Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Emmerian Republic]

I don't use airships, hell no, I use UCAVS a lot in my Air Force, n fact I use a lot of drones in my military and I still need to update all of them.

Alright, SPAAGs will still fuck up your drones, and cost less than missiles while doing it. (Reason that SPAAGs are good against drones: Drones are slow.)

Do you even have a image of your SPAAGs, and actually, my drones were remodifided fourth generation aircrafts with their original specifications, but unmanned with better drone technology, which means, their as fast as their predecessors, by mean predecessors. I mean the fourth generation aircrafts.

[Yukonastan]

Alright, SPAAGs will still fuck up your drones, and cost less than missiles while doing it. (Reason that SPAAGs are good against drones: Drones are slow.)

Do you even have a image of your SPAAGs, and actually, my drones were remodifided fourth generation aircrafts with their original specifications, but unmanned with better drone technology, which means, their as fast as their predecessors, by mean predecessors. I mean the fourth generation aircrafts.

This is the M163 VADS. A variation of this was used in Yukonastan.


This is the Gepard 1A2. A near-identical concept, but on a stretched SPz Puma hull, is the current Yukoni SPAAG. It also mounts a quad FIM92/AIM92 package.

[Emmerian Republic]

Ok, then my drones can handle them, just not predators and Reapers because their used mostly for targeting a and smaller scale missions.

[Yukonastan]

Ok, then my drones can handle them, just not predators and Reapers because their used mostly for targeting a and smaller scale missions.

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

[Emmerian Republic]

Ok, then my drones can handle them, just not predators and Reapers because their used mostly for targeting a and smaller scale missions.

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

If you got a better aim, bullets will be flying differently after the shots fired.

[Yukonastan]

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

If you got a better aim, bullets will be flying differently after the shots fired.

Your faired-over Tomcats won't fare well when they get either
A) A Stinger missile up the tailpipe
B) 30mm autocannon ammunition through the engine/other vital regions
C) Blinded by shrapnel from fragmenting 30mm shells ruining your expensive camera turret
D) Outright shot down from pursuing non-faired-over Hornets.

[Emmerian Republic]

If you got a better aim, bullets will be flying differently after the shots fired.

Your faired-over Tomcats won't fare well when they get either
A) A Stinger missile up the tailpipe
B) 30mm autocannon ammunition through the engine/other vital regions
C) Blinded by shrapnel from fragmenting 30mm shells ruining your expensive camera turret
D) Outright shot down from pursuing non-faired-over Hornets.

I don't use Tomcats.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

I believe that was intended to represent an example of a fourth generation fighter.

[Emmerian Republic]

I believe that was intended to represent an example of a fourth generation fighter.

I don't use Tomcats, sure it's a good fighter, but it's not fit for my drone service.

[Triplebaconation]

Ok, then my drones can handle them, just not predators and Reapers because their used mostly for targeting a and smaller scale missions.

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

A Predator-style drone might be shot down by battlefield AA. Werewolves might pour sugar in its gas tank.

Neither's likely except in fantasy land.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

I believe that was intended to represent an example of a fourth generation fighter.

I don't use Tomcats, sure it's a good fighter, but it's not fit for my drone service.

Ie. his intent wasn't to state that you had fourth generation fighters of the nature of the tomcat, but to provide an example of a generic fourth generation fighter in the form of such an aircraft.

[Organized States]

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

A Predator-style drone might be shot down by battlefield AA. Werewolves might pour sugar in its gas tank.

Neither's likely except in fantasy land.

Kind of off-topic, but I have to share this,
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-kNPKNCtg

[San-Silvacian]

Alright, SPAAGs will still fuck up your drones, and cost less than missiles while doing it. (Reason that SPAAGs are good against drones: Drones are slow.)

Do you even have a image of your SPAAGs, and actually, my drones were remodifided fourth generation aircrafts with their original specifications, but unmanned with better drone technology, which means, their as fast as their predecessors, by mean predecessors. I mean the fourth generation aircrafts.

So you're using 4th generation fighter aircraft for allot more than what you should.

That time delay is going to be fun.

Also, we already have 4th generation fighter aircraft drones, however they are targets used for air defense training.

So you literally are flying what some crews shoot down on a daily basis.

[Yukonastan]

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

A Predator-style drone might be shot down by battlefield AA. Werewolves might pour sugar in its gas tank.

Neither's likely except in fantasy land.

Ten percent werewolf service"men" for the win. But no, they do stay practical. No sugar in the JP-8 here, unfortunately. Tungus-pard-puma SPAAG abomination under Air Force command, but often attached to frontline Army units seems practical enough, and when no hostile drones, planes, or helicopters present themselves, 30mm makes one hell of a ground attack shell. Nothing like plunging absurd amounts of ammunition into that village over there.

And yes, I did use the 'Cat as an example of an INSERT_GENERIC_FOURTH_GENERATION_FIGHTER_HERE, because I show too much love for the Falcons and Hornets.

[The Soodean Imperium]

A Predator-style drone might be shot down by battlefield AA. Werewolves might pour sugar in its gas tank.

Neither's likely except in fantasy land.

Ten percent werewolf service"men" for the win. But no, they do stay practical. No sugar in the JP-8 here, unfortunately. Tungus-pard-puma SPAAG abomination under Air Force command, but often attached to frontline Army units seems practical enough, and when no hostile drones, planes, or helicopters present themselves, 30mm makes one hell of a ground attack shell. Nothing like plunging absurd amounts of ammunition into that village over there.

And yes, I did use the 'Cat as an example of an INSERT_GENERIC_FOURTH_GENERATION_FIGHTER_HERE, because I show too much love for the Falcons and Hornets.

All SPAAGs grouped under Air Force command? Please tell me I'm not reading that right.

SPAAGs and other short-range air defense systems are typically grouped in a single Company or Battery within a Regiment, and then attached down to other units from there. They have their role, but it's a limited one - what I like to call "Close Air Defense." Good for fending off the A-10 spam that NSers love, but nowhere near what you need for theatre-level air defense.

Why? Well, take a look at the ranges. The 2K22 Tunguska's guns have an effective lateral range of 0.2 to 4.0 km, and an effective vertical range of about 3 km. This, incidentally, happens to roughly equal the Stinger missile's effective engagement sphere. If your opponent is incompetent enough to fly predator drones directly over your army formations at an altitude of 1,000 meters, then yes, you will destroy them in a flash. But if they climb to, say, 5,000 meters and loiter at a standoff distance, then your SPAAGs will be of little use. Heavier SAMs like the Buk and S-300 can still take them down under those conditions, but a SPAAG cannot.

[Purpelia]

Heavier SAMs like the Buk and S-300 can still take them down under those conditions, but a SPAAG cannot.

The point of having a SPAAG is to make sure your enemy can't slip a Buccaneer under your radar but is instead forced to fly at high altitudes and at distances where your intermediary grade AA will be able to get a nice beat on him.

[Padnak]

ZSU-57-2 is stronkest SPAAG

---

Time for another air force assessment if you guys could be so kind-

The Padnaki Air Force

[Rabbidskiya Republika]

large two-seat multirole (F-14 Tomcat)
small single seat multirole (F-7 (Saab JAS 39 Gripen), F-35 Lightning II, F-27 Devastator (Rabbidish Designed and Built Fighter Jet))
jet trainer based off prior fighter (F-29 (Saab 29 Tunnan))
Interdictor/fighter-bomber/strike fighter (F-37JA (Saab 37JA Viggen), F-32 (Saab 32 Lansen), FJ-35 (Saab 35 Draken))
Single-seat Trainer (Saab 21R)
Dedicated ground attack fixed wing (A-10 Thunderbolt II)
strategic bomber (B-52 Stratofortress)
surveillance/recon aircraft (Saab 21R, Early Jet Fighter, used for Recon and light Ground Attack)

armored attack helicopter (AH-64 Apache)
small attack helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois, Bell AH-1 Cobra)
trainer helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois)
recon helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois)

strategic airlifter (C-5 Galaxy)
tactical airlifter (C-5 Galaxy)
VTOL Aircraft (Harrier)
really small transport with STOL (American Champion Citabria, not very good for carrying stuff, used to carry important personnel into danger zones)

helicopter gunship/transport (Mil Mi-24 HInd)
medium transport (Chinook)
large transport (Chinook)

COIN aircraft (F-4U Corsairs, Saab 18 Bombers, Saab 17A Dive-Bomber/Light Bomber)

[Yukonastan]

Ten percent werewolf service"men" for the win. But no, they do stay practical. No sugar in the JP-8 here, unfortunately. Tungus-pard-puma SPAAG abomination under Air Force command, but often attached to frontline Army units seems practical enough, and when no hostile drones, planes, or helicopters present themselves, 30mm makes one hell of a ground attack shell. Nothing like plunging absurd amounts of ammunition into that village over there.

And yes, I did use the 'Cat as an example of an INSERT_GENERIC_FOURTH_GENERATION_FIGHTER_HERE, because I show too much love for the Falcons and Hornets.

All SPAAGs grouped under Air Force command? Please tell me I'm not reading that right.

*snip*

Wrong implication, you ARE misreading that. I mean to say that all air defense units are administratively a part of the Air Force, but are attached to Army units, with the commander of each AAD unit serving as liaison between branches.

And yeah, they're intended mainly for helicopters, slow and low drones, and to look cool. Again stinger missiles represent GENERIC_ANTI_AIRCRAFT_VEHICLE_MOUNTED_MISSILE, and are thus open for improvements.

[Yukonastan]

large two-seat multirole (F-14 Tomcat) --Why not consider the Super Hornet, considering the 'Cat was built as an interceptor?
small single seat multirole (F-7 (Saab JAS 39 Gripen), F-35 Lightning II, F-27 Devastator (Rabbidish Designed and Built Fighter Jet)) --Why the Joint Strike Failure? It isn't even certified and it catches on fire a lot. Why not just stick to the Gripen or Devastator?
jet trainer based off prior fighter (F-29 (Saab 29 Tunnan)) --Saab ftw.
Interdictor/fighter-bomber/strike fighter (F-37JA (Saab 37JA Viggen), F-32 (Saab 32 Lansen), FJ-35 (Saab 35 Draken)) --Saab FTW
Single-seat Trainer (Saab 21R) --Sounds good.
Dedicated ground attack fixed wing (A-10 Thunderbolt II) --I have been told that the 30mm cannon is useless against tanks, but you need to ground attack with something. That said, the Tunguska is a recently developed SPAAG that can take the 'Hog down.
strategic bomber (B-52 Stratofortress) --I imagine this is an EB-52 Megafortress, with updated engines, avionics, and a LOT more composite?
surveillance/recon aircraft (Saab 21R, Early Jet Fighter, used for Recon and light Ground Attack) --Again, why not stick with the EA18G?

armored attack helicopter (AH-64 Apache) --May I suggest the AgustaWestland AH64 Mk 1 Apache as specific variant?
small attack helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois, Bell AH-1 Cobra) --UH1Y Venom isn't a good helicopter to attack with, unless the weapons are Marines. Similarly, you have the Apache, no need for an AH1Z Viper.
trainer helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois) --Sure, but most modern Western armies use the Blackhawk or an AgustaWestland, not so much Bell anymore.
recon helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois) --Again, easier to use a standard utility helicopter. If that's the UH1Y Venom, then it's the Venom.

strategic airlifter (C-5 Galaxy) --Cumulus Aluminus, great choice.
tactical airlifter (C-5 Galaxy) --Lolwat fucking ridiculous economic disaster as tactical lifter. I vote A400M or C17 or C130J.
VTOL Aircraft (Harrier) --VTOL is gimmicky. No need for it in my eyes.
really small transport with STOL (American Champion Citabria, not very good for carrying stuff, used to carry important personnel into danger zones) --No need to have a special STOL transporter.

helicopter gunship/transport (Mil Mi-24 HInd) --You already have an attack helicopter, the only thing the Hind adds is a cargo bay, and it's almost never used in real life.
medium transport (Chinook) --Good, good, flying bus, but good.
large transport (Chinook) --You may want something bigger, like a Pave Low or something.

COIN aircraft (F-4U Corsairs, Saab 18 Bombers, Saab 17A Dive-Bomber/Light Bomber) --Based on everything else you suggest, ditch the Corsair.

[The Grand World Order]

I never proposed the use of airships for symmetrical warfare, so this talk of using conventional anti-aircraft systems is irrelevant to the original question I had. The intention of a COIN airship would be for aiding in urban counter-insurgency, where anti-aircraft systems seldom go beyond MANPADs, which usually lock onto aircraft emissions- I'm not quite sure on this, but an airship might actually give off less, especially with passive ECMs. The gas envelope, while a target for SPAAGs and enemy aircraft, doesn't give off enough emissions for guided missiles.

Such a design would exist to linger over an occupied urban center (where SPAAGs presumably aren't much of a threat) outfitted with sensor suites relevant to ELINT, SIGINT, IMINT, and maybe even a laser microphone to collect information for processing from above without exhibiting unusual activity. Given that DARPA claims it can create an airship capable of lifting 1000t, and has produced an airship that can match a C-130 in cargo payload, I also would imagine such a design being outfitted with a weapons array akin to an AC-130 gunship.

Aircraft can engage guerrillas at much longer ranges than the guerrillas can, even with MANPADs. If you analyze helicopter guncam footage from Iraq/Afghanistan, you notice that usually the targets were unaware of the attack helicopter until the first rounds begin hitting, even considering the huge amount of noise rotors give off, generally because helicopters attack their targets from many miles away. Combine this fact with the fact that there is no actual line of defense constantly searching for targets (insurgents by necessity have to maintain a low profile, which is not possible when they're filling the EM spectrum with guidance sensor emissions constantly and walking around scanning the sky with MANPADs- if this was an actual symmetrical conflict it'd be another story, but nobody is proposing airships for use against proper military forces) and the insurgency really has limited options in trying to eliminate the airship. Meanwhile, the airship can provide cover for a significant area where ground troops are operating, making it harder for hit-and-run attacks to end in anything but dead bodies.

On the airships question, US Army Intelligence (35M, I believe) is currently using small blimps for SIGINT (with USAF MC-12s), and as a camera platform.

35N, actually they're kind of windowlickers, though~ (35Ms are HUMINT) but I wasn't aware of those, that's quite interesting.

The design I had in mind for these is that they'd passively float, using solar energy to power the sensor suites and altitude control. If needed, the unmanned airships could be directed elsewhere via satellite command. The vehicle would change altitude based on time of day, since the F layers of the ionosphere merge and the E/D layers disappear at night, creating different ducts in the ionosphere for skywaves, which the vehicle would pick up on as well as satellite communications. I'd also imagine some, possibly all, of these would also be responsible for beaming GWO communications over a particular theater as a cheaper alternative to satellites, though a different outfit entirely might be better for something like that.

[Crookfur]

The most popular training helos are single turbine light helos like jet rangers, squirrels/ecuriels, aw109s and ec120. Alternativly you could go with schweiser/robinsons if you are super cheap and want piston power. An early model single engine heuy would do the job but a similar vintage jet ranger would be cheaper.

There is certainly a large degree of keeping stuff way past its sell by date in roles that they aren't really suited to going on in R'S force. If you want a saab jet trainer then you really want the 105 but even that is getting very long in the tooth these days.

[Rabbidskiya Republika]

large two-seat multirole (F-14 Tomcat) --Why not consider the Super Hornet, considering the 'Cat was built as an interceptor?
small single seat multirole (F-7 (Saab JAS 39 Gripen), F-35 Lightning II, F-27 Devastator (Rabbidish Designed and Built Fighter Jet)) --Why the Joint Strike Failure? It isn't even certified and it catches on fire a lot. Why not just stick to the Gripen or Devastator?
jet trainer based off prior fighter (F-29 (Saab 29 Tunnan)) --Saab ftw.
Interdictor/fighter-bomber/strike fighter (F-37JA (Saab 37JA Viggen), F-32 (Saab 32 Lansen), FJ-35 (Saab 35 Draken)) --Saab FTW
Single-seat Trainer (Saab 21R) --Sounds good.
Dedicated ground attack fixed wing (A-10 Thunderbolt II) --I have been told that the 30mm cannon is useless against tanks, but you need to ground attack with something. That said, the Tunguska is a recently developed SPAAG that can take the 'Hog down.
strategic bomber (B-52 Stratofortress) --I imagine this is an EB-52 Megafortress, with updated engines, avionics, and a LOT more composite?
surveillance/recon aircraft (Saab 21R, Early Jet Fighter, used for Recon and light Ground Attack) --Again, why not stick with the EA18G?

armored attack helicopter (AH-64 Apache) --May I suggest the AgustaWestland AH64 Mk 1 Apache as specific variant?
small attack helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois, Bell AH-1 Cobra) --UH1Y Venom isn't a good helicopter to attack with, unless the weapons are Marines. Similarly, you have the Apache, no need for an AH1Z Viper.
trainer helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois) --Sure, but most modern Western armies use the Blackhawk or an AgustaWestland, not so much Bell anymore.
recon helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois) --Again, easier to use a standard utility helicopter. If that's the UH1Y Venom, then it's the Venom.

strategic airlifter (C-5 Galaxy) --Cumulus Aluminus, great choice.
tactical airlifter (C-5 Galaxy) --Lolwat fucking ridiculous economic disaster as tactical lifter. I vote A400M or C17 or C130J.
VTOL Aircraft (Harrier) --VTOL is gimmicky. No need for it in my eyes.
really small transport with STOL (American Champion Citabria, not very good for carrying stuff, used to carry important personnel into danger zones) --No need to have a special STOL transporter.

helicopter gunship/transport (Mil Mi-24 HInd) --You already have an attack helicopter, the only thing the Hind adds is a cargo bay, and it's almost never used in real life.
medium transport (Chinook) --Good, good, flying bus, but good.
large transport (Chinook) --You may want something bigger, like a Pave Low or something.

COIN aircraft (F-4U Corsairs, Saab 18 Bombers, Saab 17A Dive-Bomber/Light Bomber) --Based on everything else you suggest, ditch the Corsair.

-The Tomcats are a lot cheaper, and have a longer ranged Radar
-The Corsairs are for support of the bombers
-We have only a few airlifters and they are currently C-5s because we haven't' gotten any C-130s yet. They are planned, but not yet in use.
-The UH1 is dirt cheap, and we already have them, why replace them now?
-The AH1 Cobras are for heavier attack than the UH1s and lighter than the AH-64s.
-I agree VTOL is gimmicky, but it is useful as a navy Fighter.
-We have a couple F35 JSFs, but they are probably going to be traded for a couple Sukhois soon.
-Our B52s are a mix of the fully upgraded ones and a couple original equipment ones with most somewhere inbetween.
-A10s have been in use for Decades, and are tough to shoot down. Plus, they have a lower price tag.
-We don't use F-18 variants, the Saab 21Rs have been in use for a long time (Since the late 1940s/early 1950s) as both trainers and light/recon fighters. The Saab 21Rs are soon to be replaced, and the EA18 Growlers are a possible replacement, but so are the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter as long as it goes into production, but those are not going to be available until at least 2017 so they are probably out of the running.
-the Citabria is for use as a personal transport for generals mainly, but can carry a very small load too.
-Hinds are versatile and armed, a perfect combination. Sure they are Attack Helicopters, but they are also transports.
-Pave Lows are not as cheap, and we already have the Chinooks.

[Yukonastan]

-The Tomcats are a lot cheaper, and have a longer ranged Radar --Tomcats also turn like shit and are large. You don't use an interceptor as a multirole fighter.
-The Corsairs are for support of the bombers --The bombers shouldn't need support, that's what your F/A18E Super Hornets do. Since they're multirole fighters.
-We have only a few airlifters and they are currently C-5s because we haven't' gotten any C-130s yet. They are planned, but not yet in use. --Well, get on it then. Meanwhile don't waste your aluminum clouds trying to tactically transport, wait for your Herks.
-The UH1 is dirt cheap, and we already have them, why replace them now? --I was suggesting a variant, that is both modern, new production, and has no airframe hours when delivered. As for the Sikorskys and AWs, that is just what most Western air forces and armies operate in terms of rotorwing.
-The AH1 Cobras are for heavier attack than the UH1s and lighter than the AH-64s. --Don't use a UH for an AH's job, use an AH for an AH's job.
-I agree VTOL is gimmicky, but it is useful as a navy Fighter. --VTOL is useless if you want to carry a reasonable weapons load. The UK launched its harriers STOL, guaranteed.
-We have a couple F35 JSFs, but they are probably going to be traded for a couple Sukhois soon. --Burn those abominations.
-Our B52s are a mix of the fully upgraded ones and a couple original equipment ones with most somewhere in between. --This is NS, ditch those old engines. Get new ones on them pylons. No need to have old and inefficient engines.
-A10s have been in use for Decades, and are tough to shoot down. Plus, they have a lower price tag. --I say that they are good, but remember that any country worth its salt has introduced air defenses larger than ZSU-23-4. Again, new production DOES give you the advantage of zero airframe hours logged.
-We don't use F-18 variants, the Saab 21Rs have been in use for a long time (Since the late 1940s/early 1950s) as both trainers and light/recon fighters. The Saab 21Rs are soon to be replaced, and the EA18 Growlers are a possible replacement, but so are the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter as long as it goes into production, but those are not going to be available until at least 2017 so they are probably out of the running. --TIME TO REPLACE 'EM, MAY I SUGGEST THESE BEAUTIFUL NEW FROM THE FACTORY EA18G GROWLERS. BEFORE YOUR FANCY SAABS FALL OUT OF THE SKY DUE TO AIRFRAME AGE FRACTURES.
-the Citabria is for use as a personal transport for generals mainly, but can carry a very small load too. --No need for this, then.
-Hinds are versatile and armed, a perfect combination. Sure they are Attack Helicopters, but they are also transports. --Hinds are used as attack helicopters, the transport space is only to be used in case of emergency. I see where you're coming from, and FYI the Apache will allow two riders on the avionics bays.
-Pave Lows are not as cheap, and we already have the Chinooks. --You get my point, right?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

1. Tomcats also turn like shit and are large. You don't use an interceptor as a multirole fighter.
2. I was suggesting a variant, that is both modern, new production, and has no airframe hours when delivered. As for the Sikorskys and AWs, that is just what most Western air forces and armies operate in terms of rotorwing.
3. Don't use a UH for an AH's job, use an AH for an AH's job.
4. VTOL is useless if you want to carry a reasonable weapons load. The UK launched its harriers STOL, guaranteed.
5. Burn those abominations.
6. This is NS, ditch those old engines. Get new ones on them pylons. No need to have old and inefficient engines.
7. TIME TO REPLACE 'EM, MAY I SUGGEST THESE BEAUTIFUL NEW FROM THE FACTORY EA18G GROWLERS. BEFORE YOUR FANCY SAABS FALL OUT OF THE SKY DUE TO AIRFRAME AGE FRACTURES.
8. No need for this, then.
9. You get my point, right?

1. Meanwhile Tomcats were pulling 8.5 G's in accelerating turns with the TF30, and knocking down QF-86's doing 6 G's with the notoriously unmanoeuvreable Phoenix at WVR ranges, not to mention Gulf of Sidra vs Floggers.
2. Are you paying for this? Maybe he prefers Hueys.
3. Yeah, no.
4. Brits were doing fine in Falklands with Sidewinder-L's and Sea Harriers. Besides only idiots send up STOVL fighters in vertical takeoff sorties.
5. In the 80's you'd be harping on the Hornet's massive drag, inadequate range compared to the Intruder and weak stabilizers.
6. Are you paying for this?
7. What's wrong with F-16C's?
8. CT-43, C-40, C-37 and many more are lolwutting at you.
9. Chinooks augmented by C-130's is perfectly fine for the role he envisions. In fact I think the RAF runs a similar scheme.