Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Spirit of Hope]

Why are there continuous arguments about the F-22 and F-35? Honestly I have never seen a group of fighter engineers or combat pilots run around trash talking either. SUre both groups will talk about cost, but neither group, to my knowledge, has had a a large number say the planes are bad.

I mean who would think that trying to stuff the newest and best toys into one plane would be expensive? Especially since some of those toys improved while it was being made. Not like the Manhattan Project was expensive, but hey look at what it did.

[San-Silvacian]

Why are there continuous arguments about the F-22 and F-35? Honestly I have never seen a group of fighter engineers or combat pilots run around trash talking either. SUre both groups will talk about cost, but neither group, to my knowledge, has had a a large number say the planes are bad.

I mean who would think that trying to stuff the newest and best toys into one plane would be expensive? Especially since some of those toys improved while it was being made. Not like the Manhattan Project was expensive, but hey look at what it did.

Even though when translated into modem dollars, its only a moderate 26 billion from its 1945 price tag of 2 billion, 2 billion back in was fucking crazy compared to 26 billion now, which isn't as much as some would say.

It was hard to justify just why the government spent so much on the project back then, even with a massive budget, 2 billion dollars was pretty expensive in 1945.

[Purpelia]

Once more for posterity.

Motorjet engines on a 50's era Gyrodyne helicopter. Possibly attack helicopter.

Yes? No? Why?

[Antarticaria]

Why are there continuous arguments about the F-22 and F-35? Honestly I have never seen a group of fighter engineers or combat pilots run around trash talking either. SUre both groups will talk about cost, but neither group, to my knowledge, has had a a large number say the planes are bad.

I mean who would think that trying to stuff the newest and best toys into one plane would be expensive? Especially since some of those toys improved while it was being made. Not like the Manhattan Project was expensive, but hey look at what it did.

Even though when translated into modem dollars, its only a moderate 26 billion from its 1945 price tag of 2 billion, 2 billion back in was fucking crazy compared to 26 billion now, which isn't as much as some would say.

It was hard to justify just why the government spent so much on the project back then, even with a massive budget, 2 billion dollars was pretty expensive in 1945.

Because when you have a wallet that big the question comes to mind for most things; "Why the hell not?"

[Esparmuran]

In a nutshell, one lousy cold-war era helicopter.

[Kampala-]

In a nutshell, one lousy cold-war era helicopter.

should be like 4 if only for the parts

[West Suburbia]

The West Suburban Air Force (WSAF)

[Organized States]

The Capability is great on the F-35, it can go farther and around the same speed as the F-16 with a full combat load.

The Fighter Mafia would weep to read this.

Or anybody in the GAO, for that matter.

Pierre Sprey constantly contradicts his own statements.
"Fighters shouldn't have radar" lol
He was fired from multiple aerospace contractors for a reason.

[Triplebaconation]

The ultimate goal of a fighter (or any other weapons system) is to further national interests.

Even if the F-35 performs as advertised the few hundred that will realistically be built will gut...I was going to say the USAF but it's really every Western air force that buys into it.

You say that as though 'national interests' correspond with optimised, cost-efficient defence capabilities in the minds of lawmakers. Welcome to the neoliberal policymaking environment, I suppose.

I'm just waiting for the real lawsuits to start.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why are there continuous arguments about the F-22 and F-35? Honestly I have never seen a group of fighter engineers or combat pilots run around trash talking either. SUre both groups will talk about cost, but neither group, to my knowledge, has had a a large number say the planes are bad.

I mean who would think that trying to stuff the newest and best toys into one plane would be expensive? Especially since some of those toys improved while it was being made. Not like the Manhattan Project was expensive, but hey look at what it did.

Even though when translated into modem dollars, its only a moderate 26 billion from its 1945 price tag of 2 billion, 2 billion back in was fucking crazy compared to 26 billion now, which isn't as much as some would say.

It was hard to justify just why the government spent so much on the project back then, even with a massive budget, 2 billion dollars was pretty expensive in 1945.

"We can't win this."
"What shall we do?"
"Well, we've been working on this 'bat bomb' project..."
"No. We need a bigger bomb..."

[San-Silvacian]

Well it was either allot of money, which can be regained, or 1.5+ million American and Japanese estimated dead.

[The Corparation]

Even though when translated into modem dollars, its only a moderate 26 billion from its 1945 price tag of 2 billion, 2 billion back in was fucking crazy compared to 26 billion now, which isn't as much as some would say.

It was hard to justify just why the government spent so much on the project back then, even with a massive budget, 2 billion dollars was pretty expensive in 1945.

"We can't win this."
"What shall we do?"
"Well, we've been working on this 'bat bomb' project..."
"No. We need a bigger bomb..."

X-Ray would have actually been quite effective had it been deployed.

[Crookfur]

Once more for posterity.

Motorjet engines on a 50's era Gyrodyne helicopter. Possibly attack helicopter.

Yes? No? Why?

What bit is driving what?

is it the piston engine driving the rotor with the jet providing forward thrust or is the piston engine driving both the rotor and forward propellers with the jets giving a little extr or are you using tip jets?

Really i don;t seeing it being brilliantly good as a gyroplane is unlilly to make it to the oeprating speeds where the jet's effiicency starts to pay off.

Anyway unless it for soemthign super light by the mid 50s you really should be going for turboshafts, they make everything more fun.

[Chebucto Provinces]

Looking for a fighter aircraft to be purchased around 1984-1989. Less then 200 will be bought and it will be the primary. Combat aircraft of my air force to this day. RL tech only.

I am considering the F/A-18C. Carrier capability is a must as is non-Soviet. Patrol distance is important too with loiter time. Would new-build F-14D be a viable option? And could I keep them flying easily?

[San-Silvacian]

Mirage 2000 w/ some modifications to make it carrier-capable.

[Vaalorangia]

The Vrystaatse Lugmag uses the following roundel and flash fin:

Its Air Fleet includes:

a few remaining Saab 29 Tunnans are used as Trainer Aircrafts along with a small fleet of Cessna 172s.

[Purpelia]

What bit is driving what?

is it the piston engine driving the rotor with the jet providing forward thrust or is the piston engine driving both the rotor and forward propellers with the jets giving a little extr or are you using tip jets?

Basically I imagine the aircraft having one or two piston engines mounted along the hull where a modern helicopter has its turbines. They would both drive the main propeller and the jet engine. But there would be no horizontal props. All horizontal propulsion would be achieved entirely by the jet exhaust.

The logic behind it is that I can get a reliable jet engine for forward thrust in an age where this would have been difficult to do otherwise by avoiding the turbine.

Really i don;t seeing it being brilliantly good as a gyroplane is unlilly to make it to the oeprating speeds where the jet's effiicency starts to pay off.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? Also, does this actually invalidate the concept of a jet+propeller gyroplane altogether?

Anyway unless it for soemthign super light by the mid 50s you really should be going for turboshafts, they make everything more fun.

I was actually thinking very early 50's. Something like 1949-52. You know, before all the good jet engines made the concept completely obsolete.

[San-Silvacian]

So France had a period in which is was seriously testing VTOL aircraft. However they all seemed to have crashed some way or another ;~;

Would it be better to buy something like the F-35 or just another local VTOL problem?

I mean, the thought of VTOL Mirage IIIs flying though the air, shooting down F-35Bs is a great thought, but mehhhh

[Kampala-]

It would be better to buy Harrier.

[Purpelia]

So France had a period in which is was seriously testing VTOL aircraft. However they all seemed to have crashed some way or another ;~;

Would it be better to buy something like the F-35 or just another local VTOL problem?

I mean, the thought of VTOL Mirage IIIs flying though the air, shooting down F-35Bs is a great thought, but mehhhh

Just make something completely new that looks French enough. Basically what would happen you F-35Bized a Rafale.

[Crookfur]

What bit is driving what?

is it the piston engine driving the rotor with the jet providing forward thrust or is the piston engine driving both the rotor and forward propellers with the jets giving a little extr or are you using tip jets?

Basically I imagine the aircraft having one or two piston engines mounted along the hull where a modern helicopter has its turbines. They would both drive the main propeller and the jet engine. But there would be no horizontal props. All horizontal propulsion would be achieved entirely by the jet exhaust.

The logic behind it is that I can get a reliable jet engine for forward thrust in an age where this would have been difficult to do otherwise by avoiding the turbine.

Really i don;t seeing it being brilliantly good as a gyroplane is unlilly to make it to the oeprating speeds where the jet's effiicency starts to pay off.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? Also, does this actually invalidate the concept of a jet+propeller gyroplane altogether?

Anyway unless it for soemthign super light by the mid 50s you really should be going for turboshafts, they make everything more fun.

I was actually thinking very early 50's. Something like 1949-52. You know, before all the good jet engines made the concept completely obsolete.

Props tend to be more efficient upto about 400-500kph or so, the main point of a motor jet is a pwoer plant that lets you work as maximum efficnecy whislt accelerating into this region and then cruise nciely above it particularly at high altitude.

At the sub 400kpn speeds and low altitiudes any kind of gyroplane type thingy will typically operate in props rule which is why almost all of the various concepts in this area stick to props. The only place where jets are really useful in these kinds of aircraft is as tip jets for torqueless rotor super happy funtimes.

[Crookfur]

So France had a period in which is was seriously testing VTOL aircraft. However they all seemed to have crashed some way or another ;~;

Would it be better to buy something like the F-35 or just another local VTOL problem?

I mean, the thought of VTOL Mirage IIIs flying though the air, shooting down F-35Bs is a great thought, but mehhhh

Buy into harrier, help brits biuld mirageified P.1216 in 80s.

[Triplebaconation]

Dassault designed a French Harrier.

[Purpelia]

Dassault designed a French Harrier.

Please elaborate.

[Oaledonia]

Would it be possible to make Protect Pluto compatible with contra-rotating props and stick it on a fuckhuge bomber?

Moved from the NS realism thread, people here might know a bit more on the subject.