page1.aspx#startofcomments

Well, at least the timestamp on that discussion is as vintage as the Harrier.

 

[JudgeDredd]

Lovely aircraft though...look at the Sea Harrier

[Jarhead0331]

Ha! I wasnt paying attention and when I glanced at the first two pictures, I thought to myself, "oh look, JD went to a museum and saw a sea harrier." LoL

[Toonces]

My point about the Harrier vs. Hornet is that, all things considered, I think most people would prefer to have a Hornet sim with a dynamic campaign than a Harrier sim with a dynamic campaign.  With a Hornet and a modern aircraft carrier the range of scenarios is almost unlimited.  With an amphib and Harrier, the range of scenarios you can reasonably simulate is inherently limited.  A Hornet can fight its way into a modern threat environment and back, flying as either a strike or escort aircraft.  I respectfully submit that while the Harrier can conduct a strike, its not an optimal aircraft to do escort, and in fact, would require a robust support package to fight in a modern environment.

For giggles, because I didn't actually know, I Googled the F/A-18C vs. the AV-8B II.

Hornet: max speed 1.2-1.8 mach
Harrier: max speed 0.9 mach

Hornet: combat radius 400nm (air-air)
Harrier: combat radius 300nm

Hornet: wing loading: 93 lb/ft2
Harrier: wing loading: 94.29 lb/ft2

Armament
Hornet: hardpoints 9 (13,700 lbs payload)
Harrier: hardpoints 6 (9200 lbs payload)

And so on.  It's not that the Harrier isn't capable, but it's not going nearly in the same class as a Hornet, Fulcrum, Flanker, Eagle, etc.  If you send a Harrier into an environment where it's facing a significant threat it's going to need a true fighter to escort it.  Therefore, if I was going to build this sim, I wouldn't choose the Harrier as the staring role.  I guess it will depend on what the campaign simulates.

Anyway, maybe for grins I'll fly some Harrier missions in BMS tonight just to see how the plane fares in Korea. 

[JudgeDredd]

^ Again - I ain't arguing that the Hornet is any worse or any better than the Harrier - just that the Harrier has a place (now) - though I fully accept it's getting long in the tooth.


However - I think given the location of said campaign, isn't the Harrier a reasonable choice? It does mention ageing Migs and F4s. I don't know how the Harrier stacks up against them - but they are around the same era.

So I do think given the campaign, location, task, the Harrier is a reasonable choice. It's certainly not the best - but it's not unreasonable either.

As for most people wanting a Hornet before a Harrier...I'm really not fussed and take what's on offer and I'm not disappointed by the choice. The Hornet probably does have a better strike capability - but the Harrier has V/STOL

[JudgeDredd]

Ha! I wasnt paying attention and when I glanced at the first two pictures, I thought to myself, "oh look, JD went to a museum and saw a sea harrier." LoL

I'm banking that as a compliment  :-*

[Toonces]

I imagine a Harrier can give an F-4 a pretty hard time. 

I really need to set up some engagements in BMS and play these out.  Might make a fun project for tonight. 

Please understand I'm only commenting on the Hornet vs. Harrier for argument's sake.  I enjoy discussing airplanes.  It's certainly nothing personal!