Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Minnysota]

Pa 13 Kometa

Introduced in 1941, the Pa 13 was the last design by Nestor Żurakowski before he left for the Shvetsov bureau. When the Kometa was designed it was envisioned as a specialized aircraft; its primary role was that of a high-speed, short range bomber interceptor. The Pa 13 was also designed to take advantage of the most advanced aerodynamics of the time and embodied structural techniques which were an advance on its contemporaries. It was to be a strictly local-defense interceptor, intended to counter the threat of high-altitude bomber raids, and thus relied on speed, climb performance, and armament at the expense of manoeuvrability. Rare for a CISR design, it made use of a liquid cooled engine.The Pa 13 was a sleek, but stubby craft with its over-sized V12 engine and chin-mounted radiator.

With it's effective two-stage turbo-supercharger the aircraft soon gained dominance in the daylight hours, forcing a switch to night time bombing. With an increase in use against fighters the Kometa's lack of agility started to reduce it's effectiveness. Improved versions, using high-lift devices were able to considerably enhance the handling qualities of the Pa 13. Since the fighter was being designed primarily for high-speed flight, a smaller wing area would be optimal for achieving high level speeds, but the downside of such a trade-off was that low-speed flight would suffer, as the smaller wing would require more airflow to generate enough lift to stay flying. To compensate for this, the Kometa included advanced high-lift devices on the wings, including automatically opening leading edge slats, and fairly large camber-changing flaps on the trailing edge. The slats increased the overall lift of the wing considerably when deployed, greatly improving the horizontal maneuverability of the aircraft.

Pa 13PD Kometa
Primary Function: Interceptor, Fighter
Contractor: Pavlov Design Bureau OKB
Power Plant: 1 358kW (1 820hp) Mikulin M-242M liquid-cooled inverted V12 engine
Length: 8.95 metres (29'7")
Height: 3.8 metres (13')
Wingspan: 10.20 metres (33'5")
Ceiling: 12 000 metres (39 400')
Speed: 710 km/h (440 mph)
Ferry Range: 1 000 km (620 mi)
Empty Weight: 2 840 kg (6 260lbs)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 3 480kg (7 670lbs)
Armament: 2x 13.5mm autorevolver machine guns and 2x 25mm cannon, 2x 250kg bombs in fighter bomber role
Crew: 1

(Image)

When I get my puppet revived, consider them one of your primary customers

[The Pope States]

My nations jet fighter is the Phantiom form Vetnam it has fast speed and it moves nice as speedy while in combat

[Bajireyn]

My nations jet fighter is the Phantiom form Vetnam it has fast speed and it moves nice as speedy while in combat

what?

[Nationalist Germans]

My nations jet fighter is the Phantiom form Vetnam it has fast speed and it moves nice as speedy while in combat

what?

The F-4 Phantom Mk 1 presumably; maybe Mk2. Served in Viet Nam with dashing success and only got out done [at first only] because of a lack of a gun.

[SovArms]

Hello

My nation's main fighter - the Su-35S - fast, agile and with wide variety of weapons and powerful Irbis E Radar
In addition - MiG-29 SMT for Ground Troops Aviation.

And for the time being the SovPlane Construction Bureau is working on a Sov-42 fighter - it is a light, stealth aircraft whose main task would be to achieve air superiority over the tactical theatre. Armed with medium range R-77, short range R-73 and SovArms B-12 short range air to air missiles - hidden in the weapons bay, this plane will be produced in small series in order to preserve SovArms national Aerospace Industry capabilities before money will be found to make order for a larger number, thus completely overhauling the SovArms Air Force.
Possible first flight: 2012
Possible entering to service: 2016.
Engines: Two Sov67L engines - 15 000 kg of thrust.
Max Speed: 2100 km/h
Weaponry: R-73, R-77, B-12, laser and optically guided missiles and bombs.
Radar: Sovustroystvo 44 with a detection range of 300 km for aerial targets with 10m2 RCS.
Detection range for ships (frigate and larger)- 100 km.
Detection range for ground targets (tanks, APC's etc.) - 25 km.
Crew: 1

Possible export variant:
Engines: Two Sov64F - 14 000 kg of thrust
Radar: Sovustroystvo 44M - detection range of 250 km for aerial targets with 10m2 RCS.
Detection range for ships (frigate and larger) - 80 km.
Detection range for ground targets (tanks, APC's etc.) - 18,5 km.
Crew: 1

[Sucrati]

My nations jet fighter is the Phantom form Vietnam it has fast speed and it moves nice as speedy while in combat

A. The aircraft you talk of had no close support system (machine guns)
B. The actual air to air missiles sucked
C. A better use would be using it as a bomber or something there of.

[Vassenor]

My nations jet fighter is the Phantom form Vietnam it has fast speed and it moves nice as speedy while in combat

A. The aircraft you talk of had no close support system (machine guns)
B. The actual air to air missiles sucked
C. A better use would be using it as a bomber or something there of.

Only the early period ones lacked a cannon; later ones had either twin gunpods or an integrated cannon - The USAF lists 11 kills achieved by F-4s using guns during the war.

[Minnysota]

My nations jet fighter is the Phantom form Vietnam it has fast speed and it moves nice as speedy while in combat

A. The aircraft you talk of had no close support system (machine guns)
B. The actual air to air missiles sucked
C. A better use would be using it as a bomber or something there of.

Lol.. could have sworn so many people told me the F-4 Phantom was awesome.

[Sucrati]

A. The aircraft you talk of had no close support system (machine guns)
B. The actual air to air missiles sucked
C. A better use would be using it as a bomber or something there of.

Only the early period ones lacked a cannon; later ones had either twin gunpods or an integrated cannon - The USAF lists 11 kills achieved by F-4s using guns during the war.

And...

* F-4 Phantom II-- --445 total, 382 in combat

-First loss was operational (non-combat), F-4C 64-0674 (45TH TFS, 15th TFW) which ran out of fuel after strike in SVN on 9 June 1965; first combat loss F-4C 64-0685 (45th TFS, 15th TFW) shot down Ta Chan, NW NVN on 20 June 1965. 9 of the losses were parked aircraft struck by rockets.
-Final loss 1973

A majority of F-4 losses were combat related...

11 kills vs 283 loss during the war...

I would say that isn't that good.

[Nationalist Germans]

Because judging the plane over shitty conscripted pilots is fair.

[Itailian Maifias]

OK, ideas time.

F-14Ds: Replace, Upgrade or retcon?

Replace with F-15E's at the very least

SE's if you got the money

[Sucrati]

Because judging the plane over shitty conscripted pilots is fair.

The plane is a tool, it won't get anywhere without the pilot, no matter how good or badly trained they are

[Nationalist Germans]

Because judging the plane over shitty conscripted pilots is fair.

The plane is a tool, it won't get anywhere without the pilot, no matter how good or badly trained they are

A wonderously skilled pilot can make a Junkers look like an F-22.

A conscripted shitty one makes an F-22 look like a Junkers.

[Sucrati]

The plane is a tool, it won't get anywhere without the pilot, no matter how good or badly trained they are

A wonderously skilled pilot can make a Junkers look like an F-22.

A conscripted shitty one makes an F-22 look like a Junkers.

However, most pilots if not ALL pilots are officers of some sort, forced conscription of pilots would be saying that the military drafted pilots and trained them as NCOs or lower, no, drafted pilots aren't going to suck at flying an aircraft.

[Vassenor]

OK, ideas time.

F-14Ds: Replace, Upgrade or retcon?

Replace with F-15E's at the very least

SE's if you got the money

F-15E was my plan for the Retcon option, but whatever.

[United States of PA]

OK, ideas time.

F-14Ds: Replace, Upgrade or retcon?

Replace with F-15E's at the very least

SE's if you got the money

You dont replace a ASF with a Strike Fighter.

On F-14D: Upgrade, the Tomcat is the shit.

[United States of PA]

And...

* F-4 Phantom II-- --445 total, 382 in combat

-First loss was operational (non-combat), F-4C 64-0674 (45TH TFS, 15th TFW) which ran out of fuel after strike in SVN on 9 June 1965; first combat loss F-4C 64-0685 (45th TFS, 15th TFW) shot down Ta Chan, NW NVN on 20 June 1965. 9 of the losses were parked aircraft struck by rockets.
-Final loss 1973

A majority of F-4 losses were combat related...

11 kills vs 283 loss during the war...

I would say that isn't that good.

Hardly fair when 99% of those F-4s were downed by AAA, and not fighters.


EDIT: And those 11 kills were all the gun kills. After the introduction of Top Gun and that USAF School, Loss-Kill Ratios for US Pilots was 1-8. USAF Lost couple hundred Phantoms, and they also did most of the Air to Air Killing. PLAF lost over 200 aircraft as well.

[No endorse]

Sort of. The original plan was to buy the F-35B, but recent budget cuts meant that's been switched to the -C model instead, as it's cheaper and can carry more.

Who cares, F-35 is still shit.

rofl, no.

The F-35 program, despite wikipedia and NS General, has actually met or exceeded most of its design goals. Technically, the plane is turning out to be more or less what we wanted. (within the average scope of any project and the associated requirement creep)

The problems are rooted in a failure to contain costs and in a failure to maintain timeline. However, in this project (unlike several in the past), the DoD has decided to force on and just get the damn thing finished regardless of the cost or time.

Interestingly, the project isn't too unduly expensive considering three aircraft are being designed here. We're just building so few (compared to the size of three past procurement programs) that the damn thing is going to come out in the cost ballpark of the F-22 when you figure program+procurement costs.

[Vassenor]

Who cares, F-35 is still shit.

rofl, no.

The F-35 program, despite wikipedia and NS General, has actually met or exceeded most of its design goals. Technically, the plane is turning out to be exactly what we wanted.

The problems are rooted in a failure to contain costs and in a failure to maintain timeline. However, in this project (unlike several in the past), the DoD has decided to force on and just get the damn thing finished regardless of the cost or time.

Possibly because they're not the only ones to have invested in the project and stand to lose out if it tanks.

[No endorse]

That's a part of it.

Part of it, and something that isn't really being talked about (by the general public) much, is airframe fatigue. Many of the fighters in service have been remanufactured over the years. However, that just means that they've sort of fixed up the old things. Consider that there have been B-52s where an airman's father and grandfather also flew in the plane in days past. Consider the age of the aircraft fleet (especially many of the naval aircraft, whose lifespan is necessarily shorter for sundry reasons) Our aircraft need replacing not for any technological need (current generation Russian aircraft are barely on par with last generation American ones, with China trailing far behind), but for the simple issue of aircraft disintegration.

The F-35 isn't merely a program to upgrade the force for the 21st century, it's also a program to get rid of airframes we've been maintaining since the 70s. The Teen Series ain't spring chickens anymore. Many airframes have double or triple the number of flight hours they were originally designed for. It's a testament to the designers that they're still viable aircraft after all of that, but come on! Buy something new so that the old shit doesn't break up in high-G maneuvers on training flights!

[Arkinesia]

OK, ideas time.

F-14Ds: Replace, Upgrade or retcon?

Noooo, don't replace. Upgrade to ASF Tomcat-21s. Thrust-vectored 'Cats with increased BVRAAM capability.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

I almost want to make a factbook that's just 'the Illustrated Guide to Confederate Fighters 1912-2012'

[Amerikians]

F-4 > All.

I'm baaaaaaaaack.

Seriously; The Phantom was only shot down by Anti-Air from the ground, the PLAF sucked at it's job.

[The Crooked Beat]

Hmm...Well, I wouldn't quite say that. Communist North Vietnam did manage to down a fair few American fighters in honest air combat, which is, in itself, no mean feat. The Phantom was of course an excellent airplane, but a time to every purpose, you know, and I certainly wouldn't want to be flying around in one today. Even in the 1960s, though, I'd vastly prefer an EE Lightning. I think a good argument can be made that the Lightning, in terms of sheer performance, was the Cold War's best fighter. Not a terribly adaptable airplane, granted, but an unparalleled performer that could still give the F-15C a run for its money in some areas.

Anyway, that's enough from me.

[Dinosaurana]

F-4 > All.

I'm baaaaaaaaack.

Seriously; The Phantom was only shot down by Anti-Air from the ground, the PLAF sucked at it's job.

Nah...

F-14/F-15 > All