NationStates

Spirit of Hope wrote:

United States of PA wrote:Is there any sort of reason why a F-22 cannot be modified into a two seater F-15E type aircraft without going FB-22 on it?

Why would you want a two seater version of the F-22?
Now there was a F-22B that would have had two seats, but it was canceled because of money and not being needed.

If the question didn't truly answer that in the first place.

F-22E Strike Raptor perhaps?

Dat cua Tien wrote:Repost, since this was posted too close to Page 500 I think

Would you consider this the minimum needed to be effective, exuberant, or somewhere in the middle? Examples are in the parenthesis, and not necessarily what I am considering. I understand there'd be some munitions crossover that would be a logistics headache. I also understand that realistically, there is often more than one type of aircraft, especially for an older generations that may not be cost effective to replace, but more of that category is still needed so they bought the current gen.

Many questions inbound.

and barring naval version:

large two-seat multirole (F-15E*)
small single seat multirole (F-16E Block 60*)
jet trainer based off prior fighter (Mig-21um)
Interdictor/fighter-bomber/strike fighter (obsoleted by modern large multiroles?)
trainer (Yak-52)
light attack based off the trainer, mostly for COIN
Dedicated ground attack fixed wing, though I understand this to be quite debatable (Su-25/Mig-27)
strategic bomber
AEWAC based off a transport
surveillance/recon aircraft (or UAVs now?)

armored attack helicopter (Eurocopter Tiger)
small attack helicopter (AH-6 Little Bird)
trainer helicopter (MD 530f for congruence)
recon helicopter (uav, again? or send out the Little Bird for the mission?)

strategic airlifter (C-5 Galaxy)
tactical airlifter (Y-8)
smaller transport with STOL capabolity (An-72, V-22?)
really small transport great STOL (An-3 - obsoleted by helicopters?)

helicopter gunship/transport (Mi-35)
medium transport (Mi-8)
large transport (Mi-6/Chinook)

*would you consider it necessary for the two multiroles to use an engine from the same family? It seems nice, but they'd probably be variants and not share many parts anyways.
And would you say it's better to do SEAD with a fighter, a dedicated plane, or a bomber? or "yes" and leave all options open?

What categories would you say that I'm missing?

COIN aircraft? A-7 and A-4 can into napalm and GPU-5/A.

(Image)

A few random thoughages:

LIFT (lead in fighter trainer)/jet trainer: personally i wouldn't attmept to use a previous generation fighter, particulalry soemthing like a MiG-21, as the basis for a LIFT such aircraft tend to have too many vices and tend to force pilots to learn thigns that would need to be unlearned when they move up to soemthing with care free handling. Soemthing like a hawk/alphajet/ the M346/yak130 would work better as these already have pretty care free handling chcaracterisitics and are a damned sight cheaper to operate, heck on the newer iterations with you can even set thier cockpit displays to be very clsoe if not indentical to your front line fighters, which is good as learning to process all the information a fighter throws at you is a huge chunk of what you do in a LIFT.

A modern strike platform is nice to have and to be honest could easily be combiend with the CAS type aircraft you envision the "Dedicated ground attack fixed wing" type being. I susppose you could specialise soem of your twi nengine multi role sqaudrosn to cover this but you might find a useful option for this aircraf tto be a specialist version of the multirole. This is also pretty much the aircraft you want doign SEAD/DEAD.

Surveilance and recce aircraft: yes you want several different types. Direct phot imagry can be done by drones and recce pod equipped multrole fighters but you'll proabbaly want a JSTARS/ASTOR type stand off groudn sensor platform and some kind of SIGINT/ELINT paltform.


A small attach helo is msot definitely an uneeded luxury unless you have a special ops section with its own procurmeent line but helo wise you'll porbabaly want an intial trainer (possibly a psiton powered example) and a multi engine trainer plus a light to mdeium weight twin engine utility design (which could probably do the light gunshipy thing).


other thigns you are kind of missing: tankers, general prupose airlinery logistics thingies (can be combiend with tankers thanks to the magic of wide body Multi Role Tanker transports), bizjets/bizprops for senior officers and various shifting of small/light things and a multi engine fixed wing trainer (can over lap with bizprop, particularly if you choose the King Air master race).

United States of PA wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:Why would you want a two seater version of the F-22?
Now there was a F-22B that would have had two seats, but it was canceled because of money and not being needed.

If the question didn't truly answer that in the first place.

F-22E Strike Raptor perhaps?

I'm not seeing why you want to do this? The F-22 as is isn't in need of an additional crew member. If your trying to make it into more of a multi-role it seams rather weird, because it isn't well designed for that role or for supporting ground operations in general. It just makes very little sense because for around the same cost you could get a plane that was designed to be multi-role and not shoehorned into the place by adding an extra crew member, who probably wouldn't add much either.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

United States of PA wrote:

If the question didn't truly answer that in the first place.

F-22E Strike Raptor perhaps?

I'm not seeing why you want to do this? The F-22 as is isn't in need of an additional crew member. If your trying to make it into more of a multi-role it seams rather weird, because it isn't well designed for that role or for supporting ground operations in general. It just makes very little sense because for around the same cost you could get a plane that was designed to be multi-role and not shoehorned into the place by adding an extra crew member, who probably wouldn't add much either.

Weapon/radar officers make all aircraft better.

Crookfur wrote:

A few random thoughages:

LIFT (lead in fighter trainer)/jet trainer: personally i wouldn't attmept to use a previous generation fighter, particulalry soemthing like a MiG-21, as the basis for a LIFT such aircraft tend to have too many vices and tend to force pilots to learn thigns that would need to be unlearned when they move up to soemthing with care free handling. Soemthing like a hawk/alphajet/ the M346/yak130 would work better as these already have pretty care free handling chcaracterisitics and are a damned sight cheaper to operate, heck on the newer iterations with you can even set thier cockpit displays to be very clsoe if not indentical to your front line fighters, which is good as learning to process all the information a fighter throws at you is a huge chunk of what you do in a LIFT.

A modern strike platform is nice to have and to be honest could easily be combiend with the CAS type aircraft you envision the "Dedicated ground attack fixed wing" type being. I susppose you could specialise soem of your twi nengine multi role sqaudrosn to cover this but you might find a useful option for this aircraf tto be a specialist version of the multirole. This is also pretty much the aircraft you want doign SEAD/DEAD.

Surveilance and recce aircraft: yes you want several different types. Direct phot imagry can be done by drones and recce pod equipped multrole fighters but you'll proabbaly want a JSTARS/ASTOR type stand off groudn sensor platform and some kind of SIGINT/ELINT paltform.


A small attach helo is msot definitely an uneeded luxury unless you have a special ops section with its own procurmeent line but helo wise you'll porbabaly want an intial trainer (possibly a psiton powered example) and a multi engine trainer plus a light to mdeium weight twin engine utility design (which could probably do the light gunshipy thing).


other thigns you are kind of missing: tankers, general prupose airlinery logistics thingies (can be combiend with tankers thanks to the magic of wide body Multi Role Tanker transports), bizjets/bizprops for senior officers and various shifting of small/light things and a multi engine fixed wing trainer (can over lap with bizprop, particularly if you choose the King Air master race).

exactly the answer I needed, thanks

And what do you mean by a general purpose airlinery logistic thingy? I would think that would be some sort of variant of the tactical airlifter, with an airline conversion.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:I'm not seeing why you want to do this? The F-22 as is isn't in need of an additional crew member. If your trying to make it into more of a multi-role it seams rather weird, because it isn't well designed for that role or for supporting ground operations in general. It just makes very little sense because for around the same cost you could get a plane that was designed to be multi-role and not shoehorned into the place by adding an extra crew member, who probably wouldn't add much either.

Weapon/radar officers make all aircraft better.

^ That and airframe commonality, etc.

Also, F-15A/C werent multi-role either. Yet we have F-15E/SE.

United States of PA wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Weapon/radar officers make all aircraft better.

^ That and airframe commonality, etc.

Also, F-15A/C werent multi-role either. Yet we have F-15E/SE.

F-15 is plenty multirole, the Strike Eagle family just bomb truck harder.

F-15 as designed and intended is a ASF, It is the direct predecessor to the F-22. F-16 is the multi-role.

Dat cua Tien wrote:

Crookfur wrote:

A few random thoughages:

LIFT (lead in fighter trainer)/jet trainer: personally i wouldn't attmept to use a previous generation fighter, particulalry soemthing like a MiG-21, as the basis for a LIFT such aircraft tend to have too many vices and tend to force pilots to learn thigns that would need to be unlearned when they move up to soemthing with care free handling. Soemthing like a hawk/alphajet/ the M346/yak130 would work better as these already have pretty care free handling chcaracterisitics and are a damned sight cheaper to operate, heck on the newer iterations with you can even set thier cockpit displays to be very clsoe if not indentical to your front line fighters, which is good as learning to process all the information a fighter throws at you is a huge chunk of what you do in a LIFT.

A modern strike platform is nice to have and to be honest could easily be combiend with the CAS type aircraft you envision the "Dedicated ground attack fixed wing" type being. I susppose you could specialise soem of your twi nengine multi role sqaudrosn to cover this but you might find a useful option for this aircraf tto be a specialist version of the multirole. This is also pretty much the aircraft you want doign SEAD/DEAD.

Surveilance and recce aircraft: yes you want several different types. Direct phot imagry can be done by drones and recce pod equipped multrole fighters but you'll proabbaly want a JSTARS/ASTOR type stand off groudn sensor platform and some kind of SIGINT/ELINT paltform.


A small attach helo is msot definitely an uneeded luxury unless you have a special ops section with its own procurmeent line but helo wise you'll porbabaly want an intial trainer (possibly a psiton powered example) and a multi engine trainer plus a light to mdeium weight twin engine utility design (which could probably do the light gunshipy thing).


other thigns you are kind of missing: tankers, general prupose airlinery logistics thingies (can be combiend with tankers thanks to the magic of wide body Multi Role Tanker transports), bizjets/bizprops for senior officers and various shifting of small/light things and a multi engine fixed wing trainer (can over lap with bizprop, particularly if you choose the King Air master race).

exactly the answer I needed, thanks

And what do you mean by a general purpose airlinery logistic thingy? I would think that would be some sort of variant of the tactical airlifter, with an airline conversion.

basically an airliner with convertable upper deck that cna carry passengers and/or freight (and do refueling if going MRTT) basically soemthing like an A310MRT, tristars, Military DC-10s, C-40 clipper and the A-300 MRTT/KC-30/Voyager. basically msot of your airfreight and passengers doesn't need to and liekly never will fly into an austere/rough feild position so you have bucketloads of cash flyign that stuff around in converted jetliners (possibly second hand, particulalry if you have a fortueos airline collapse to make aircraft available for much cheapness) rather than specialist airlifters. Personnel also, for some bizarre reason, preffer flying in aircraft with proper seats, pressurisation, sound reduction and toilets than in the back of a hercalike.

New thread smell.

Also, I use F-16INs (as F-16L Super Fighting Falcon) in Terra Firma.

Oaledonia wrote:

United states of brazilian nations wrote:WARNING: this post may not be entirely serious. all gramatic errors in this post are intentional and intended to reinforce the not-totally-serious nature of the post. if you are a grammar nazi, look away now.

can OV-10 into taking off from short improvised runaway that is just really a line of dirt and rocks in the middle of the amazonic forest?

can OV-10 into low cost and yet high performance? can OV-10 into clear cockpit vison? can OV-10 into simplicity and cheap as dirt low maintenance costs? can OV-10 into integral .50 machinegun for quick killings of light vehicles? (external pods don't count)

Colombia of losing OV-10 in combat because OV-10 of puny and weak compared to STRONK A-29 Super Tucano. Super Tucano is of fitted with magic of amazonic forest to make killings of enemy. is true that also lost A-29 in combat, but is because A-29 is used much more intensively. many sucessful operation with A-29 were accomplished resulting in fast killing of FARC scum.



Venezuela of wanting to replace weak OV-10 by STRONK A-29 because of superior. but US don't want world to know it, so not let Venezuela buy glorious A-29. so Venezuela decided to replace with OV-10 with russian attack helicopter, which is many shameful for Bronco because shows even helicopters of superior to weak OV-10.



see? even US thinks A-29 of better choice to Aghanistan that OV-10. notice that OV-10 was not even included in final decision due to many weak and probably not resistings desert sand. only reason the A-29 probably won't into winnings LAAR program is because everyone knows US cannot into adopting foreign equipment. Canberra is exception to rule.



see? A-29 many glorious and stronk. can into modern and high performance. can into such hard-hitting armament that could probably take in insurgent tank battalion if insurgent was rich and crazy enough to buy tank battalion. many better than puny Bronco.

A-29 can into max speed of 590 Kph and cruise speed of 520 Kph. fat ugly slow Bronco can only into max speed of 463 Kph. even cruising A-29 can into faster anh thus harder to hit by enemy AA gun.

Tucano is certified with over 130 weapon configurations. is more resistant and better armed than weak Bronco. is simpler and cheaper. is superior.

That's all good and all, but:

Wikipedia wrote:Boeing has recently put together plans internally to build a modernized, improved version of the Bronco, called the OV-10X,[4] to satisfy a possible Air Force requirement for a light attack plane.[5] According to Pentagon and industry officials, while the aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, the 21st century modernizations would include a computerized glass cockpit, intelligence sensors and smart-bomb-dropping capabilities. Boeing indicates that international interest in restarting production is growing, to compete with other light attack aircraft such as the T-6B Texan II, A-67 Dragon and EMB 314 Super Tucano.

> compete with other light attack aircraft such as the T-6B Texan II, A-67 Dragon and EMB 314 Super Tucano
> compete with EMB 314 Super Tucano

It can carry more, land in a shorter time, fuck your internal 50 cal, and operate at a similar cost.

Super Tucano can into 20mm gun pods as well. Tucano also can into superior maneuverability (it is used by the Esquadrilha Da Fumaça, AKA Brazil's thunderbirds/blue angels) and i highly doubt that a two-engine, relatively heavy plane can take off/land in shorter runaways. even then, it better have some heavy duty landing gear if it wants to land in short, improvised airstrips.

also, while having two engines might be an advantadge when it comes to damage, remember that it also means double the cost for engine maintenance. one of the strong points of the A-29 is its cheapness, both to build, operate and maintain.

A-29 is also more agile and it profile smaller, thus harder to hit by AAA and insurgents firing .50 cal machine guns. the colombian air force lost an A-29 to ground fire, but so did one od their Broncos. and they use the A-29 much more heavily.

i highly doubt the A-29 will win the competition though, since 'muricans hardly ever abopt anything that isn't 'murican. that's why they didn't adopt .280 British and the FN FAL.

Dat cua Tien wrote:COIN aircraft? A-7 and A-4 can into napalm and GPU-5/A.

(Image)

Brazilian navy can into A-4, because our aircraft carrier is so shitty it can't take anything larger. we might buy/make some naval gripens though.

United States of PA wrote:^ That and airframe commonality, etc.

Also, F-15A/C werent multi-role either. Yet we have F-15E/SE.

Little bit different scenario there, as the F-15s could already carry a fairly significant A2G payload before the multirole/strike variation was made. The F-22 does not really possess a similar capabilities due to the relatively small internal bay. You could probably mount additional ordinance on external underwing pylons, but at that point why not just use an F-15E anyway?

I figure a truly viable "strike raptor" that could carry an A2G payload on the order of an F-15E would likely end up being fairly different from the original design, ala FB-22 or something entirely different.

Let's put the Broncos STOL performance like this: it can operate unassisted from Amphibious Assault Ships. At 2:50 You can watch one land in an absurdly short distance on a rough unimproved field Also despite what you would expect the Bronco is actually a tiny bit lighter than the Super Tucano. 3,200 kg Empty for the Tucano vs 3,161 kg Empty for the Bronco. Loaded up they're about the same weight, although the Bronco has a higher MTOW.

Personally I think the Bronco is a better aircraft than the Super Tucano due to its greater flexibility. Super Tucano can't carry cargo, paratroopers, or do a medvac among other tasks, all of which the Bronco can do with ease. Main Advantage I think the Tucano has over the Bronco is that it can outlast the Bronco by several hours and is a bit cheaper . If the OV-10X becomes a reality however I think its safe to say that it could easily match the Tucano in range. And I feel the higher price tag of the Bronco would be offset by the expanded capabilities it offers.

The Corparation wrote:Let's put the Broncos STOL performance like this: it can operate unassisted from Amphibious Assault Ships. At 2:50 You can watch one land in an absurdly short distance on a rough unimproved field Also despite what you would expect the Bronco is actually a tiny bit lighter than the Super Tucano. 3,200 kg Empty for the Tucano vs 3,161 kg Empty for the Bronco. Loaded up they're about the same weight, although the Bronco has a higher MTOW.

Personally I think the Bronco is a better aircraft than the Super Tucano due to its greater flexibility. Super Tucano can't carry cargo, paratroopers, or do a medvac among other tasks, all of which the Bronco can do with ease. Main Advantage I think the Tucano has over the Bronco is that it can outlast the Bronco by several hours and is a bit cheaper . If the OV-10X becomes a reality however I think its safe to say that it could easily match the Tucano in range. And I feel the higher price tag of the Bronco would be offset by the expanded capabilities it offers.

pretty fair.

bronco can carry paratroopers? the more you learn...

United states of brazilian nations wrote:bronco can carry paratroopers? the more you learn...

Yep, five of them can cram into the back. Although you have to take out the Observer's seat to fit them all. You can cram in another soldier if they won't be jumping out. That space can also carry 3 tons of cargo or two stretchers and a medic. The Bronco is pretty much the pickup truck of CAS and COIN aircraft. There's not a lot you can't do with it.

The Republic of Lanos wrote:New thread smell.

Also, I use F-16INs (as F-16L Super Fighting Falcon) in Terra Firma.

Super Fighting Falcon

really?

Transnapastain wrote:

The Republic of Lanos wrote:New thread smell.

Also, I use F-16INs (as F-16L Super Fighting Falcon) in Terra Firma.

Super Fighting Falcon

really?

I hope that gets used as a manga title.

Our Air Force is under the jurisdiction of the von Neumann Collective and is usually built by the probes themselves. Because of the need to minimize mass during FTL travel, our armies are made from scratch upon entering a system. The aircraft used are tailored for the atmospheric and gravitational quirks of a planet or habitat using nanofactories called Warchives. One common feature shared by the aircraft is its amorphous shell made up on smart materials that it uses to reshape itself to better accomplish a given goal. All vehicles produced by the von Neumann probes are unmanned.

Any questions?

Licana wrote:

United States of PA wrote:^ That and airframe commonality, etc.

Also, F-15A/C werent multi-role either. Yet we have F-15E/SE.

Little bit different scenario there, as the F-15s could already carry a fairly significant A2G payload before the multirole/strike variation was made. The F-22 does not really possess a similar capabilities due to the relatively small internal bay. You could probably mount additional ordinance on external underwing pylons, but at that point why not just use an F-15E anyway?

Air frame commonality.

The payload capabilities of the F-22 and F-15E are practically lineball, configurations for accommodating different ordnance is no more complex than rearranging the pylons. The weapons bay itself is not small. Whatever replaces the F-15E will almost certainly be based on the F-22, if not the F-35

Vitaphone Racing wrote:Air frame commonality.

The payload capabilities of the F-22 and F-15E are practically lineball, configurations for accommodating different ordnance is no more complex than rearranging the pylons. The weapons bay itself is not small. Whatever replaces the F-15E will almost certainly be based on the F-22, if not the F-35

I was always under the impression that the F-22's weapons bays were somewhat limited in what they could carry regarding A2G in comparison to the F-15's. If it's not a matter of physical size restrictions, then is it more a matter of pylon set up? I did agree in a sense that a future replacement for the F-15E would likely be based off of the F-22 in the form of something akin to the FB-22, which I don't think would compromise too greatly on commonality, but correct me if I am wildly in the wrong on that. I believe what was being asked here is that if an F-22 could be converted into a twin-seat strike aircraft with minimal modifications and still be effective at this role, something that I am not sure would be as effective.

edit: apparently I can't read and it is a matter of pylon arrangement. I have never seen anything regarding that, though. Do you have any examples of an A2G pylon arrangement for the F-22? A quick search has come up fruitless.

F-CK-1 Fighter
Country of origin: Taiwan/Republic of China

o.. new thread.

Anyway i think i'm fall in love with Flush inlet

Since this a new thread I have to ask a question

Will a modernized MiG-23 MLD be able to take on Export model of a MiG-29 in combat ?

Yakzistan wrote:Since this a new thread I have to ask a question

Will a modernized MiG-23 MLD be able to take on Export model of a MiG-29 in combat ?

The 23 would have a comparatively shitty stealth profile when stacked up against the 29. The shape of the airframe will allow the MiG 29 to see the 23 first when given the same radars almost every time. In a dogfight, I believe the 29 would also have the upper hand, as even though the 23 has a lower wing loading (going by wiki) the 29 is capable of thrust vectoring.

I couldn't find radar cross section data for the 23, but it looks like the radar would have to be limited to similar units the 21 has, so the 29 would detect you at about twice the range you could detect them, and the 29 would just glass the 23 with an R-77.

Yakzistan wrote:Since this a new thread I have to ask a question

Will a modernized MiG-23 MLD be able to take on Export model of a MiG-29 in combat ?

Well Russian aggressor pilots are able to take down MiG-29's with their MiG-23's. So i say yes.

Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:The 23 would have a comparatively shitty stealth profile when stacked up against the 29. The shape of the airframe will allow the MiG 29 to see the 23 first when given the same radars almost every time. In a dogfight, I believe the 29 would also have the upper hand, as even though the 23 has a lower wing loading (going by wiki) the 29 is capable of thrust vectoring.

Detection range wise. the MiG-23 and MiG-29 will see each other at exactly same distance, remember both planes have external payloads and a nice huge air intake that lead straight to their respective turbines, contributing huge magnitude of frontal RCS.

MiG-29MLD Will have later version of Sapfir radar or perhaps the Bars-29 Radar. This thing is far more capable set than previous MiG-23's.

and talking about TVC. Hmm despite the capability (KLIVT Nozzle) I never seen any late MiG-29 variant like MiG-29M2 (Izdelye 9.67) and K(Izdelye 9.41)Fitted with.