Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[The Corparation]

For your copy paste of a C-130, why did you tweak the dimensions and weights slightly?

[Yytuskia]

For your copy paste of a C-130, why did you tweak the dimensions and weights slightly?

Actually, I cannot do lineart for the life of me, and I do need a heavy transport plane, so I thought I might as well look for a real life model, and work form there... The Dimension tweaking comes from the other based plane, the Messerschmitt Me-323.

[The Corparation]

For your copy paste of a C-130, why did you tweak the dimensions and weights slightly?

Actually, I cannot do lineart for the life of me, and I do need a heavy transport plane, so I thought I might as well look for a real life model, and work form there... The Dimension tweaking comes from the other based plane, the Messerschmitt Me-323.

There's nothing wrong with doing so. The way some of the numbers are and some aren't just confused me a little.

[Yytuskia]

Oh... Sorry, but can you explain how it confused you...?

[Imperializt Russia]

Finished it!

Classification: Messerschmitt Me-3230-G5
Type: Heavy Transport Aircraft
Crew (List): 5 (Two pilots, navigator, flight engineer and loadmaster)
Price:
Image: Schematics
(Image)
Image: Concept Art
(Image)

General Information

Details	Description
Length	28.2 meters long
Wingspan	55.2 meters long
Height	10.15 meters high
Propulsion	Four (4x) Porsche Gnome-Radion 14n/789-AE turboprops, rated at 4,590 shp (3,430 kW) each
Total Net Thrust	18,360 shp (13,720 kW)
Empty Weight	27,330 kilograms
Maximum Takeoff Weight	73,400 kilograms
Minimum Fuel Weight	13,850 kilograms
Maximum Fuel Weight	19,390 kilograms

Armament

Details	Description
Gunnery	1x free-mounted 14.5x114mm MG-67H HMG in remote-controlled bubble
Number of Plyons	Four (4x) pylons, with four (4x) mounted underwing, with two (2x) on each wing
Pylon-Mounted Weaponry	N/A
Other Mounts	Four (4×) 2,270 litre Gefüllte Kuh drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.
Cargo Hold Size	12.31 meters long, by 3.12 meters wide, by 2.74 meters high
Capacity	• 92 passengers or • 64 Fallschirmjägers or • 74 litter patients with 5 medical crew or • 6 pallets or • 2–3 Kubelwagens II’s or • 2 Pz.kpfw III-L’s
Normal Combat Weight	73,400 kilograms

Economics

Details	Description
Thrust-to-Weight Ration	2.75/1
Combat Range	3,800 kilometers
Ferry Range	4,200 kilometers
Operational Altitude Ceiling	33,000 feet
Cruising Speed	540 kilometers per hour
Maximum Speed	592 kilometers per hour

Avionics

Details	Description
Heads-Up-Display	MARKHAL™ Virtual Intelligence Heads-Up Display Mk IV for improved flying support
Computers	MARKHAL™ E25D Computing Systems for use of operating remote-controlled MG-67H

Ask any questions if you got them!

I'd hesitate to consider a C-130 a "heavy" transport aircraft.

[Organized States]

Finished it!

Classification: Messerschmitt Me-3230-G5
Type: Heavy Transport Aircraft
Crew (List): 5 (Two pilots, navigator, flight engineer and loadmaster)
Price:
Image: Schematics
(Image)
Image: Concept Art
(Image)

General Information

Details	Description
Length	28.2 meters long
Wingspan	55.2 meters long
Height	10.15 meters high
Propulsion	Four (4x) Porsche Gnome-Radion 14n/789-AE turboprops, rated at 4,590 shp (3,430 kW) each
Total Net Thrust	18,360 shp (13,720 kW)
Empty Weight	27,330 kilograms
Maximum Takeoff Weight	73,400 kilograms
Minimum Fuel Weight	13,850 kilograms
Maximum Fuel Weight	19,390 kilograms

Armament

Details	Description
Gunnery	1x free-mounted 14.5x114mm MG-67H HMG in remote-controlled bubble
Number of Plyons	Four (4x) pylons, with four (4x) mounted underwing, with two (2x) on each wing
Pylon-Mounted Weaponry	N/A
Other Mounts	Four (4×) 2,270 litre Gefüllte Kuh drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.
Cargo Hold Size	12.31 meters long, by 3.12 meters wide, by 2.74 meters high
Capacity	• 92 passengers or • 64 Fallschirmjägers or • 74 litter patients with 5 medical crew or • 6 pallets or • 2–3 Kubelwagens II’s or • 2 Pz.kpfw III-L’s
Normal Combat Weight	73,400 kilograms

Economics

Details	Description
Thrust-to-Weight Ration	2.75/1
Combat Range	3,800 kilometers
Ferry Range	4,200 kilometers
Operational Altitude Ceiling	33,000 feet
Cruising Speed	540 kilometers per hour
Maximum Speed	592 kilometers per hour

Avionics

Details	Description
Heads-Up-Display	MARKHAL™ Virtual Intelligence Heads-Up Display Mk IV for improved flying support
Computers	MARKHAL™ E25D Computing Systems for use of operating remote-controlled MG-67H

Ask any questions if you got them!

I'd hesitate to consider a C-130 a "heavy" transport aircraft.

True, it's more of tactical airlifter.

[Huda]

I'd hesitate to consider a C-130 a "heavy" transport aircraft.

True, it's more of tactical airlifter.

*nod*

[Lemanrussland]

Okay, I've done a little bit of research on the employment of the F-111 and the F-15E in the 1st Gulf War, and found that they would normally fly in with EF-111 Ravens with terrain following radars to penetrate enemy airspace and conduct deep attacks early on, on airfields and such.

What if you try that against a competent opponent with an actual airforce? You're flying in low with your EW/ECM and strike aircraft, and then they scramble fighters to intercept you. How are you supposed to defend yourself? Evade? Try to fight back with whatever fighter-like capability you have?

You guys also pointed out the danger of infrared/non-radar guided SAMs and guns ("lolpantsir camping"). How do you counter that?

[Imperializt Russia]

Presumably, strike groups would be adjusted to deal with different threats.

EF-111 Ravens were burning out enemy radars and preventing the Iraqis from sending up what few aircraft were still alive to intercept the groups.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Okay, I've done a little bit of research on the employment of the F-111 and the F-15E in the 1st Gulf War, and found that they would normally fly in with EF-111 Ravens with terrain following radars to penetrate enemy airspace and conduct deep attacks early on, on airfields and such.

What if you try that against a competent opponent with an actual airforce? You're flying in low with your EW/ECM and strike aircraft, and then they scramble fighters to intercept you. How are you supposed to defend yourself? Evade? Try to fight back with whatever fighter-like capability you have?

You guys also pointed out the danger of infrared/non-radar guided SAMs and guns ("lolpantsir camping"). How do you counter that?

You'd do the same thing, with more losses. The reason for low flying is to make radar detection harder, so you're operating with a minimal risk of interception in the first place.

[Huda]

Okay, I've done a little bit of research on the employment of the F-111 and the F-15E in the 1st Gulf War, and found that they would normally fly in with EF-111 Ravens with terrain following radars to penetrate enemy airspace and conduct deep attacks early on, on airfields and such.

What if you try that against a competent opponent with an actual airforce? You're flying in low with your EW/ECM and strike aircraft, and then they scramble fighters to intercept you. How are you supposed to defend yourself? Evade? Try to fight back with whatever fighter-like capability you have?

You guys also pointed out the danger of infrared/non-radar guided SAMs and guns ("lolpantsir camping"). How do you counter that?

You'd do the same thing, with more losses. The reason for low flying is to make radar detection harder, so you're operating with a minimal risk of interception in the first place.

and ground AAs in the vicinity? And them reporting hostile aircraft?

[Lemanrussland]

You'd do the same thing, with more losses. The reason for low flying is to make radar detection harder, so you're operating with a minimal risk of interception in the first place.

and ground AAs in the vicinity? And them reporting hostile aircraft?

I would say he's right. You just have to deal with losses. Interdiction and attacks on enemy airfields are an important part of an air force's duties, you do what you can to reduce losses, but if you do take losses, you just have to deal with it I suppose.

Even if you do have extremely capable electronic countermeasures and SEAD to reduce losses, the opponent can switch to older methods, like Lt. General Van Riper did in the much maligned Millennium Challenge 2002 exercises (he used motorcycle messengers and WWII light signals to control his maneuver and air forces). The Serbians did the same when they shot down that F-117 in 1999 (sure, they used modified long wave-length, low frequency radars too, but they also used human spotters and messengers rather than relying solely on their radar).

[Vitaphone Racing]

You'd do the same thing, with more losses. The reason for low flying is to make radar detection harder, so you're operating with a minimal risk of interception in the first place.

and ground AAs in the vicinity? And them reporting hostile aircraft?

Non-issues.

[Padnak]

Lt. General Van Riper

Unrelated to aircraft

but that guy has the coolest name

[New Vihenia]

What if you try that against a competent opponent with an actual airforce? You're flying in low with your EW/ECM and strike aircraft, and then they scramble fighters to intercept you. How are you supposed to defend yourself? Evade? Try to fight back with whatever fighter-like capability you have?

Jettison those heavy bombloads and fight your way back home.

You guys also pointed out the danger of infrared/non-radar guided SAMs and guns ("lolpantsir camping"). How do you counter that?

Well, basically stay out of their reach. Thus the Terrain Following Radar and supersonic speed. Essentially what F-111 did. You'll complicate life for MANPADS battery to track you. Something like Pantsyr however is more difficult as it can use radar or IR sight to track. Nonetheless one can still decoy this SAM's

[Lithuania-Latvia]

The LDF Air Division is equipped with these
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lithuania-latvia/detail=factbook/id=278780

And can you tell me how good each one is? If you can it would be greatly appreciated

[Bratislavskaya]

The LDF Air Division is equipped with these
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lithuania-latvia/detail=factbook/id=278780

And can you tell me how good each one is? If you can it would be greatly appreciated

Too many ground attack aircraft types. One or two types is usually all you need.

[Lithuania-Latvia]

The LDF Air Division is equipped with these
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lithuania-latvia/detail=factbook/id=278780

And can you tell me how good each one is? If you can it would be greatly appreciated

Too many ground attack aircraft types. One or two types is usually all you need.

Then which ones should I keep? I like the A37 and SU25 but I'd like to keep the F84 in reserve

[United Marxist Nations]

Already posted this in the realism thread, but I figured you guys would know more about it:

Since I decided my ground forces and naval forces will be Soviet/Russian (or based on them, in the case of my carrier), should I do the same for my airforce? The competing ideas I have are for:
~370 Eurofighter Typhoon
~720 MiG-29
~650 MiG-29M
~480 MiG-35
~500 Su-30MKI

[Crookfur]

The LDF Air Division is equipped with these
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lithuania-latvia/detail=factbook/id=278780

And can you tell me how good each one is? If you can it would be greatly appreciated

Pick 1 form the M-339 or the AT-3 and ditch everythign else bar the Su-25 and possibly the F-4s.

Get some intial and prop trainers (likely slignsby fireflys/grob tutors and PC-7s or 9s to match the typical age of your jet trainers).

Get some worth while modern fighters.

well unless you are playing in the mid 1980s for which keep the AT-3s as a brand new introduction repalcing T-33s, jet provests or saab 105s (pick one), add in some F-5s to supplment your F-4s and maybe if you ahve a desperate need for them keep a squadron or two of strikemasters.

[Organized States]

Already posted this in the realism thread, but I figured you guys would know more about it:

Since I decided my ground forces and naval forces will be Soviet/Russian (or based on them, in the case of my carrier), should I do the same for my airforce? The competing ideas I have are for:
~370 Eurofighter Typhoon
~720 MiG-29
~650 MiG-29M
~480 MiG-35
~500 Su-30MKI

Maybe a mixed fleet of MiG-29M, Su-30MKIs, and the MiG-35?

The Eurofighter seems odd, especially if you're more-Eastern aligned.

[Greater Weselton]

Our air force is called the Luftwaffe.

[United Marxist Nations]

Already posted this in the realism thread, but I figured you guys would know more about it:

Since I decided my ground forces and naval forces will be Soviet/Russian (or based on them, in the case of my carrier), should I do the same for my airforce? The competing ideas I have are for:
~370 Eurofighter Typhoon
~720 MiG-29
~650 MiG-29M
~480 MiG-35
~500 Su-30MKI

Maybe a mixed fleet of MiG-29M, Su-30MKIs, and the MiG-35?

The Eurofighter seems odd, especially if you're more-Eastern aligned.

Someone already answered it in the other thread, and pretty much answered the same; though, far more in-depth.

[Lydenburg]

Maybe a mixed fleet of MiG-29M, Su-30MKIs, and the MiG-35?

The Eurofighter seems odd, especially if you're more-Eastern aligned.

Someone already answered it in the other thread, and pretty much answered the same; though, far more in-depth.

And I'm inclined to agree. Logistics, boet - recommend you stick to MiGs and Sukhois.

[Organized States]

Maybe a mixed fleet of MiG-29M, Su-30MKIs, and the MiG-35?

The Eurofighter seems odd, especially if you're more-Eastern aligned.

Someone already answered it in the other thread, and pretty much answered the same; though, far more in-depth.

Heh.

I thought someone beat me to the punch.