No. I mean sneak a 747 into a bomber formation of B-52s, then swarm the living shit out of anything that tries to intercept*
*Assuming it isn't a nuclear missile.
Advertisement

by Oaledonia » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:44 am
The lovable PMT nation of hugs and chibi! Now with 75% more Hanyū!
Oaledonian wiki | Decoli Defense | Embassy | OAF Military InfoUnder construction
*POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS STATEMENTS INTENSIFY*
by Gallia- » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:47 am

by Oaledonia » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:53 am
The lovable PMT nation of hugs and chibi! Now with 75% more Hanyū!
Oaledonian wiki | Decoli Defense | Embassy | OAF Military InfoUnder construction
*POLITICALLY CONTENTIOUS STATEMENTS INTENSIFY*
by Consortium of Manchukuo » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:56 am

by The Akasha Colony » Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:39 am
Britinthia wrote:The way I see it the command and control fighter wouldn't be controlling the UCAVs, not in a literal sense anyway. Trying to control one aircraft while maneuvering in another would probably cause many a lunch to be lost. It would be more finding target and telling the UCAV to engage. All defensive measures would be automatic I assume. You are right though, that information could just as easily be sent back to base and they could give the order. The main drawback of UCAVs is they cant react like a human, having that guy watching over them from another aircraft can help negate that problem.

by Britinthia » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:05 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Britinthia wrote:The way I see it the command and control fighter wouldn't be controlling the UCAVs, not in a literal sense anyway. Trying to control one aircraft while maneuvering in another would probably cause many a lunch to be lost. It would be more finding target and telling the UCAV to engage. All defensive measures would be automatic I assume. You are right though, that information could just as easily be sent back to base and they could give the order. The main drawback of UCAVs is they cant react like a human, having that guy watching over them from another aircraft can help negate that problem.
The role you want to use them in (ground attack) doesn't require human-like reactions. That's why it's a bit puzzling; you want these UCAVs to have human-like reactions so much as to put additional humans in harms way to control them, but then say that all these operators will be doing is something that could be done from a simulator on a distant airbase anyway. So why do you need them around?

by The Akasha Colony » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:57 pm
Britinthia wrote:If I didnt use UCAVs at all then dozens of pilots are at risk. If I use the UCAVs then only a few pilots are at risk. Using the F-22/35 style combination there will always be someone at risk, but it can be limited by using the UCAVs. The additional forward controller is just a bonus.

by Britinthia » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:09 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Britinthia wrote:If I didnt use UCAVs at all then dozens of pilots are at risk. If I use the UCAVs then only a few pilots are at risk. Using the F-22/35 style combination there will always be someone at risk, but it can be limited by using the UCAVs. The additional forward controller is just a bonus.
Most of your pilots are still at risk. Since you need a pilot for each manned aircraft and a WSO for every two UCAVs, you only save one person between three aircraft. So if you sent 8 fighters and 16 UCAVs, you'd still have 16 crew, rather than the 24 you'd have if you just sent single-seaters.
You've also made it easier for the enemy to engage and thwart your attack relative to the cost involved. Your UCAVs will cost as much if not more than your actual fighters based on what you mentioned (that they are fighters, just without a crew), yet all of their maneuverability will be wasted. Put pilots in them and the survivability of the formation as a whole increases; now rather than just 8 fighters capable of engaging in air-to-air combat escorting 16 that cannot, you have a full 24 fighters all capable of contributing to the formation's defense, and the loss of a fighter means the loss of only one crewman, rather than two.

by Novorden » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:10 pm
Lineart
Old designs
Newer Designs

by Britinthia » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:31 pm
Novorden wrote:Why not have the UCAVs acting as an 'extension' of the fighter? Sort of like an arsenal ship. The UCAV(s) are semi autonomous, and follow the piloted aircraft (not exactly hard). They receive targeting data from the jet, allowing the pilot access to far more ordinance whilst still only having 1/2 crew at risk. If the jet needs to dog fight or some other action the drones wouldn't be very good at they can be told to wait at a location or pilot themselves back to base.

by Purpelia » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:35 pm

by Hurtful Thoughts » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:11 pm
Hurtful Thoughts wrote:Anyways...
I was thinking about having a 2-seat manned fighter, and have the WSO operate or link-into drones and patch with AWACS to coordinate missile-bus intercepts in an ECM heavy LOS-COMMS environment.
I mean... why not take an AIM-54... give it pylons... load it with AIM-9X Sidewinders... and fire it at an enemy bomber formation?
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....

by Triplebaconation » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:50 am


by Gallia- » Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:08 am

by Britinthia » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:52 am

by Gallia- » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:20 am

by Britinthia » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:44 am

by Gallia- » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:52 am

by Vassenor » Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:49 pm

by Organized States » Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:57 pm
Vassenor wrote:Royal Vassenor Air Force.
Roundel
Training Fleet
Basic Trainer - Pilatus PC-9
Advanced Fast Jet Trainer - BAE Hawk 65
Multi-Engine Trainer - Beechcraft Super King Air 200
Helicopter Trainer - Eurocopter AS350
Front-Line Aircraft
Fast Jet: General Dynamics F-16A/B Fighting Falcon
Combat Helicopter: Bell AH-1J International
Utility Helicopter: Eurocopter AS550 Fennec
Cargo Helicopter: Boeing CH-47 Chinook
Support Aircraft
Tanker: Airbus A310 MRTT (w/ Boom conversion)
Transporter: Lockheed C-130H Hercules
AEW&C: Boeing 737 AEW&C
Maritime Patrol: CASA/IPTN CN-235
Royal Vassenor Navy
Utility Helicopter: Eurocopter AS550 Fennec
(Heavier cargo lifts provided by RVAF Chinooks as required)
Vassenor Coast Guard:
Long Range Patrol: CASA/IPTN CN-235
SAR / Interdiction Helicopter: Eurocopter AS565 Panther

by Voltrovia » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:00 pm
Organized States wrote:Vassenor wrote:Royal Vassenor Air Force.
Roundel
Training Fleet
Basic Trainer - Pilatus PC-9
Advanced Fast Jet Trainer - BAE Hawk 65
Multi-Engine Trainer - Beechcraft Super King Air 200
Helicopter Trainer - Eurocopter AS350
Front-Line Aircraft
Fast Jet: General Dynamics F-16A/B Fighting Falcon
Combat Helicopter: Bell AH-1J International
Utility Helicopter: Eurocopter AS550 Fennec
Cargo Helicopter: Boeing CH-47 Chinook
Support Aircraft
Tanker: Airbus A310 MRTT (w/ Boom conversion)
Transporter: Lockheed C-130H Hercules
AEW&C: Boeing 737 AEW&C
Maritime Patrol: CASA/IPTN CN-235
Royal Vassenor Navy
Utility Helicopter: Eurocopter AS550 Fennec
(Heavier cargo lifts provided by RVAF Chinooks as required)
Vassenor Coast Guard:
Long Range Patrol: CASA/IPTN CN-235
SAR / Interdiction Helicopter: Eurocopter AS565 Panther
I would list future aircraft acquisitions as well. The F-16A is getting old, you know.

by Voltrovia » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:02 pm

by Ontorisa » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:04 pm
Jets in service:
O-35b 'Scavenger'(Multi-Role Fighter, all the works of the current F-35C model except with added speed, agility, weapons and protection.)
O-26c 'Warrior' (Air Interceptor, easy to fly and well armed and extremely agile.)
O-72e 'Poison' (Air Superiority Fighter, agile and superior to most aircraft fielded today. Well built, easy to fly and cheap.)
O-90h 'Midnight' (Night Multi-Role Fighter, agile and can easily detect and attack hostile targets at night. Can also be used during the day.)
C-130 (All variants)
U-60 (Ground Attack Jet, upgraded version of the A-10 with both anti-vehicle (it can take on ships) and anti-infantry weapons)
Bombers:
ISD-53 Strategic Bomber (Well built and fast bomber for long range missions.)
IER-60 Multi-Use Bombers (Fast and Agile bombers that are used alongside O-35bs.)
B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-52 Support Bomber
HYU-22 Heavy Bomber (Modern-ized version of the B-52, basically almost unstoppable).
Helicopters in service:
UH-1X 'Sabre' (An Ontorisan built gunship modeled off of the UH-1Y. Increased agility and aerodynamics while adding on more armour.)
CH-47 'Chinook'
SDD-43 'Clover' (The Ontorisan version of the UH-60 'Blackhawk'. Armed with four MG36s, two in the front door gunners, two in the back and the basic rotors, the SDD-43 can run both transport missions and combat support missions.)
SDD-45 'Fever' (The Ontorisan version of the AH-6/MH-6 'Littlebird'. The Attack version has two 7.62mm Miniguns, 2 JS3 50 calibre machine guns on the front and two 82mm Rocketpods. The Transport version can seat 10 passengers and three pilots; the pilot, co-pilot and coordinator.)
SDD-46 'Faithful' (The Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 7.62mm Minigun, 52 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and 6 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, it is a highly upgraded and well armed and armoured helicopter.)
SDD-47 'Viking' (Another Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 50 calibre JS3 Machine Gun, 48 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 6 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 8 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles. It is extremely manoeuvrable, more than the SDD-46 however offers less protection to compensate for the speed, agility and weapons.)
Voltrovia wrote:Also, why use F-16A/Bs when you could use Block 52s?

by Organized States » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:05 pm
Voltrovia wrote:Also, why use F-16A/Bs when you could use Block 52s?

by Vassenor » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:05 pm
Voltrovia wrote:Also, why use F-16A/Bs when you could use Block 52s?
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Alliance Star, Asaicana-Hosmania, Candesia, Urmanian
Advertisement