Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Vitaphone Racing]

The Typhoon was faster than the Thunderbolt at low altitude, and could climb at a faster rate below ten thousand feet or so. The Thunderbolt was superior at higher altitudes, which is probably not all that useful if your friend is intending to use them as dedicated attack aircraft. It also had a greater range, and later in the war the Thunderbolt also received a more powerful rocket armament. Other than that, the two aircraft were about the same in terms of attack capability.

It's not that the Thunderbolt was superior, it was how it was superior. That was thanks to the radial engine it had been given and nearly designed around, an engine that could keep the thing flying with most of the cylinders shot out because it was air-cooled and wasn't as fragile as other liquid-cooled engines of the period..

Fixed

[Vitaphone Racing]

yet the very next point mentions the extra survivability from being air cooled.

I stated that said advantage came from the radial engine design.
I never stated it was a liquid-cooled design, but rather that it fared better than liquid-cooled engines of the times.

And you stated wrong. Radial engines are not inherently harder to damage than V, Flat or Straight engines nor are they better able to keep aircraft flying after losing cylinders. Pistons are pistons, power is power. If you have six eggs, it doesn't matter if you arrange them in a straight line, two straight rows of three or make a circle with them, you still have six eggs.

The P-47 had an advantage in that it did not rely on a fragile cooling system, but that's as far as the inherent advantages go.

Further, I'd just like to point out that anecdotal evidence from two ex-pilots is hardly a convincing argument. Especially when it's in pretty stark contrast to how we can expect an engine to perform.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Remove J-20

Also, anyone else notice that Taiwan really wants the F-35B?

Taiwan really wants a lot of cutting edge military gear that the US makes. Their neighbors are assholes, so I'm led to believe.

[Vitaphone Racing]

You're then left to evaluate whether purchasing two air frames eventually works out cheaper than purchasing one which rarely it does. The USAF was particularly keen to acquire the C-27J, but that's because of the versatility it provided in terms of it's ability to land on very short strips rather than it's smaller payload in comparison to the C-130. In short, smaller transports are indeed useful but not because they have a payload and fuel economy which fits somewhere between a helicopter and a hercules.

[Vitaphone Racing]

What is the Pros and Cons of a Double Seat jet fighter?

Single seats are lighter and more appropriate for fighters. Dual seats are heavier but having an extra crew member makes it easier on the pilot for strike sorties.

[Vitaphone Racing]

RN-89 is better than your late 1990s 4th gen fighter

You're doing well to be running AESAs in '85 on 55 million dollar aircraft.

Flies like a tractor, crashes like a drunk adolescent. Not saying it can't be done if period appropriate, just that it was never a good choice.

I think you guys are being a bit harsh on the MiG. The F-5 was the far superior "cheap fighter" of the period, but the MiG-21 was a good fighter too (despite it's various flaws). There is a reason it is one of the most produced types in history, besides low cost.

Far superior? Hardly, even for the early versions.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I think it's time we placed the "F-35 sux" proclaimers in the same group with Young Earth Creationists, Flat-Earthers and 9/11 "truthers". It would be so much easier if we could simply dismiss them as being full of shit straight off the bat rather than repeat the same old story over and over again to them.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I think it's time we placed the "F-35 sux" proclaimers in the same group with Young Earth Creationists, Flat-Earthers and 9/11 "truthers". It would be so much easier if we could simply dismiss them as being full of shit straight off the bat rather than repeat the same old story over and over again to them.

So "if you disagree with me, you're just wrong."

Yeah, pretty much. If you disagree with logic and reason and would instead prefer to rely on data courtesy of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, be my guest. But you'll be wrong.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Would gunships be a good idea?

Like an MT, realistic version of this:

(Image)

By an MT, realistic version do you mean?

[Vitaphone Racing]

This? This isn't what I meant by "more thoughtful and intelligent" and you know it.

Lingering problems with this thread and others:

1. Way too many people are trying to be Galla. The only person who can pull this off is Galla. The rest should get their own style
2. The amount of shitposting is too damn high.
3. Too many people Think They Know™
4. Too many people are willing to contort arguments like play-doh and argue tangential bullshit because they hate being wrong.
5. Maturity is optional.

[Vitaphone Racing]

By an MT, realistic version do you mean?

I think he means VTOL gunships.

What he posted certainly doesn't come across as a "gunship" if we're going to make distinctions here. If he means VTOL aircraft that fulfill CAS and anti-armor, then that's what he's talking about.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Well, I found this.

And it's neither MT nor realistic.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I don't really care if we have the A-10 or something like a LAAR or Combat Dragon-type aircraft (another program sacrificed at the altar of the F-35), but we should field a balanced force. We don't need to be flying stealth aircraft around with tankers to provide air support in the Afghanistans of the future. The question is not a simple matter of F-35 yea or nay. If a theater commander had a choice between 13 F-35s or 8 F-35s, 2 EA-18Gs, 4 MQ-9s, 1 RQ-4, and $182 million in savings, what should he choose?

How do you figure that you can save money by fielding four different types of aircraft on three very different platforms?

This is something about JSF style programs which people continually misunderstand. By relying and using one platform instead of several for differing roles, you're saving in R&D, capital, maintenance and personnel training. Not to mention you're creating a much more flexible and practical force in the process. Whether or not we need F-35's in Afghanistan is not addressing the separate issue of whether it's more practical to design and buy cheaper aircraft for low intensity conflicts. And it's not.

[Vitaphone Racing]

The advantage of operating off dirt runways is quite superficial. Any airbase operating aircraft like F-22s or F-35s will require extensive infrastructure to support air assets and you can pave an asphalt runway in less than two days. The idea that you can't afford to pave a runway but can afford to operate all this high-tech shit mere meters away is ludicrous.

[Vitaphone Racing]

The advantage of operating off dirt runways is quite superficial. Any airbase operating aircraft like F-22s or F-35s will require extensive infrastructure to support air assets and you can pave an asphalt runway in less than two days. The idea that you can't afford to pave a runway but can afford to operate all this high-tech shit mere meters away is ludicrous.

What if your runway is taken out or cratered? I suppose you should spend another 2 days repaving it?

Do you imagine a crater in a dirt runway is going to be any easier to fix? The hardest part is filling the hole and compacting the earth enough so it won't collapse and that's something which you will have to do regardless of whether your runway is in dirt of asphalt. You can either cover that with a finer clay or sandy soil or you can cover it with asphalt.

It was taken for granted that many of the airbases in central and western Europe would be quickly destroyed in any conventional war with the Warsaw Pact, hence why the RAF even bothered with Harriers and the Soviet Air Force bothered with requiring their tactical aircraft to have rough-field capability. They could disperse their forces more easily and better withstand the loss of airbases.

The RAF wanted a VTOL aircraft, the Harrier had little to do with creating a doctrine of operating aircraft from anywhere. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was a very large country that was mostly very sparsely populated with very little infrastructure in between. They required their aircraft to have a rough-field capability precisely for that reason. The loss of airbases through runway damage had comparatively very little to do with it, as after all a dirt runway with a crater is no better than an asphalt runway with a crater, in fact they're both equally useless. The Americans, knowing that they'd full well be able to find or create a smooth, paved runway with minimal extra man hours or expense did not bother requiring nearly all of their aircraft to operate off dirt runways.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/jan-feb/bingham.html

Don't insult us both by posting that shit please. Carlo Kopp is a disgruntled former federal employee who's pissed because the government won't fund his wet dreams. I have no interest reading the selected articles which he feels fit to post on his website to continue his crusade against a government which spends less than 1% of GDP on Defense.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Do you imagine a crater in a dirt runway is going to be any easier to fix? The hardest part is filling the hole and compacting the earth enough so it won't collapse and that's something which you will have to do regardless of whether your runway is in dirt of asphalt. You can either cover that with a finer clay or sandy soil or you can cover it with asphalt.

I'd imagine filling a hole with sand and compacting it would be easier than repaving that bit of the runway, yes. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue paved airbases are somehow easier (or not much harder) to maintain or setup than grass or dirt ones. You should tell all of those third world airforces, you'd save them quite a bit of money.

Look, I don't know what expertise you have with building roads or runways or building anything outside of Bob the Builder, but I do this for a living so please listen to and respect my expert opinion which I kindly gave before; the only difference with a dirt runway or a concrete runway or a tarmac runway is the final layer of surface material. The materials and processes which are truly difficult and expensive are laid before the surface layer and are present in every type of road regardless of what you cap it with. Spreading gravel over a road and they spraying it with bitumen is not really that much harder than spreading sand or clay over a road.

Anyway, let's look at this collage I call Third World Nations Who Can Afford Paved Runways

The RAF wanted a VTOL aircraft, the Harrier had little to do with creating a doctrine of operating aircraft from anywhere. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was a very large country that was mostly very sparsely populated with very little infrastructure in between. They required their aircraft to have a rough-field capability precisely for that reason. The loss of airbases through runway damage had comparatively very little to do with it, as after all a dirt runway with a crater is no better than an asphalt runway with a crater, in fact they're both equally useless. The Americans, knowing that they'd full well be able to find or create a smooth, paved runway with minimal extra man hours or expense did not bother requiring nearly all of their aircraft to operate off dirt runways.

So you're suggesting the RAF dealt with the headaches of V/STOL aircraft for a lark, rather than to fulfill any operational requirement? The ability of the Harrier to take off from helicopter carriers and unprepared fields had nothing to do with the decision of the RAF to adopt it?

Uh, no. Exactly like I said, I said the RAF wanted a VTOL aircraft and not a transition to operating their entire air force from dirt runways because they truly believed that they'd not be able to rely on the unfettered access to a paved runway during a war with the Soviet Union. You sort of came out and said "Well, Harrier" like it proved something but I'm not quite sure what that was.

The size of the Soviet Union and lack of infrastructure in many places played a factor in their emphasis on good short and rough-field performance, but the vast majority of their aircraft would have been operating in eastern and central Europe, not in the expanses of Siberia or Central Asia. The MiG-29 was adopted as a short-range tactical fighter, the ability of the aircraft to operate from forward bases as a frontline fighter would have been useful in that application.

I suggest you google Sino-Soviet split as the Soviets had more borders than just the continental european ones which they thought they'd be forced to defend. I'm not sure of a time when the Soviet Union did not structure their entire fighting force around the concept that they'd be fighting on multiple enormous fronts at the same time if conflict ever eventuated, even before the fallout with China.

Don't insult us both by posting that shit please. Carlo Kopp is a disgruntled former federal employee who's pissed because the government won't fund his wet dreams. I have no interest reading the selected articles which he feels fit to post on his website to continue his crusade against a government which spends less than 1% of GDP on Defense.

It seems I've struck a nerve. The article was written by (now retired) Lieutenant Colonel Price T. Bingham for Air University Review in 1985 (NOT for Air Power Australia or any other think tank Kopp is involved in), so I'm not sure what difference it makes that the article is being hosted on that website, as if that automatically discredits anything written within said article.

If Mr. Bingham has any objective evidence which proves rough field operation is indeed the shit and is something which any fixed wing aircraft needs to be designed to incorporate, please feel free to post it. Otherwise, and with all due respect to Price, I'm not particularly interested in a 30 year old opinion which apparently failed to resonate within the USAF and has actually started to fall out of favor with the Russians as well.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Not sure what's up with your overall hostility level, but I'm not interested in getting in a pissing contest. My post was a little snarky, and I apologize. I'm not calling your experience into question.

I find he is usually like that.

Don't get jealous, I reserve a special level of malice for you.

I'm not a civil engineer, but as I understand it, the cost of subsurface work varies largely depending on the type of ground you're building the road or runway on. In some areas, a mow deck and roller on the back of a tractor, plus a few hours time will give you a decent runway for small aircraft. More generally, gravel (or even unimproved) roads have a lower upfront cost but have higher maintenance costs when compared to paved roads. This makes them more appropriate for lower-traffic roads in rural areas and simple access roads.

If we're going to be discussing small aircraft and rural roads then we may as well not be talking about anything. This is about fighter aircraft which exert a pretty considerable amount of ground pressure (even with low pressure tyres and whatnot) which require the runway they land on to be either capped with a hard surface or be sufficiently compacted that ruts will not form. Compacting the soil and, in some cases, bracing it to withstand the applied loading is exceptionally difficult. Spraying bitumen is comparatively not.

Not sure what your collage proves, if we go through each of the examples you posted in order...

Mali: 8 paved, 17 unpaved
Morocco: 31 paved, 24 unpaved
Laos: 8 paved, 33 unpaved
Gabon: 14 paved, 30 unpaved
Total: 61 paved, 104 unpaved

With the exception of Morocco, most (a little under two thirds, overall) of the airports in these countries are unpaved. This is according to NationMaster, anyway. I'm not sure what the breakdown is when you compare airports used for military and civil aviation.

It proves that third world countries have paved airbases to operate their fighters from, that the necessity of operating fighter jets off sufficient runways isn't an impassable barrier for their use. This has been my point all along; the advantages of not requiring a proper runway is mostly superficial.

Uh, no. Exactly like I said, I said the RAF wanted a VTOL aircraft and not a transition to operating their entire air force from dirt runways because they truly believed that they'd not be able to rely on the unfettered access to a paved runway during a war with the Soviet Union. You sort of came out and said "Well, Harrier" like it proved something but I'm not quite sure what that was.

My point was a big part of the purpose of the Harrier was to enable distributed operations and to reduce the reliance on the large paved airbases, which were seen as vulnerable.

The counter point is that the Harrier was in no way reflective of a shift away from paved runways because they were not regarded as so vulnerable that they were worthless by the majority of opinions in that era and it's a train of thought that's been given progressively less attention since. The US and Western Europe has long invested in fighters which require extensive support trains and well-equipped facilities to maintain peak operation. Modern Russia and China have also begun a shift towards this breed of fighters.

I suggest you google Sino-Soviet split as the Soviets had more borders than just the continental european ones which they thought they'd be forced to defend. I'm not sure of a time when the Soviet Union did not structure their entire fighting force around the concept that they'd be fighting on multiple enormous fronts at the same time if conflict ever eventuated, even before the fallout with China.

The Soviets were concerned with other fronts, but the western frontier was always, by far, the highest priority.

http://orbat.com/site/history/historica ... wpact.html

Compare the number of (particularly Category A) units in the Western USSR and Warsaw Pact nations to the numbers of them in Central Asia or the Far East. The forces in the Far East Military District were nothing to sneeze at, but nothing compared to the forces deployed west. That's to be expected, since the main threat to the USSR was always from the west, and the bulk of their population lives west of the Urals.

The point is the Soviets were well aware they needed to counter possible Chinese incursion and weren't oblivious to the southern and eastern border. As such, soviet aircraft design was not based on the particular expectations of the western quarter of the country. The overriding reason that the Soviets favored simple aircraft that could operate with a fraction of the support of western equivalents is because most everything east of the Urals is about as barren as you can believe, not because they envisioned that they would lose all of their air bases in the opening minutes of the war.

If Mr. Bingham has any objective evidence which proves rough field operation is indeed the shit and is something which any fixed wing aircraft needs to be designed to incorporate, please feel free to post it. Otherwise, and with all due respect to Price, I'm not particularly interested in a 30 year old opinion which apparently failed to resonate within the USAF and has actually started to fall out of favor with the Russians as well.

It would be best to read the article when you have time (it is above 8000 words, so pretty lengthy, probably not worth your time, since it is from 1985). I'll quote some portions of it.

He's signing the praises of V/STOL aircraft here, but these points can also apply to aircraft with rough/short field capability.[/quote]
I don't see anything particularly relevant to rough field capability.

This is the runway harriers flew off in the falklands



That's grass covered with aluminium matting so the aircraft don't get bogged down. It takes the rough field capability out of the equation completely.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Nothing really significant, or worth the cost. It's the same problem with the Silent Eagle. The design is inherently unstealthy because it was never designed to be stealthy in the first place. Changing that requires a complete redesign of the airframe, and a significant degree of stealth cannot be practicably achieved without it.

Exactly what I was thinking. If anything, I had envisioned my fleet of F-15SEs as being a stop-gap measure until more advanced airframes could be procured in numbers.

You might see a slight increase in performance, but that won't fully justify the cost. Especially when compared to developing a fleet of 5th Gen designs that will last you 20 years instead of a stealthy 4.5 Gen fighter that'll be obsolete in ten years.

Their use as a stop-gap measure is questionable as they're going to be a detraction on the resources you've committed to obtaining the proper replacement. The F-15SE didn't even exist in a concept form by the time the F-22 had flown for the first time. Then you have the issue of cost-effectiveness; nobody would approve a half-billion dollar program for a decade of service or less.

[Vitaphone Racing]

A dogfight-capable tiltrotor? That actually depends on what aircraft you're fighting against... regardless of that, you'll probably have to make a maneuverable, sleek tiltrotor for such role.

Hey, helicopters are a snack for fast jets. This is at least capable of surviving rather than just firing panic sidewinders.

Uh no. Helicopters survive by staying close to the ground. It's actually quite difficult for a fast jet to shoot down a helicopter, unless said helicopter is hovering well above the ground and generally not doing what helicopter pilots are supposed to do.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's obviously fan-art.

Still looks more plausible then most of the stuff on GE&T.

Yeah, but that's like a homeless guy with $2 saying that he's richer than the homeless guy with $1. At the end of the day, they're fucking homeless.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Well I want a single seat.

Im considering Rafale M.

I am a maritime nation.

Rafale beat the Eurofighter in the Indian MRCA competition, which is probably the best indication of performance seeing as under-the-table trade deals had very little influence in the Indian decision.

[Vitaphone Racing]

STOL/MTD didn't need a gun anyway. It was a demonstrator, not a combat aircraft.

This is the reason people are looking for. It's ludicrous to think that MDD's design teams are too retarded to figure out how to mount canards and a gun to the same platform.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Where's the line between a strike fighter and a small bomber?

Wherever you see fit to put it.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Modern fighter engines are difficult to design and make due to extremely precise design of components, tolerances and fitment. Europe, US and Russia (at times) have been able to make development of these engines seem smooth because they have spent decades of time and billions of dollars developing turbines, whereas China and India have no experience to draw from and everything has to be done from scratch or with foreign assistance. You don't produce F119 engines in a facility designed to build civilian grade turbines either.

[Vitaphone Racing]

If they let you.