Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Minroz]

I'm suppose one seat aircraft are the norm in the future. With advances in technology, it'll happen eventually.

[Gallan Systems]

It happened in the 70s.

[-Aztlan-]

Could I get away with putting a radome on top of an EA-6, similar to the proposed AEW S-3 variant?



Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Laritaia]

No, the S-3 is a significantly larger aircraft.

[-Aztlan-]

No, the S-3 is a significantly larger aircraft.

Only in wingspan. The EA-6 is longer and significantly heavier.

[The Akasha Colony]

No, the S-3 is a significantly larger aircraft.

Only in wingspan. The EA-6 is longer and significantly heavier.

S-3 has a greater internal volume in the fuselage and more space available to house the crew necessary to actually process the radar returns and house the signal processing equipment.

[-Aztlan-]

Only in wingspan. The EA-6 is longer and significantly heavier.

S-3 has a greater internal volume in the fuselage and more space available to house the crew necessary to actually process the radar returns and house the signal processing equipment.

The S-3's fuselage does seem to have a larger diameter. Wouldn't newer electronics take up less space?

[Gallan Systems]

Not necessarily.

S-3 just had a really big internal bay that would be used to house the radar. A-6 lacks this entirely.

[The Kievan People]

Why not just use the S-3.

[Gallan Systems]

Not man enough obv.

Real navies use S-3.

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Gallan_Navy#Nava ... _Equipment

plens all dey

[Free Asian Ports]

Why not just use the E-2, then?

[Gallan Systems]

Because E-2 is shittier in every way to S-3 AEW.

[-Aztlan-]

Because I'd already be using the A-6 and EA-6 and figured it'd be more cost effective to just have another variant instead of a completely different airframe.

Also, I'm not I using supercarriers so space is limited.

[The Akasha Colony]

Because I'd already be using the A-6 and EA-6 and figured it'd be more cost effective to just have another variant instead of a completely different airframe.

Also, I'm not I using supercarriers so space is limited.

The French are able to operate E-2s from Charles de Gaulle.

[-Aztlan-]

The French are able to operate E-2s from Charles de Gaulle.

Hm...maybe, then. Roughly the same length, but the frog carrier is a little more than twice as wide as mine, I think. Will that be an issue?

[Gallan Systems]

Is your carrier for biplanes?

[Laritaia]

Because I'd already be using the A-6 and EA-6 and figured it'd be more cost effective to just have another variant instead of a completely different airframe.

Also, I'm not I using supercarriers so space is limited.

The French are able to operate E-2s from Charles de Gaulle.

:using the CdG as an example for anything positive:

[-Aztlan-]

Is your carrier for biplanes?

Pre-SCB-125 Essex-class.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is your carrier for biplanes?

Pre-SCB-125 Essex-class.

That frankly sucks. Almost as much as HMS "Invincible". Rip RN. Rip cva-01.

The French are able to operate E-2s from Charles de Gaulle.

:using the CdG as an example for anything positive:

Ralentir Travaux :3
Srsly though. How the fuck did it take almost a decade between launching and commissioning?

[Gallan Systems]

Is your carrier for biplanes?

Pre-SCB-125 Essex-class.

You're using no modern aircraft then.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Pre-SCB-125 Essex-class.

You're using no modern aircraft then.

He could use LolHarrier, just like RN's LolAircraft Cruiser HMS Invincible. But then again I suppose :gallia: never considered the Harrier anything approaching "modern".

[Gallan Systems]

You're using no modern aircraft then.

He could use LolHarrier, just like RN's LolAircraft Cruiser HMS Invincible.

No.

You would rebuild it and use A-7/F-8.

[Laritaia]

Pre-SCB-125 Essex-class.

That frankly sucks. Almost as much as HMS "Invincible". Rip RN. Rip cva-01.

:using the CdG as an example for anything positive:

Ralentir Travaux :3
Srsly though. How the fuck did it take almost a decade between launching and commissioning?

It's a terrible design, that's how.

The Invincible class were more capable strike carriers then the CdG is. And that's not saying they were amazingly good just that the CdG is an utter pile of fail.

also CVA-01 had it ever entered service would probably have been worse then CdG



i'll just let that sink in.

[-Aztlan-]

Pre-SCB-125 Essex-class.

You're using no modern aircraft then.

Well, not really modern anyway. It's got steam catapults I think will be strong enough to launch what I'm fielding. Mostly navalized F-5s.

[Gallan Systems]

SCB-27, yes, could cat anything in US inventory including Skywarrior.

SCB-125 means you can actually operate jet aircraft and trap anything in US inventory as well. The problem is you don't have an AFD (or Mark 7 AG), which means you have very little room for placement and recovery of aircraft. You can be a helicopter carrier and not much else.

Essex is probably too old to be useful but if you are wanting to use it there is literally no reason it shouldn't be SCB-125. Like at all.