Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Vitaphone Racing]

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

I meant in terms of speed. All listed fighters had recorded speeds of less than mach 2.

So how did you determine the speed as I don't see any other way for you to come to Mach 2 other than making it up.

As for maneuverability, FSW aircraft have superior maneuverability than conventional aircraft that are unassisted by things such as thrust vectoring, so my aircraft which has FSW and thrust vectoring is only naturally going to be more maneuverable than aircraft that don't.

Sure, if you're happy with slight gains for the same trade-offs.

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.

Page 60, right before my post on the F-54. Are you trying to tell me that you are debating with me without having even looked at my original post?

You said you wrote a counter, I didn't realize your counter was the thing that I was countering. Uh, neat? But that "counter" you wrote is really nothing more than some juxtaposed anecdotes and theories. Aircraft stability is not a lose term; being unstable is not an inherently good thing and the instability associated with a FSW design at supersonic speeds is not the same instability sought by designers of other conventional fighters. You've then gone on to talk about some materials being poor or something even though that has literally no bearing on how much stress is applied to an airframe nor does it negate how much the wing is going to try and flex at high speeds, but claimed it's possible to practically address these concerns without saying how. And then you've said that the reason nobody wanted FSW is because nobody wanted FSW....

No sources, no back up, no explanations, just "I think". Which in itself isn't a crime, but if you're going to use that in an argument then you've brought a knife to a gun fight. Personally I can't see why you just can't be happy with working around the drawbacks of FSW, since it's plainly obvious you want to use that layout, rather than trying to justify them being obviously superior to conventional wings because they aren't and never will be.

If you need clarification, the problem is not that you're using FSW but have serious misgivings on how they are to be accommodated

So?

Viranna is an RP mentor and NS designer who really knows his stuff.

So?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Nobody thought the Argies would be stupid enough to invade the Falklands though.

[Vitaphone Racing]

If I remember correctly, two Argentine Mirages were shot down during the Falklands War. One was lost to a Sea Harrier, the other was shot down by Argentine anti-aircraft fire. So one, not two.

Ahh. Thank you.

Also on a different note,

Can someone help me with the basics for my first 5.5th gen (Multi-role) fighter?

So far I have this,
F/A-40 Warhawk II
Type: S/VTOL or STOL (I haven't decided yet, will need feedback) Multirole Fighter
Crew: 1
Engines: 2
Length: 59 Feet
Wingspan: 42 Feet
Armament: 6 Internal Bays (1 pylon each), 1 25mm cannon (480 rounds)
Dry Thrust: 32,000 lbs

What about this is 5.5th gen exactly?

[Vitaphone Racing]

What about this is 5.5th gen exactly?

5th Generation but new enough not be closely associated with the 5th Generation, but not advanced enough to be put in the 6th Generation, mainly the fact that the 25mm will be replaced with a laser later.

Aside from 6 internal bays which seems sort of stupid, these stats might as well be from any fighter from 1960 on-wards. I'm having a hard time seeing anything 5th gen let alone 5.5th gen so I'm wondering what sort of feedback you're expecting from us?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Could a Panavia Tornado be modified to fire some type of anti-ship missile fairly easily, or would this entail a significant investment in new electronics?

It was designed to do so. West German Tornadoes were for the anti-ship role.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It was designed to do so. West German Tornadoes were for the anti-ship role.

Really? What did they use for tactical bombing and CAS?

Luftwaffe Tornadoes. I forgot the word Navy, sue me.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I need a dedicated strike fighter. Tejas is too small to carry a meaningful bomb load and the Su-35 is for air superiority. Unless I did something to improve the Su-35's strike capabilities.

Keep it in the family and use an Su-34

[Vitaphone Racing]

F-15E is too valuable to waste on CAS.

A-10/Su-25 are the epitome of CAS attack aircraft.

I subscribe to Forza's view that CAS is deploying ordnance against enemy units moving to engage or engaging friendly units, whereby proximity, altitude and even payload aren't factors.

It's not even my view, it's the view. CAS is CAS no matter where or what you are flying.

One of the most prolific CAS aircraft in the world was the F-4.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Should I use B1 Lancer as my main stategic bomber?

Should you?

[Vitaphone Racing]

An F-15E can carry more stuff than an A-10 and throw it from just as far away. How is that not better?

While it's somewhat of a moot point, considering the prevalence of SAM units..

The A-10 is far more rugged and capable of withstanding more direct hits to the airplane than the F-15, and I guess, on a technicality, it does have a 30mm autocannon, designed around busting armoured vehicles... and the slower stall speed might help with accuracy when using unguided munitions? Maybe?

In 2014, a direct hit usually involves a missile and you're done. Regardless of what you're flying. The A-10's armor was handy when ZSUs and DShKs were the more prevalent anti-aircraft equipment.

The B-1 can travel no faster than Mach .93 to Mach 1.25 depending on altitude, which modern fighters will have no problem catching up to. And even if you can manage higher speeds (say, with a Tu-160), you're still vulnerable to interception if they approach from in front, and you're not outrunning AAMs or SAMs anytime soon.

There was a growing belief in the 1920s and 1930s that "the bomber will always get through" by outrunning fighters. Even in that era, though, this soon turned out not to be the case.

It wasn't outrunning fighters, it was that if you launched enough, some would get through.

But in the 1970's when the B-1 was being mooted, it was indeed thought that the speed advantage over the B-52, particularly at low altitudes, would make it more effective than the B-52 which the B-1 was slated to replace at one point.

Also the bolded was not the philosophy of the 20's and early 30's. That didn't come until the mid-1930's at least.

[Vitaphone Racing]

An F-15E can carry more stuff than an A-10 and throw it from just as far away. How is that not better?

Too many reasons.

Suffice it to say that the F-15E is designed for a far different mission than A-10, and throwing it at a tank battalion is nothing more than a complete waste of its capabilities.

Because the A-10 is designed for a mission that almost no longer exists. The modern-day A-10 barely does what it was originally designed to do. And wasting capabilities doesn't exactly count as a good reason; what's typical about CAS is that it's usually been done with whatever aircraft is available at the time instead of these bespoke, up-armored, low-altitude specialists which most people think are necessary

[Vitaphone Racing]

So what's an F-15E meant to go and bomb, and what makes the A-10 actually better for engaging tank battalions?

F-15's quite a lot faster than the A-10 and only has 20mm cannon. Paveways against tanks.
A-10 goes slower, is armored against small-arms fire, and has 30mm cannon against lighter armored vehicles, Hellfires (do A-10s carry hellfires or is it just attack helicopters and drones?) or Paveways against tanks. A-10 allows for more time on target. Also, fart from hell.

F-15Es and A-10's for the most part engage non-structural targets with the same missile.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Because the A-10 is designed for a mission that almost no longer exists. The modern-day A-10 barely does what it was originally designed to do. And wasting capabilities doesn't exactly count as a good reason; what's typical about CAS is that it's usually been done with whatever aircraft is available at the time instead of these bespoke, up-armored, low-altitude specialists which most people think are necessary

Yes, the important part is that the A-10's anti-armour mission no longer exists.

It does, however, exist on NS.

The anti-armor mission exists. The strafe-with-rockets-and-guns part doesn't.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Which the F-15 could almost certainly carry, and even the AH-64 could almost certainly carry with appropriate pods.
So, what's the F-15E meant to do that precludes its use as CAS?

Nothing precludes its use as CAS, I never said that.

I said it was a waste of its capability. It's self-evident given the F-15E's massive range, WSO, and CFTs. The aircraft is designed for long-range interdiction and destruction of far more important targets than tank battalions. It's also very expensive, far more expensive than an A-10, with a larger maximum payload.

F-15E is comparable to F-111. You can use them both for CAS (and certain PGMs of the 1980s era were designed for this), but they're not dedicated CAS aircraft like A-10.

Basically in order to find a cheaper, more expendable aircraft you're willing to lay down another billion or two in capital and logistical costs over the lifetime to save $20-30 million per air frame. What's the real waste here? Because the only way your argument makes sense is if:
a) we assume no extra F-15Es are acquired to partially replace A-10s
b) money doesn't exist.

[Vitaphone Racing]

As for the person that called my criticism of the F-35 bullshit, please clarify. How is it bullshit?

It's bullshit because it's either criticism based around tactics we used in the 70's, criticism based on the cost, criticism based on pre-production flaws, criticism based on selective and irrelevant comparison to the teen fighters and criticism based on personal anecdotes.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Kind of fast for that role. The MiG-29 would be a much better choice for an Eastern block multi-role.

They have the MIG 35 now, the replacement for the MIG 29. Thrust vectoring supposedly better than F22 and SU37

It's a nice plane that one. A real shame that nobody wants it.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I think this is the appropriate thread for this-

I'm basing my nation very heavily off Panau from the video game "Just Cause 2" and for anyone familiar with that game I was wondering a few things about making the air force portrayed in the game viable in nation states.

From what I've gathered in my near 100 hours playing just cause 2 is that the Panuan air force is primarily comprised of very large, what I think are, interceptor aircraft and smaller multi-role fighter aircraft. Would keeping this mix be a good idea for an air force primarily concerned with national defense?

A goal of mine with this nation is the try and buy all of its military equipment from storefronts, and in that vain could someone recommend a few places to get the fallowing:

-Attack helicopter
-Jet fighter aircraft
-Tactical transport aircraft
-Utility helicopters

Normally whenever I read "basing off video game", I think this is some introduction to a very bad idea.

For a proper air force, you need more types of aircraft than what you have listed. So first I'd work out the basics of your nation, economy, population and what not, find some similar nations in real life to gauge what you can and can't afford/need, make the necessary adjustments based on how militarized you are compared to them, and work out how many units of each you need. It might be the cheat's way, but it is the simplest and easiest way of creating armed forces in NS, it should take you about 5 minutes.

The quality of stuff you'll find in GE&T is so bad I can't even recommend a storefront anymore. So have a browse through this thread and it's predecessor (linked in the OP) and find a design which somebody has posted that you like, although you'll be hard pressed to find anything other than fighters.

[Vitaphone Racing]

http://cryptome.org/2014/06/one-dead-pilot.pdf

Two engine debate again. So.

I say two engines.

The pilot is worth several times more than the craft.

Ejecto Seato Cuz!

[Vitaphone Racing]

Hypothetically, if the Radar Operator at Pearl Harbor somehow knew that those where intruding aircraft, how would the scenario have played out?

No differently. Maybe more US aircraft would have been destroyed on the runway rather than in the hangers.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Why are you assuming the first-world invater has worse logistics and technical competence?

Because this is NS. They can't RP tech detail in certain areas or take care of logistics, I exploit it. There are any number of poor tacticians here using the best storefront snippings available. Doesn't count for much if they have no idea how to direct its usage.

Sounds like you're bringing a gun to a knife fight.

[Vitaphone Racing]

You can RP its failure, why not its success?

You make no reference to your logistics tail and I think you're covering too much ground too fast to allow for a realistically consistent one, I will refocus all my efforts on impeding it.

If the other writer has no grasp of the importance of operating said tail, he has no idea how to respond. Let's see how far his troops get without fuel or ammo. When he demands, "can he do that?" everybody else backs me on this. Pushover.

I don't see the point in obsessing over logistical details. Roleplay is about creative writing and (shock!) having fun. Extensive elaboration on minor details like logistical trains which contribute little to the storyline and are quite tedious to read and write about are not creative nor fun. People shouldn't be derided for overlooking them nor does it mean they have a smaller cock than you.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This summer the company I worked for worked at a farm that had five 4000 gallon tanks of diesel fuel and in the four days we were there I saw trucks and tractors fuelling from them almost constantly without ever seeing the tanks get refilled. Mind you, combat vehicles probably guzzel more fuel then tractors and dump trucks-

T-90's fuel capacity is 1,600 liters (or 422 gallons) including external tanks, which gives a modest 550-700km operating range depending on engine type. Five 4000 gallon tanks, even if they're completely full despite wartime shortages, will only be enough to fully refuel a tank battalion and its associated support vehicles and trucks once.

I don't see the point in obsessing over logistical details. Roleplay is about creative writing and (shock!) having fun. Extensive elaboration on minor details like logistical trains which contribute little to the storyline and are quite tedious to read and write about are not creative nor fun. People shouldn't be derided for overlooking them nor does it mean they have a smaller cock than you.

Once again: I highly recommend you "logistics is boring" people pick up a copy of Ralph Peters' Red Army. From the private crushed by a dropped ammunition crate to the commander killed by friendly fire, the general obsessing over re-routing supply traffic to the clerk fatally wounded when his resupply point is leveled by PGMs, that book is a pretty thorough demonstration of the fact that tense, gripping war writing doesn't have to be non-stop gunfights and air battles.

For the record, it also has a number of other lessons applicable to NS, such as using general terms instead of naming every piece of equipment in detail (i.e., no "Corporal Jones loaded a 30-round magazine into his 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine which had been specially modified with a bipod, a silencer, and a red dot sight), and building a story around multiple characters while keeping the reader attached to each one individually.

That book was terrible and really gave little insight into the logistics of the invasion aside from the bare basics. It was supposed to portray how logistics was being considered by the main characters. "Tense, gripping war writing" involves characters and a steady, coherent development of the plot, not infodumps of menial facts about trucks, trains and highways so you can detail your logistical tail.

[Vitaphone Racing]

nobody has to write a story with footnotes about how many tons of petrol are moved per day down which route. thats not the point.

Yup.

[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.

[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.