Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Vitaphone Racing]

An "opinion" is that's one of the worst excuses for a flame I've ever seen.

A "fact" is that there aren't 60 blocks of F-16s.

Ah, the classical literal interpretation of the word Block, irrespective of the actual meaning of the word as designated by the United States Air Force. I bow before the might of the omniscient dtn and co.

What are you even trying to argue here? Danton is right; there aren't 60 blocks of F-16. That's not an opinion, that's fact. The block number refers to the variant and it's state of upgrade. The USAF didn't create the meaning of that term and how they use it is not different to what you'd call one of the classical literal meanings; a set of similar items.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Unless you were just recruited by the Taliban, it's hard to imagine a B-52 ever coming after you because the primary reason they're used is to not wear out the B-1 and B-2 airframes unnecessarily; they have to last until 2030 or somewhere around then.

I'd be more scared of a B-2 because there's a highly probable chance it's carrying a tactical nuclear bomb if it ever were to appear over the battlefield. A B-52 on the other hand, will probably be carrying a cargo of similarly dated surplus ordnance.

[Vitaphone Racing]

So time for my first post in this thread. I come to poison you all with this. Have fun.

A piece on aviation written by Business Insider is like the Catholic Church trying to advocate evolution.

[Vitaphone Racing]

The Fiat G.55, the most production-efficient of the Serie 5 fighters and the most produced, took 15,000 man-hours for the early models with the expectation that it could in time be brought down to 9,000 man-hours if produced in Germany. The Bf 109 required only 5,000, and while the Fiat G.55 was a good fighter, it wasn't twice as good as the Bf 109. The P-51 Mustang took only 2,700 by 1944, and just over 2,000 in mid-1945.

What was the root of this though?

The country it was built in.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Then smoke something better that come from "Tactical Missile Design 2nd Edition" Or this

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... s/aam.html

You'll see that "maximum launch range" Isn't single and depend on so many factors. Add maneuvering targets and you won't guarantee any hit from such range.

Stealth is good but it's not used to launch missiles from stupidely long range which will giveaway your shit because AMRAAM or any other form of shit will emit IR which will give your presence and bearing of your position. Granted it won't provide range for flanker to fire back..but it now know where to turn and evade.

Stealth is meant to sneak and launch from the most effective range where the missile will have energy to maneuver and kill the target before or where it will have little time to react and this is not 110 NMI but much closer.

Another thing Can you guarantee that your missile will see the enemy.. Not friendly plane within the proximity..remember AMRAAM has no IFF and so other AAM.. The head is too small to accommodate any form of IFF.. You may end up shooting down another raptor which is sane enough to get close and try shooting from sane range.

Oaledonia is correct in his theory, not quite in his assessment. Even though the missile is likely to miss, the enemy aircraft is immediately put on the defensive and the other aircraft has control of the engagement from that moment on barring a mistake on the part of the pilot. Longer range missiles like the AIM-120 have the handy ability of near guaranteeing you the first shot and subsequent control. Done right, an F-22 will force a Flanker to immediately go through defensive maneuvers of which it will never recover from.

[Vitaphone Racing]

F-15Es are much better.

*le enemy has colloum of T-90s*

*suddenly SEAD reaps SHORADs*

The Strike Eagles come to play.

What it joy it is.

F-15E isn't much more effective than an A-10 with PGMs, tbh. The difference is the latter has far more stowed kills because it has weapons that can put AFVs out of action without resorting to PGM use.

If you can afford both, do it.

If you can afford both, buy F-15E's and spend the money that would have been used towards A-10's elsewhere.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Choosing to operate two completely different kinds of fighters in response to a problem of an entire type possibly being grounded due to some mechanical flaw is not a logical solution to forseeable problem. It's neither of those things in fact. I can't think of a single case off the top of my head where an entire fighter fleet has been grounded because of a mechanical issue in dire need of repair, so I don't think this is a problem even worth trying to solve. I'd like to see proof of where it's "more common than people think" outside of car manufacturers whose business heavily depends on how they handle even the most minor of faults. The argument that it's going to be more cost effective also holds no water because you're practically doubling a lot of administration and storage costs to accommodate two different parts suppliers as well as two different training syllabuses for pilots and mechanics alike. Unless your exchange rate is so weak that purchasing foreign parts is impractically expensive, you're not actually saving a single cent in the process but rather redirecting where that money is going.

It seems like you just want to operate the F-22 and the PAK-FA together, but feel the need to justify doing so. Don't. It's your NS nation, do with it as you please.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Choosing to operate two completely different kinds of fighters in response to a problem of an entire type possibly being grounded due to some mechanical flaw is not a logical solution to forseeable problem. It's neither of those things in fact. I can't think of a single case off the top of my head where an entire fighter fleet has been grounded because of a mechanical issue in dire need of repair, so I don't think this is a problem even worth trying to solve. I'd like to see proof of where it's "more common than people think" outside of car manufacturers whose business heavily depends on how they handle even the most minor of faults. The argument that it's going to be more cost effective also holds no water because you're practically doubling a lot of administration and storage costs to accommodate two different parts suppliers as well as two different training syllabuses for pilots and mechanics alike. Unless your exchange rate is so weak that purchasing foreign parts is impractically expensive, you're not actually saving a single cent in the process but rather redirecting where that money is going.

It seems like you just want to operate the F-22 and the PAK-FA together, but feel the need to justify doing so. Don't. It's your NS nation, do with it as you please.

Could have just saved your self time by just posting the last statement and in answer to it,

Or, I could have typed out explicitly why your reasoning was wrong so that other, younger forum members who read it won't be coerced into thinking this a perfectly reasonable course of action to take. To be quite honest, I don't really care how or why you choose to RP but these threads have a reputation of being used as a source of military expertise and hence I and others would prefer the content on here was kept accurate and misleading details were adequately rebutted.

I'm not justifying anything, I stated the reasons why the Commonwealth uses multiple aircraft types.

Are you trying to be obtuse or what? "I'm not justifying anything, I just gave reasons as to why I do it." There's no difference there.

And no matter what the haters’ state

,
We're not hating on you, please do not try to denigrate us as such.

In closing, if I can find the stories again, I'll post the various fleet groundings that have happen. Doesn't happen often, but more then most people would think who don't follow all the world wide aviation news on a regular basis.

Then surely somebody who is as superior as they claim to the rest of us mere amateurs would be able to find the reasons behind each of the groundings and deduce that very few if any of these groundings were in response malfunctions that were in literal dire need of repair. For example, the USAF knew about the F-22's oxygen problem for years, they only grounded the fleet in direct response to a fatal accident.

Really, what you're proposing is akin to someone buying a new watch when their old watch is in for repair rather than just checking the time on their phone. Back to a previous example, even when the entire F-22 fleet was grounded, there were a multitude of other fighters that the USAF had to defend with.

[Vitaphone Racing]

RE: 787. It's a passenger jet servicing a heavily regulated industry where billions if not trillions of dollars are at stake from lost sales and lawsuits. Commercial aviation is a no-risk industry, not even close to military aviation.

[Vitaphone Racing]

So looking for a sensible replacement for my F-14Ds and am kinda torn between either the Gripen or Rafale.

The only problem is that they seem on the "light end" and would be better off replacing my F-16Ns with them, rather than the F-14D.

Use Super Hornet.

Don't give the Gripen any love, it sucks.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Or, I could have typed out explicitly why your reasoning was wrong so that other, younger forum members who read it won't be coerced into thinking this a perfectly reasonable course of action to take. To be quite honest, I don't really care how or why you choose to RP but these threads have a reputation of being used as a source of military expertise and hence I and others would prefer the content on here was kept accurate and misleading details were adequately rebutted.

1. For some reason I can't fathom you've decided to exclusively focus on the second IC reason I stated {that being a possible grounding} as that being the primary reason I chose to employ both the F-22 and PAK-FA. That reasoning couldn't be further from the truth.

Please, I've explained why the third IC reason is garbage as well and if it makes you feel any better the first one is a pretty lousy justification as well.

2. Many RL air forces employ a mixed fleet of Western & Soviet/Russian designs

Yeah, and many of them are swapping from one fleet to another, not buying MiG-29's to complement their F-16's.

, so for future reference how exactly was I being inaccurate and misleading?

Because your reasoning was wrong.

Are you trying to be obtuse or what? "I'm not justifying anything, I just gave reasons as to why I do it." There's no difference there.

For the sake of clarity, I was giving IC reasons not OOC reasons. If you can't tell the difference between the two, then I don't know what to say.

This is the F&NI sub-forum. Here, we criticize your IC decisions.

Then surely somebody who is as superior as they claim to the rest of us mere amateurs would be able to find the reasons behind each of the groundings and deduce that very few if any of these groundings were in response malfunctions that were in literal dire need of repair. For example, the USAF knew about the F-22's oxygen problem for years, they only grounded the fleet in direct response to a fatal accident.

Really, what you're proposing is akin to someone buying a new watch when their old watch is in for repair rather than just checking the time on their phone. Back to a previous example, even when the entire F-22 fleet was grounded, there were a multitude of other fighters that the USAF had to defend with.

1. Just curious, but why exactly does "literal dire need of repair" matter as the reason for the grounding? If a fleet's grounded, it's grounded and hence non-operational for however long it stays grounded. This harks back to my original point which seems to have been lost in all the noise, fleet groundings are a lot more common, for whatever the reason, then most would suppose.

Literal dire need of repair means they can't fly, period. Faulty ejector seats and possible stress fractures ground aircraft because the Air Force is worried about compensation, they are not going to matter if the aircraft are needed with urgency and therefore making each aircraft doubly redundant by complementing it with a second type is not practical response to a possible problem.

You'll note that virtually all of these groundings were in direct response to a fatal accident even though the problem was already known.
[/quote]

[Vitaphone Racing]

I'd go as far to say that if the D.520 had more power it would comfortably rank among the top aircraft of the early war period.

[Vitaphone Racing]

So, is PAK FA inferior to F-22 or on par with it?

It really depends what you prioritize more in a fighter. Although, if you wanted a definitive answer you'd need to wait another one or two years to see the finalized specification of the production variant.

[Vitaphone Racing]

you can use the F-80 for ground support instead of a dedicated fighter.

Your right. That's probably what I will use it for.

I'd rethink the timeline a bit. The P-80 was a horribly flawed aircraft and the US only persisted with it because they were in some international turmoil at the time and it was more or less the only jet aircraft domestically available to them at the time, the other ones were complete shite. Unless you're closely following the timeline of the US and you had a major conflict in the 1940's which pressured you to adopt a jet to counter enemy jets, the best option is ignoring it altogether, relying on P-51s to fill the gap (for the record, the P-80 was only marginally better than the best prop aircraft of world war 2 so it's not a huge trade off) and taking the F-86.

Remember, the F-80 became a strike aircraft because it was expendable, not because it was a good strike aircraft.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It really depends what you prioritize more in a fighter. Although, if you wanted a definitive answer you'd need to wait another one or two years to see the finalized specification of the production variant.

Eh, I'm thinking of getting the PAK FA because it would suit my rather soviet based air force better than the F-22, and because it appears to be multirole instead of simply air superiority.

They're both multirole

[Vitaphone Racing]

Actually it was the competitor that faced the F22 Raptor

Yes, and it wasn't adopted because it couldn't carry ordnance.

The weapons bays would have required several years to get working for an ultimately inferior aircraft.

The weapons bays worked fine. The way they worked and where they were located was not ideal.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I fail to see the use of a YF-12 for escort duties. Seeing as to the logistical burden of operating them, and more importantly the fact they fly several times faster than any transport plane and have a turning circle of dozens of miles.

You see,we needed a plane that could travel at the flight level of 100,000 ft at great speeds just like the Presidential "Transport Vehicle".

You could be boring, save the money and spend it on fighters which would secure a corridor along which the "Transport Vehicle" flies, which is by far the smarter option.

[Vitaphone Racing]

The weapons bays worked fine. The way they worked and where they were located was not ideal.

IIRC, they never carried weapons on either YF-23, nor even test fired them.

What was the reason for that?

The YF-23 made runs with inert weapons and passed. It was never part of the requirement to fire them and Northrop elected not to.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There's no need to spread out our forces that much that we need improvised bases, doing so would be pretty bad. We'd have our fighter jets concentrated around Darwin because that's the most likely place such an invasion would occur. The rest of Australia is almost invulnerable.

Anyway the point is, we have more than enough adequate runways to select from without worrying about "can this aircraft take off from dirt?".

We didn't pursue the F-15 because it was ultimately unnecessary, it had nothing to do with it's suitability for Australian environments. The F-16 was supposedly rejected because it wasn't as robust as the F/A-18 but this was far from the defining factor and the Hornet was superior in a lot of ways.

You do have good points.

To add on to this, even the three bare bases are kept in good condition and there's paved runways for small jets all over the north thanks to the mining boom. If we need an airfield, we'll find one. Thank Clive Palmer.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's summer alright.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's an interesting design but IMO those forward swept-wings will rip off before you get to Mach 2 no matter what the alloys are used in wing root construction. For this kind of design you usually have to choose between speed and agility. An aircraft utilising forward swept-wing geometry simply cannot have both.

Edit: Forward swept wings work by increasing the point (in terms of Mach number) at which drag divergence, the phenomenon of drag increasing dramatically during transonic flight and then decreasing to lower levels once more, occurs, greatly improving the subsonic, transonic and even low supersonic performance of an airframe. This however rules out movement to higher speeds due to the excessive drag generated in attempting to do so (and, IIRC, the formation of a Mach cone at the wing root, but I'd have to check that).

Well all the research I did on FSW pointed to Mach 2 being pretty much the fastest a fighter like this could go. I perfectly understood the speed limitations in designing it, but IMO the pros out weighed the cons.

Did you read into the structural limitations in your research? FSW isn't being overlooked IRL because aircraft won't be able to go Mach 2 (although more accurately, they'll struggle to remain stable in supersonic speeds even under computer control), it's because of the stress the configuration places on the airframe. Thrust vectoring brings all the benefits, none of the drawbacks. Invest in that instead.

[Vitaphone Racing]

No. They will go faster but they're also lose energy faster than the fighter, speed is still essential to get within the effective range of your missiles.

Especially if you're in pursuit, rear quarter shot can only be done in much shorter range than forward quarter.

Again the F-54 is not built as an interceptor or a pursuit fighter. It's an air defense/ multirole fighter. It's designed to stop enemy bombers and fighters that are threatening ground forces as well as provide CAS. We have other fighters for interception, pursuit, and deep penetration.

This doesn't change New Vihenia's point though.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This doesn't change New Vihenia's point though.

No, but the fighter does what it is designed to do is my point. His points don't apply because they don't matter to the mission of the aircraft.

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.

And if your aircraft are heavily outmatched by superior conventionally-laid out aircraft, that mission will not be achieved.

Except they won't. The FSW allow it to achieve its mission statement at greater success than a conventional design.

Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.


Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

1) The Su-47 didn't have a lot of maneuverability enhancements that the Su-37 has, such as 3D-thrust vectoring. Point is moot.

No, that is the point. You can get everything you want from an FSW configuration without any of the drawbacks with a thrust vectoring system.

2) The F-54 is capable of out matching the F-16, F-35, Rafale, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, (can probably find more) in terms of speed and maneuverability. It matches the Gripen, and Eurofighters in terms of speed and is capable of outmatching them in terms maneuverability.

According to you...

FSW works fine on my fighter, and nothing you have said has proved otherwise.

FSW doesn't work fine on any fighter. It's a concept that was looked at in the late 40's and shelved, dusted off in the 80's and 90's because we thought metal had come a long way and then shelved again. It's no mystery why no FSW fighter as of 2014 has ever been proposed for production; the concept frankly sucks because of serious structural issues caused by forward swept wings having some notably different aerodynamic properties to rearward swept ones, and nobody wants anything to do with it.

This has been explained to you previously by me, I'm explaining it again now. If you're not going to listen now then I can only conclude you didn't come to this thread for criticism and hence there's not much point in me continuing this discussion.

I've also never seen it in the draftroom FWIW

[Vitaphone Racing]

No, that is the point. You can get everything you want from an FSW configuration without any of the drawbacks with a thrust vectoring system.


According to you...

Actually not according to me. I didn't just make that up.

Then by all means, please provide us with the data which led you to this conclusion. Because if you've actually modelled this sort of stuff, you've done more than what most universities could accomplish and I'd be very impressed to say the least.

FSW doesn't work fine on any fighter. It's a concept that was looked at in the late 40's and shelved, dusted off in the 80's and 90's because we thought metal had come a long way and then shelved again. It's no mystery why no FSW fighter as of 2014 has ever been proposed for production; the concept frankly sucks because of serious structural issues caused by forward swept wings having some notably different aerodynamic properties to rearward swept ones, and nobody wants anything to do with it.

This has been explained to you previously by me, I'm explaining it again now. If you're not going to listen now then I can only conclude you didn't come to this thread for criticism and hence there's not much point in me continuing this discussion.

I've also never seen it in the draftroom FWIW

I wrote a very long and length counter to your whole "FSW is bad thing" pretty much discrediting the whole thing.

Where? I've looked myself, the only defence of FSW you've given is "they can probably go Mach 2" and you've made no mention of anything else.

As for not seeing the design on the draft room, that is probably because it was up a good year and a half ago. Also note I got the design approved by Viranna as well.

So?