Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Prosorusiya]

Would a squadron of Su-25s or Su-22M4s be better for deployment against ISIS and potentially also the Iraqi Army? I feel like counter air might be carried out better by the Su-22M4s, but then again the Su-25s are in fact better armored. Also, which had a greater ferry range?

[Dostanuot Loj]

I'm curious what this thread's opinion is on this question:

Starting circa 1995 which would be a better fighter for "fleet" air defense of a small navy, Sea Harrier FA2 or AV-8B+?
CATOBAR is out of the question, so it's one of those two.

I figure AV-8B+ has the edge on ground attack, but air defense is the primary purpose so if the Sea Harrier is better it's probably going to be the one.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Well it basically comes down to if you want APG-65 or Blue Vixen.

[Husseinarti]

Blue Vixen sounds attractive.

[Laritaia]

I'm curious what this thread's opinion is on this question:

Starting circa 1995 which would be a better fighter for "fleet" air defense of a small navy, Sea Harrier FA2 or AV-8B+?
CATOBAR is out of the question, so it's one of those two.

I figure AV-8B+ has the edge on ground attack, but air defense is the primary purpose so if the Sea Harrier is better it's probably going to be the one.

The Blue Vixen is ostensibly the more capable of the two radars, though to what extent that's true I don't think anyone who knows is allowed to say, what with it being the developmental parent of CAPTOR and all. there are other important difference between the two aircraft such as teh fact that the Shar has a slight edge in both speed and manoeuvrability over the AV-8B, but has slightly less flexibility in weapons choice due to the shorter wings. Where the AV-8B can carry a pair each of AIM-120s and AIM-9s in addition to it's drop tanks and cannon, the Shar loses the cannon from the same load out due to the placement of the AMRAAM launchers on the belly.

However if you are willing to step into the realm of what if aircraft, the Shar's limited weapons capacity could be addressed with the Tin wing upgrade which would have added wingtip rails for the Sidewinders and put it on an roughly even footing with the AV-8B.


this is why i based by STOVL aircraft on the AV-12.

[Gallan Systems]

>not using P1216

prole alert

[Dostanuot Loj]

I'm largely trying to keep RL tech only. In that guise I might fudge the numbers for the tin wing Shar. Anyone know where more info on it is beyond vectorsite?

[Greater Allidron]

So, I am attempting to design me Air Force, and I have come across some difficulty of choosing the types of aircraft. My situation is this: I am a fairly large nation in land size, who is bordered by a nation that is very powerful, and has a large land size. I am a part of a NATO-ish alliance, and I frequently use my air power in intervention missions. However, I still need to prepare for a war with my neighbor. So I have a couple of questions: if the Gripen was to be used on my borders with the large nation, and I stored them in hidden spots to be quickly deployed in the case of attack, should I also get a aircraft that has longer range and more payload? I am also going to use the Dassault Mirage 2000 as a tactical bomber, and skip large heavy bombers, because I most likely will not be able to penetrate the enemy air defenses. However, I am a complete noob at this, soooo..... Should I use the Rafale over the Gripen? Would it make sense to even have the Gripen as a first response aircraft on the border? Or should I mix it up? I am trying to steer clear of Russian/Soviet aircraft for in world procurement reasons. I also looked at the Typhoon and the Panacia Tornado, but all the countries that use these are smaller than me.

[Rhodesialund]

So, I am attempting to design me Air Force, and I have come across some difficulty of choosing the types of aircraft. My situation is this: I am a fairly large nation in land size, who is bordered by a nation that is very powerful, and has a large land size. I am a part of a NATO-ish alliance, and I frequently use my air power in intervention missions. However, I still need to prepare for a war with my neighbor. So I have a couple of questions: if the Gripen was to be used on my borders with the large nation, and I stored them in hidden spots to be quickly deployed in the case of attack, should I also get a aircraft that has longer range and more payload? I am also going to use the Dassault Mirage 2000 as a tactical bomber, and skip large heavy bombers, because I most likely will not be able to penetrate the enemy air defenses. However, I am a complete noob at this, soooo..... Should I use the Rafale over the Gripen? Would it make sense to even have the Gripen as a first response aircraft on the border? Or should I mix it up? I am trying to steer clear of Russian/Soviet aircraft for in world procurement reasons. I also looked at the Typhoon and the Panacia Tornado, but all the countries that use these are smaller than me.

You will be needing longer ranged and two engine fighters. F-15s, Dassault Rafales, Eurofighter Typhoons, or F-14s if you feel the need for speed.

Having Gripens hidden in various locations near the border would be a very strong mistake. Chances are, your opponents, being strong as you say they are, will have them mapped out and awaiting for destruction by bunker buster bombs. You would be better off having such fighters farther away, at a dedicated airbase with proper defenses set up, and with enough distance to scramble all fighters needed. That plays to the disadvantage to the Gripen because of it's low ordnance carrying capability. It does have a combat radius of about 800 miles with A2A weapons and remain on station for 30 minutes, keep in mind, that's the JAS 39C.

You did say you had a massive nation, large amounts of land. The F-16C, without conformal tanks, has a combat radius of 850 nautical miles with 2x 2,000 lb bombs, 2x AIM-9 Sidewinders, and 1,040 gallons in drop tanks. You can imagine that the F-16 Block 50 Plus models can stretch out much farther, since those are the latest iterations of the Falcon line.

[Greater Allidron]

So, I am attempting to design me Air Force, and I have come across some difficulty of choosing the types of aircraft. My situation is this: I am a fairly large nation in land size, who is bordered by a nation that is very powerful, and has a large land size. I am a part of a NATO-ish alliance, and I frequently use my air power in intervention missions. However, I still need to prepare for a war with my neighbor. So I have a couple of questions: if the Gripen was to be used on my borders with the large nation, and I stored them in hidden spots to be quickly deployed in the case of attack, should I also get a aircraft that has longer range and more payload? I am also going to use the Dassault Mirage 2000 as a tactical bomber, and skip large heavy bombers, because I most likely will not be able to penetrate the enemy air defenses. However, I am a complete noob at this, soooo..... Should I use the Rafale over the Gripen? Would it make sense to even have the Gripen as a first response aircraft on the border? Or should I mix it up? I am trying to steer clear of Russian/Soviet aircraft for in world procurement reasons. I also looked at the Typhoon and the Panacia Tornado, but all the countries that use these are smaller than me.

You will be needing longer ranged and two engine fighters. F-15s, Dassault Rafales, Eurofighter Typhoons, or F-14s if you feel the need for speed.

Having Gripens hidden in various locations near the border would be a very strong mistake. Chances are, your opponents, being strong as you say they are, will have them mapped out and awaiting for destruction by bunker buster bombs. You would be better off having such fighters farther away, at a dedicated airbase with proper defenses set up, and with enough distance to scramble all fighters needed. That plays to the disadvantage to the Gripen because of it's low ordnance carrying capability. It does have a combat radius of about 800 miles with A2A weapons and remain on station for 30 minutes, keep in mind, that's the JAS 39C.

You did say you had a massive nation, large amounts of land. The F-16C, without conformal tanks, has a combat radius of 850 nautical miles with 2x 2,000 lb bombs, 2x AIM-9 Sidewinders, and 1,040 gallons in drop tanks. You can imagine that the F-16 Block 50 Plus models can stretch out much farther, since those are the latest iterations of the Falcon line.

I am 1.9 million square kilometers in size. I looked into the Rafale and the Typhoon, and thought they were interesting. The Rafale would be nice to have since it would also be used on my Charles De Gaulle carriers. However, how does the Rafale perform compared to the Gripen?

On another note, what is the downside to not having a large heavy bomber fleet, like Russia and the US has? Why does Russian and the US have large bomber fleets?

[Kassaran]

I am 1.9 million square kilometers in size. I looked into the Rafale and the Typhoon, and thought they were interesting. The Rafale would be nice to have since it would also be used on my Charles De Gaulle carriers. However, how does the Rafale perform compared to the Gripen?

On another note, what is the downside to not having a large heavy bomber fleet, like Russia and the US has? Why does Russian and the US have large bomber fleets?

Shows of force? Reach-out-and-touch-ya-from-the-other-side-of-the-world capabilities? Really they do because they can and because force projection is easier over lesser states when you have the ability to level their cities into convenient parking lots from high above when they are losing any wars or battles they picked against you.

[Crookfur]

You will be needing longer ranged and two engine fighters. F-15s, Dassault Rafales, Eurofighter Typhoons, or F-14s if you feel the need for speed.

Having Gripens hidden in various locations near the border would be a very strong mistake. Chances are, your opponents, being strong as you say they are, will have them mapped out and awaiting for destruction by bunker buster bombs. You would be better off having such fighters farther away, at a dedicated airbase with proper defenses set up, and with enough distance to scramble all fighters needed. That plays to the disadvantage to the Gripen because of it's low ordnance carrying capability. It does have a combat radius of about 800 miles with A2A weapons and remain on station for 30 minutes, keep in mind, that's the JAS 39C.

You did say you had a massive nation, large amounts of land. The F-16C, without conformal tanks, has a combat radius of 850 nautical miles with 2x 2,000 lb bombs, 2x AIM-9 Sidewinders, and 1,040 gallons in drop tanks. You can imagine that the F-16 Block 50 Plus models can stretch out much farther, since those are the latest iterations of the Falcon line.

I am 1.9 million square kilometers in size. I looked into the Rafale and the Typhoon, and thought they were interesting. The Rafale would be nice to have since it would also be used on my Charles De Gaulle carriers. However, how does the Rafale perform compared to the Gripen?

On another note, what is the downside to not having a large heavy bomber fleet, like Russia and the US has? Why does Russian and the US have large bomber fleets?

They needed them to strike each other and then once the bomber wings were establised they been looking for a means to continue thier existance. Today both see them as a means of have the ability to apply influence anywhere in the world without having to rely on over seas bases in the region they want to influence. For the russians they are also a key means of carryign really big missiles to attack NATO navies with.

In your original question having Mirage 200Ds kicking around would imply having had C models (or one of the export "fighter" models like the -9) and from the Mirage 2000C the only upgrades that make sense are Typhoons and Rafales with Rafale being ahead because its the actual mirage 2000C repalcement. Gripen would be a downgrade in all honesty.

The UK is a small country but it has a fecking massive air defence zone and this has had an influence on the aircraft they have used including the Typhoon which IIRC goes further with more than the Rafale. However if comonality between naval avaaition and airforce is a thing go with rafale.


In the end as long as write the job description reasonably any of the current western twin jet fighters will do the job and there will never be a perfect answer so just go with which ever one you think is sexiest or you have more affinity with for whatever reason.

[The Akasha Colony]

So, I am attempting to design me Air Force, and I have come across some difficulty of choosing the types of aircraft. My situation is this: I am a fairly large nation in land size, who is bordered by a nation that is very powerful, and has a large land size. I am a part of a NATO-ish alliance, and I frequently use my air power in intervention missions. However, I still need to prepare for a war with my neighbor. So I have a couple of questions: if the Gripen was to be used on my borders with the large nation, and I stored them in hidden spots to be quickly deployed in the case of attack, should I also get a aircraft that has longer range and more payload? I am also going to use the Dassault Mirage 2000 as a tactical bomber, and skip large heavy bombers, because I most likely will not be able to penetrate the enemy air defenses. However, I am a complete noob at this, soooo..... Should I use the Rafale over the Gripen? Would it make sense to even have the Gripen as a first response aircraft on the border? Or should I mix it up? I am trying to steer clear of Russian/Soviet aircraft for in world procurement reasons. I also looked at the Typhoon and the Panacia Tornado, but all the countries that use these are smaller than me.

I am 1.9 million square kilometers in size. I looked into the Rafale and the Typhoon, and thought they were interesting. The Rafale would be nice to have since it would also be used on my Charles De Gaulle carriers. However, how does the Rafale perform compared to the Gripen?

Rafale is better than Gripen. Gripen is pretty mediocre; it's small and can't carry a lot of ordnance and has a relatively short range. Range and payload are very important characteristics for a fighter. Gripen is popular because it's cheap, which makes it attractive to smaller nations that can support a modern fighter but don't want or have the money for bigger, more capable fighters like F-15, which is better than all of them by virtue of its size, which gives it good range, payload, and lots of space for a larger radar and such. F-14 is similar but a bit more complex due to the swing-wing configuration, although it has space for an even bigger radar.

On another note, what is the downside to not having a large heavy bomber fleet, like Russia and the US has? Why does Russian and the US have large bomber fleets?

Because they provide lots of capabilities that smaller aircraft don't, or can't provide very efficiently. They can deliver enormous quantities of ordnance in a single sortie, which is quite useful, and their range allows them to operate from bases at home, safe and sound. While smaller aircraft can have intercontinental reach with aerial refueling, this is taxing on the pilots of smaller aircraft that don't have the amenities available in larger aircraft. B-2 of course has the advantage of being a stealth aircraft and therefore having the ability to penetrate enemy air defenses more easily than any other aircraft, which has obvious utility.

[Gallan Systems]

Small fighters are dumb.

Twin engine twin seat king of the skies forever.

[Rhodesialund]

Small fighters are dumb.

Twin engine twin seat king of the skies forever.

Hiiiiighwaaaaay toooo the Dangerzone!

[The Corparation]

Small fighters are dumb.

Twin engine twin seat king of the skies forever.

Hiiiiighwaaaaay toooo the Dangerzone!

relevant

[Gallan Systems]

I really meant F-15E but that's fine too.

[Rhodesialund]

I really meant F-15E but that's fine too.

That's a funny way of saying F-14 Tomcat.

[The Corparation]

I really meant F-15E but that's fine too.

F15E is only top dog because Super Tomcat 21 never became reality.

[Greater Allidron]

Thanks for all the answers!

Is the Handley Page Victor a ok bomber?

[Crookfur]

Thanks for all the answers!

Is the Handley Page Victor a ok bomber?

In its day it was although it's wing design couldn't handle the transition to low level penetration which is why they got tanker converted to support the Vulcan.

[Gallan Systems]

I really meant F-15E but that's fine too.

F15E is only top dog because Super Tomcat 21 never became reality.

No.

It's because it isn't VG.

[The Gamindustrian Union]

Are Warrant Officer ranks in any Air Force useless? I mean the US Air Force finds no use for them.

[-Aztlan-]

Are Warrant Officer ranks in any Air Force useless? I mean the US Air Force finds no use for them.

It took until this past December for the USAF to admit that it wasn't necessary for drone pilots to be officers. Air Force brass likes to pretend that enlisted don't exist until they fuck something up. Warrant Officers would be giving those filthy enlisted something nice, so it'll never happen.

F15E is only top dog because Super Tomcat 21 never became reality.

No.

It's because it isn't VG.

VG or no, F-14>F-15

[Gallan Systems]

Nah.