NationStates

The Corparation wrote:

Transnapastain wrote:
Thats actually a really interesting question I hadn't considered. I'll try to find out and let you know. I don't see a lot of the guys I used to know who work out there much, though, so no promises.

Also, according to wiki, Walter Soplata of Newbury Ohio, bought the original YB36 the museum had before it moved to the new site, back in 1972 and its sitting in pieces on his farm...It was cheaper from them to fly in a new B-36, the B-36J that's there now, than it was to move the existing one.

I've read about that. Guy's got a full P-47 in new in box stored inside the thing's bomb bay.

Yeah, I'd only just read that. Thats incredible.

/me plans a road trip.

We shall raise our Sword if necessary, if that's the only way to return Ra's rule over world.

Misrastan wrote:We shall raise our Sword if necessary, if that's the only way to return Ra's rule over world.

Ummm what?

The Corparation wrote:

Transnapastain wrote:
This surprises me not at all.

According to what I've read, most of the aircraft in the boneyards down in Arizona and places could be made flight-worthy again as well. I'm sure the F-117's are enjoying a better storage facility that doesn't seem them baking in the hot southwestern sun though.

In fact, and I always laughed at this, there is a B-52 at Wright-Patterson, as part of the National Museum of the United States Air Force's Cold War display. If they move it to another stie, or even another part of the facility for a different display, as per one of the START treaties, they have to inform the Russian's.

I wonder if their B-36 would also fall under the treaty.

Considering the B-36 had been out of service for thirty years and nearly all had been cut up for scrap by the signing of the first phase of the treaty, doubtfully so. The B-36 was already obsolete by the 1950's so there was no interest in keeping them airworthy.

It occurred to me that we've made it this far...Holy crap; we've made it this far. <.>

Anyways; if no one objects I appoint Corp the rights to successor thread.

Can't really enforce that on my level, but I agree completely.

Our primary fighter jet is the T-2 Toiletmaster multirole fighter. It is armed with a high powered toilet water cannon, 4 clogger air to air missiles, 4 plunger air to surface missiles, and 4 500 kilogram 12 megapack toilet paper roll bombs.

Sounds like a pretty shitty fighter.

I mean...where do you come up with this crap?

This thread seems to have really gone down the drain.

Gripen or Mig-29?

Elan Valleys wrote:Gripen or Mig-29?

Depends on what you're aiming for. Mig-29 is a bit larger, is twin engine, has a marginally higher speed and a higher altitude. Gripen has more an additional hardpoint,is single engine, shorter range,lower ceiling. Personally I'd go for the Gripen. Its single engine should cut down on maintenance somewhat (Don't quote me on this though) Its smaller and a more versatile platform plus its got an extra hard-point so you can carry more variety on a mission. Its got good STOL performance, and is very maneuverable.

Elan Valleys wrote:Gripen or Mig-29?

Gripen.

Elan Valleys wrote:Gripen or Mig-29?

MiG-29.

Gripen is a light fighter that despite fanboy-ery is not worth it in the long run, the ability to run off highways and the 'lesser maintenance' is entirely useless when your air force gets slaughtered by heavy fighters.

Nueva California Republica wrote:

Elan Valleys wrote:Gripen or Mig-29?

MiG-29.

Gripen is a light fighter that despite fanboy-ery is not worth it in the long run, the ability to run off highways and the 'lesser maintenance' is entirely useless when your air force gets slaughtered by heavy fighters.

The Mig-29 may be a larger fighter but their weapons load-out is about the same. Plus as I mentioned Gripen has an extra hardpoint which can be very useful.

Nueva California Republica wrote:

Elan Valleys wrote:Gripen or Mig-29?

MiG-29.

Gripen is a light fighter that despite fanboy-ery is not worth it in the long run, the ability to run off highways and the 'lesser maintenance' is entirely useless when your air force gets slaughtered by heavy fighters.

Mig-29 is kinda a piece of shit. There is a reason Mig was allowed to waste away while Sukhoi has gotten all the fat new contracts.

The Kievan People wrote:

Nueva California Republica wrote:

MiG-29.

Gripen is a light fighter that despite fanboy-ery is not worth it in the long run, the ability to run off highways and the 'lesser maintenance' is entirely useless when your air force gets slaughtered by heavy fighters.

Mig-29 is kinda a piece of shit. There is a reason Mig was allowed to waste away while Sukhoi has gotten all the fat new contracts.

dafaq .... ?!

Why would you use a MiG-29? It's getting old. The MiG-35 is a much better choice. Or Su-30MKI/Su-35

Would the HAL Tejas be a suitable MiG-29 replacement as a supplement for an existing Su-35 fleet?

A Hooloovoo wrote:Why would you use a MiG-29? It's getting old. The MiG-35 is a much better choice. Or Su-30MKI/Su-35

Not everyone has the massive amounts needed to buy brand new up to date, unfortunately.

modded dragons capable of avoiding the most advanced anti air fire

The race of the new wrote:modded dragons capable of avoiding the most advanced anti air fire

That would be something to see Dragons avoiding Flak and Rocket and Guided Missiles and such ultimately futile of course but interesting.

We use the JAS 39 Griffin, we call it HAR 40 mark E

New Vihenia wrote:dafaq .... ?!

Gripen>Mig-29, F-16>Mig-29, Eurofighter>Mig-29 and so and so forth.

The Kievan People wrote:

New Vihenia wrote:dafaq .... ?!

Gripen>Mig-29, F-16>Mig-29, Eurofighter>Mig-29 and so and so forth.

Out of curiosity, Kiev, what about the MiG-35? How does it fair, in your opinion?

The Kievan People wrote:

Nueva California Republica wrote:

MiG-29.

Gripen is a light fighter that despite fanboy-ery is not worth it in the long run, the ability to run off highways and the 'lesser maintenance' is entirely useless when your air force gets slaughtered by heavy fighters.

Mig-29 is kinda a piece of shit. There is a reason Mig was allowed to waste away while Sukhoi has gotten all the fat new contracts.

The reason for Mikoyan withering badly since the collapse of the USSR isn't due to the superiority of Sukhoi. The reason Sukhoi was able to get its hand on all that fat contracts was due to Mikhail Simonov having significant political influence compared to anyone in Mikoyan. When the Russian navy shrunk and was only planned to operate a single aircraft carrier, and thus making it far to costly to have two separate fighters, why would they Russians chose the Su-27K?. The MiG-29K was based off the MiG-29M, whilst they Su-27K was based off the baseline Su-27. The MiG-29K would have benefited from the MiG-29M's lightweight airframe, multi-mode/multi-role radar and PGM capability, none of the benefits that the a Su-27K would have. Also, it would have granted greater operational capability of the aircraft carrier because of the MiG-29K would have been multirole, but rather than that they chose an aircraft which also limited the role the carrier.

Mikhails influence is also present in the Russian Air Force. The MiG-29M promised superior export performance, and would have been better at performing in the post-cold war era because of its superior multirole capability, but rather they choose the Su-27K for continued development, in addition being further behind in development that the MiG-29M.