NationStates

Greater American Union wrote:

Amerikians wrote:
You have my official stamp of approval. Specially for having the balls to use them in PMT.

We've invented a new form of "radar" that detects stealth aircraft, so they're still rather effective.

It's called longwave radar and infrared search and track, and they target the thing that no fighter can hide: the exhaust trail.

Licana wrote:

Dinosaurana wrote:
Excuse me, while I laugh.

Care to provide a counterpoint, or are you just going to stick with "lol, this aircraft better, and if you disagree, then lol."?

I would've used to agree with you because of those Indian-US Wargames where the USAF got pwned.


Until i read that the USAF told their F-15Cs and F-16s not to use their radars to get more F-22 funding. That killed the buzzstreak, and i am now of the opposite opinion.

Greater American Union wrote:We've invented a new form of "radar" that detects stealth aircraft, so they're still rather effective.

Longwave length radar + passive ambient backscatter radar + IRST ftw.

No endorse wrote:It's called longwave radar and infrared search and track, and they target the thing that no fighter can hide: the exhaust trail.

Actually, LWR works more by being so lofi it doesn't even get scattered by stealth features. Think of normal J band as dozens of brush bristles, they can fit into details, but can be deflected aside and cause you to not notice you're touching something. This of LWR as a thick stick, you'll miss all the details, but you'll bump something. LWR is useless for tracking or for identifying, but it can alert you the presence of something.

Ok i am just going to ask:
Is there a radar that i can i put in a fighter jet that is capable of detecting stealth aircraft?

Yes, its just that the ranges against these Low Observable fighters is going to be prtty low.

United States of PA wrote:

Licana wrote:Care to provide a counterpoint, or are you just going to stick with "lol, this aircraft better, and if you disagree, then lol."?

I would've used to agree with you because of those Indian-US Wargames where the USAF got pwned.


Until i read that the USAF told their F-15Cs and F-16s not to use their radars to get more F-22 funding. That killed the buzzstreak, and i am now of the opposite opinion.

Wait, so the US aircraft in the wargames weren't using their radars?

Yes, they were not allowed to use their Long Range Radars. Those Wargames were doomed to fail on the USAFs part from the beginning.

United States of PA wrote:Yes, they were not allowed to use their Long Range Radars. Those Wargames were doomed to fail on the USAFs part from the beginning.

Well, that explains it a bit I was thinking to myself "how the hell did USAF pilots get pwned by Indian pilots?".

Minnysota wrote:

United States of PA wrote:Yes, they were not allowed to use their Long Range Radars. Those Wargames were doomed to fail on the USAFs part from the beginning.

Well, that explains it a bit I was thinking to myself "how the hell did USAF pilots get pwned by Indian pilots?".

Don't underestimate the Indians.

St George of England wrote:

Minnysota wrote:
Well, that explains it a bit I was thinking to myself "how the hell did USAF pilots get pwned by Indian pilots?".

Don't underestimate the Indians.

Indeed not, you Englishmen did and see where it got you? Removed that nice fancy title from the Queen/King's emsomble that was Emperor/Empress of India.

Amerikians wrote:

St George of England wrote:Don't underestimate the Indians.

Indeed not, you Englishmen did and see where it got you? Removed that nice fancy title from the Queen/King's emsomble that was Emperor/Empress of India.

Well, I'm not like most Englishmen, I have an inferiority complex... I think I'm the same as everyone else. This means I'll defend races that clearly should be ours... the Indians... the French.... the Americans...

On that subject... if we hadn't went to war in India, we'd have kept the 13 colonies.

St George of England wrote:

Amerikians wrote:
Indeed not, you Englishmen did and see where it got you? Removed that nice fancy title from the Queen/King's emsomble that was Emperor/Empress of India.

Well, I'm not like most Englishmen, I have an inferiority complex... I think I'm the same as everyone else. This means I'll defend races that clearly should be ours... the Indians... the French.... the Americans...

On that subject... if we hadn't went to war in India, we'd have kept the 13 colonies.

The Indians, The French, not so easy that second one, audacious fellows. Indians just sat down and took it and walked that crap off.

Possibly, possibly not.

Me, I don't care; I'm still part of the Commonwealth/English Empire in all but name.

The TYPE-4 Dragon is the main air superiority fighter, it is more of a VTOL than a plane but it is capable of high speed when necessary since planes have been rendered an obsolete vehicle due to their habit of consuming resources.
The TYPE-4 Dragon is a remade variant of a PAC made Fighter VTOL, It is estimated that 7 have been made in production thus far, It is lightweight, nimble, fast and capable of VTOL work,



It's counterpart, the UD-6 Talon (Below) is used for civilian issues, such as Overwatch, Ambulance .ect but can be refitted for military purpose whenever needed, but serves less efficiently.

Ruskarkand wrote:The TYPE-4 Dragon is the main air superiority fighter, it is more of a VTOL than a plane but it is capable of high speed when necessary since planes have been rendered an obsolete vehicle due to their habit of consuming resources.

Correct me I'f I'm wrong but don't pure VTOLs need more fuel to get airborne as they have to realy solely on their engines to get airborne?

The Corparation wrote:

Ruskarkand wrote:The TYPE-4 Dragon is the main air superiority fighter, it is more of a VTOL than a plane but it is capable of high speed when necessary since planes have been rendered an obsolete vehicle due to their habit of consuming resources.

Correct me I'f I'm wrong but don't pure VTOLs need more fuel to get airborne as they have to realy solely on their engines to get airborne?

Not necessarily, most VTOL craft tend to operate like STOVL, using short rolling takeoffs to get airborne, and vertical landings when they come back. This allows for you to not waste fuel on a slow, vertical takeoff with your engines at maximum power, and when an aircraft comes back, it tends to be lighter from either weapons expenditure or less fuel or both, and makes it a tad easier on the engines when it comes down. However, these don't tend to be fuel efficient ways to land or takeoff, so your point still stands. To add, I don't think there's a single fixed-wing aircraft today that can takeoff vertically with a combat load, anyway.

We used these aircrafts as the backbone of our forces:

Freedom: (OOC: F/A-22 Raptor)


Anvil: (OOC: MiG-35 Fulcrum)


Infiltrator: (OOC: SR-71 Blackbird)

The latter most is obsolete and the other two have conflicting armaments, enjoy your logistical nightmare. >_>

Llama City One wrote:Infiltrator: (OOC: SR-71 Blackbird)
(Image)

In the days of satellite reconnaissance and modern SAMs, the SR-71 is dreadfully obsolete. If however, you are using it as a fighter, use the YF-12 because it can actually carry weapons. Either way its a bad Idea. (Although I will admit I use the YF-12, it was adopted in its original role as an interceptor and remains in service as an aggressor trainer standing in for hypersonic high altitude enemy bombers and re-entering suborbital strike aircraft.)

Zelung II codename XXL

This is a concept aircraft.

The Corparation wrote:

Llama City One wrote:Infiltrator: (OOC: SR-71 Blackbird)
(Image)

In the days of satellite reconnaissance and modern SAMs, the SR-71 is dreadfully obsolete. If however, you are using it as a fighter, use the YF-12 because it can actually carry weapons. Either way its a bad Idea. (Although I will admit I use the YF-12, it was adopted in its original role as an interceptor and remains in service as an aggressor trainer standing in for hypersonic high altitude enemy bombers and re-entering suborbital strike aircraft.)

You do know how fast a SR-71 is right? Satellite won't help.

Cartavesqa wrote:

The Corparation wrote:In the days of satellite reconnaissance and modern SAMs, the SR-71 is dreadfully obsolete. If however, you are using it as a fighter, use the YF-12 because it can actually carry weapons. Either way its a bad Idea. (Although I will admit I use the YF-12, it was adopted in its original role as an interceptor and remains in service as an aggressor trainer standing in for hypersonic high altitude enemy bombers and re-entering suborbital strike aircraft.)

You do know how fast a SR-71 is right? Satellite won't help.

He was talking about the use of satellites as a reconnaissance tool...not as a way to track or destroy an aircraft. Also, a good, modern SAM will be faster than a SR-71.

Greater United Russia wrote:The latter most is obsolete and the other two have conflicting armaments, enjoy your logistical nightmare. >_>

IIRC there has been at least one program to integrate western electronics and weapons system onto a MiG-29. Saddly none went anywhere as: A. MiG/rosoboronexport pulled hissy fits over them, B. The aircraft involved were pretty much at the end of thier service lives anyway and C. The americans were offering F-16s that cost less than the price of the upgrade and a service life extention and would have a longer service life.

Cartavesqa: He isn't implying that Satellite s are a threat to the SR-71 just that they do the job cheaper, better and safer. Of course the russians tended to know an SR-71 was comming about half a continent away and actually acheieved several succesful interceptions.

Licana wrote:

Cartavesqa wrote:You do know how fast a SR-71 is right? Satellite won't help.

He was talking about the use of satellites as a reconnaissance tool...not as a way to track or destroy an aircraft. Also, a good, modern SAM will be faster than a SR-71.

A SR-71 can travel at nearly Mach-3. And i know what you meant about the satellites.

Cartavesqa wrote:

Licana wrote:He was talking about the use of satellites as a reconnaissance tool...not as a way to track or destroy an aircraft. Also, a good, modern SAM will be faster than a SR-71.

A SR-71 can travel at nearly Mach-3. And i know what you meant about the satellites.

It also had the habit or randomly deciding to crash into the ground.