Advertisement
by Barisea » Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:03 am
by Barisea » Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:21 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Yugo-Austria wrote:I just remember hearing about a pilot who had no legs and he was really good in WW2, so that's why I asked
And yet the best pilots of WWII all had fully-working sets of legs. Legs serve a number of useful roles for a pilot, including operating the foot pedals and serving as an additional point of bracing. There is no benefit, and indeed a number of drawbacks, to removing them.Barisea wrote:Ok. I'm trying to create a craft that has low grade weapons barely enough to get the job done. my country is defensive. Any suggestions to achieving an craft that has superior maneuvering but not well armed? The craft would use the rockets only when the superior maneuvering was used to position it in a way allowing for the unguided rockets to work
It won't happen because the very concept behind it is flawed. It's a bit silly to think that somehow a nation that can design an impossibly maneuverable fighter would somehow be unable to invent a basic air-to-air guided missile. It's harder to design a fighter as maneuverable as you want (read: actually impossible) than it would be to just build (or better still, just buy) something like AIM-9 and AIM-120. Because if you don't have any guided missiles, you may as well stop bothering to have fighters. And air-to-air missiles are over 50 years old, they're nearly as old as jet fighters themselves.
Look at nations that have actual defensive militaries. Austria. Switzerland. Sweden. What kind of aircraft do they all operate? Regular, plain-old fighters, with regular air-to-air missiles. No unguided rockets, no quad-cannon arrangement. No ridiculously maneuverable fighter that will be hamstrung by obsolete armaments. Just regular fighters that they've bought from someone else because small militaries in small countries don't usually have enough money to develop a fighter on their own. Sweden is only sort of an exception because they bought all the components abroad and just did the integration themselves, and funded it with export orders.Barisea wrote:Dear Spirit of Hope: Aside from the 10 troop transports, the Dragon is the only plane in the air force, and only 60 are in the force. They have to be just enough to support, defend and lead attacks on land, air, and sea. that doesn't mean they have to be perfect at all. I fact, I want them to be relatively weak, but to be just competent enough to get the job done. Besides, the dragon has an upside of being great to show off it's speed and maneuverability.
Just buy some second-hand fighters like Gripen or F-16 or MiG-29 or J-17 from someone else.
by Barisea » Sat Jul 16, 2016 10:03 am
by Barisea » Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:24 pm
Rich and Corporations wrote:Barisea wrote:Ok... but I want my nation to seem real, that includes the things we bought.
oh, btw, how many aircraft get constructed in an low scale aircraft factory per. year, and how much money would that cost?
I'm trying to have all the facts worked out
The longer and larger a production line, the cheaper production costs are.
http://fas.org/news/reference/calc/learn.htm
http://fas.org/news/reference/calc/airframe.htm
by Barisea » Sat Jul 16, 2016 10:05 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Barisea wrote:No thx.. all I need now is for some one to sell me the blueprints to the draken.
As an ex-importer of it, we traded them for Viggens (well tried, then we got P1216/F-14/Tornado) at the first opportunity, because J35's are a no go vs Fulcrums and Flankers, both of which we expected to face in the ultimate Przemysl/Battle of Galicia <.<. Who are you expecting to defend your airspace from?
by Bataveria » Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:33 am
by Bataveria » Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:45 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:Bataveria wrote:Allright, this question has probably already been asked before, so I expect it to be said, but;
Light Attack Aircraft vs helicopters, what are the pro's and cons?
I imagine a lot of light attack aircraft for CAS duty and helicopters more for scouting/reconnaissance. That said, my country is a mix between Rhodesia and the Netherlands (rivers), geographically speaking.
Who do you plan on fighting? Light attack aircraft for CAS don't make much sense if you are going to be using them against an advanced mechanized force, who will happily engage them and shoot them down. Helicopters on the other hand will have a better ability to stay behind cover, pop up and engage, etc.
Against an opponent who isn't advanced and mechanized a mix of both would probably be good, helicopters certainly have uses, but you would probably do better to use light attack CAS planes and not use attack helicopters. The light plane is likely going to be cheaper to buy and maintain, and require less pilot training.
by Bataveria » Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:58 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:Bataveria wrote:
I see, would an Alouette like helicopter with an X mm cannon do good against soft targets? I'm searching for some Western, reliable and relatively easy-to-maintain helicopters.
You could go with something like the MH-6 Little bird, I feel like the Alouette might be a little old to keep using. Against soft targets the ability to carry some rockets and machine guns would be all you would probably need.
by Bellevaria » Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:13 am
by Blorbs » Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:25 pm
by Bolkania » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:57 am
by Bolkania » Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:08 am
by Boruslavia » Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:11 am
by Boruslavia » Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:25 pm
Allanea wrote:What is the purpose of a military Concorde jet?
by Brandenburg and Saxony » Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:46 pm
by Bratislavskaya » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:14 am
by Bratislavskaya » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:23 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'd personally consider the Tu-22M less a strategic bomber and more of a strike bomber.
It certainly doesn't hold a candle to aircraft like the Tu-95 or Tu-160.
Incidentally, the Su-34 (and limited, on-the-way-out Su-24) could make for interesting acquisitions for attack aircraft. The Fullback and Fencer (-34 and -24 respectively) are both strike aircraft capable of a variety of roles including electronic warfare and reconnaissance.
by Bratislavskaya » Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:50 pm
by Bratislavskaya » Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:29 pm
Padnak wrote:Crookfur wrote:
Yeah for an attack helicopter you proabbaly aren't looking at a max speed more than 270-320kph. hard points even three on each stub wing is quite a lot (unless the third is a tip mount or soem other kind of reduced capability mount). Using stub wings that are reaosnably large and offer a reaosnable amoutn of lift would give you the ability to use three full hard points, the paylaod to need them and a little bit extra atraight line speed at the expense of issues with manouverability i.e. the same effects as the Hind's wings.
using the mi-28 is a reasonable starting poiint for a heavy gunship but you need to think how your aircraft differs to it and what effect that would have on the aircraft's specs.
All noted
The main thing different about my helicopter and the Mi-28 is that this helicopter is supposed to be simpler in terms of electronics and without the small internal crew compartment
Because padnak doesn't have any real need for a flying tank hunter like most attack helicopters developed in the cold war are and doesn't have the capabilities to build a super stealthy "look how cool I am with my 2 billion a unit price tag" helicopter I was aiming to make a budget attack helicopter thats simple to maintain, cheep to produce and can support ground forces in jungle combat
I already use a sizable number of armed Mi-8s and Mi-17s, but I was aiming to create a dedicated attack helicopter- if only for a national pride type affair
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Chemensia, Deathfall, Kolanda, Reloviskistan, Tur Monkadzii
