Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Imperializt Russia]

If it only carries two rockets, I do hope they're nuclear :3

[The Republic of Mattlandia]

If it only carries two rockets, I do hope they're nuclear :3

What about White Phosphorus?

[Imperializt Russia]

If it only carries two rockets, I do hope they're nuclear :3

What about White Phosphorus?

Insufficient effect or capacity, most likely.

[The Corparation]

If it only carries two rockets, I do hope they're nuclear :3

What about White Phosphorus?

What about it? WP is a good incendiary and is also handy for smoke screens, but its not exactly the greatest weapon outside of those two niche roles.

[Atlantica]

What about White Phosphorus?

What about it? WP is a good incendiary and is also handy for smoke screens, but its not exactly the greatest weapon outside of those two niche roles.

That sounds good enough. But if I was the designer, I would probably go for Hydra Rocket Pods instead of them.

[Atlantica]

If it only carries two rockets, I do hope they're nuclear :3

What about White Phosphorus?

That would work very well against riots and protests...

[The Corparation]

What about it? WP is a good incendiary and is also handy for smoke screens, but its not exactly the greatest weapon outside of those two niche roles.

That sounds good enough. But if I was the designer, I would probably go for Hydra Rocket Pods instead of them.

Two WP rockets are good enough to burn down a small area of forest or possibly a wooden building, or laying out a small smokescreen to designate a target . They'd be useless for anything else.

[Atlantica]

That sounds good enough. But if I was the designer, I would probably go for Hydra Rocket Pods instead of them.

Two WP rockets are good enough to burn down a small area of forest or possibly a wooden building, or laying out a small smokescreen to designate a target . They'd be useless for anything else.

That would probably be the reason why I suggest 70mm Hydra rocket pods as an option.

[Omniphasa]

I create underdog material on purpose. Only 4 in service yes.
Nothing hits the morale of your enemy more than pilots who are willing to give their lives for the nation though.

[San-Silvacian]

I create underdog material on purpose. Only 4 in service yes.
Nothing hits the morale of your enemy more than pilots who are willing to give their lives for the nation though.

Yeah, the Japanese did the same thing.

Still lost, very badly might I add, thats before getting n00k'd.

[Omniphasa]

I'm not trying to win.

[Oaledonia]

I create underdog material on purpose. Only 4 in service yes.
Nothing hits the morale of your enemy more than pilots who are willing to give their lives for the nation though.

Yeah, the Japanese did the same thing.

Still lost, very badly might I add, thats before getting n00k'd.

Most of the more tactical minds of Japan knew they lost the war from the beginning.

[Aurinsula]

Here's a stupid question:

Assuming that my country had some sort of ground-based integrated radar system that could cut through most passive stealth systems, could our front-line fighters (Su-30MKI), or just a generic, good-quality 4.5 gen fighter-plane, hold their own against a more modern, fifth-generation air-superiority fighter?

[Virana]

Here's a stupid question:

Assuming that my country had some sort of ground-based integrated radar system that could cut through most passive stealth systems, could our front-line fighters (Su-30MKI), or just a generic, good-quality 4.5 gen fighter-plane, hold their own against a more modern, fifth-generation air-superiority fighter?

Several advanced radar systems can detect and track stealth fighters, but at far smaller ranges than conventional non stealth fighters. Passive stealth merely reduces your radar cross section to the point where most radars will filter you out for background noise.

That said, if you had a radar that could detect a stealth fighter at a long range (which doesn't seem possible in the near term), your 4.5 gen fighters probably could hold their own. However, those fighters could most likely be detected by your adversary's stealth fighters at far higher ranges.

Your ground based radars are also subject to SEAD, and any modern Air Force puts a lot of emphasis on that. If you were in a war and the enemy knew about these radars, they'd make those radars among their primary strategic targets.

[Vorkova]

Which of the Soviet/Russian fighters would be a good choice for a modern mainline fighter?

[Aurinsula]

Here's a stupid question:

Assuming that my country had some sort of ground-based integrated radar system that could cut through most passive stealth systems, could our front-line fighters (Su-30MKI), or just a generic, good-quality 4.5 gen fighter-plane, hold their own against a more modern, fifth-generation air-superiority fighter?

Several advanced radar systems can detect and track stealth fighters, but at far smaller ranges than conventional non stealth fighters. Passive stealth merely reduces your radar cross section to the point where most radars will filter you out for background noise.

That said, if you had a radar that could detect a stealth fighter at a long range (which doesn't seem possible in the near term), your 4.5 gen fighters probably could hold their own. However, those fighters could most likely be detected by your adversary's stealth fighters at far higher ranges.

Your ground based radars are also subject to SEAD, and any modern Air Force puts a lot of emphasis on that. If you were in a war and the enemy knew about these radars, they'd make those radars among their primary strategic targets.

Passive Radar, yo. Cassidian's already put a model on the market. Schliemann photography, etc. Add in strategic goals that are mostly defensive, and I feel confident.

But the conclusion is, if both planes had, like, radar beacons on them - if the 'stealth' element was deleted - then their performance purely in terms of maneuvering, ordnance etc. would be comparable? Good, good to know.

[Virana]

Which of the Soviet/Russian fighters would be a good choice for a modern mainline fighter?

If you're looking for a fourth-generation fighter, one of the versions of the MiG-29 or Su-27 would work out pretty well. If you would instead prefer a 4.5/4++ generation fighter, which are generally upgraded 4th generation fighters with more advanced electronics and overall capability (largely to allow them to more effectively interface with upcoming 5th generation fighters like the PAK FA), then you should go with a MiG-35 or Su-35.

If you want a stealth multirole fighter, the Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA) is your best bet. It's still a prototype, but I've seen some people use them on NS (albeit poorly).

Several advanced radar systems can detect and track stealth fighters, but at far smaller ranges than conventional non stealth fighters. Passive stealth merely reduces your radar cross section to the point where most radars will filter you out for background noise.

That said, if you had a radar that could detect a stealth fighter at a long range (which doesn't seem possible in the near term), your 4.5 gen fighters probably could hold their own. However, those fighters could most likely be detected by your adversary's stealth fighters at far higher ranges.

Your ground based radars are also subject to SEAD, and any modern Air Force puts a lot of emphasis on that. If you were in a war and the enemy knew about these radars, they'd make those radars among their primary strategic targets.

Passive Radar, yo. Cassidian's already put a model on the market. Schliemann photography, etc. Add in strategic goals that are mostly defensive, and I feel confident.

But the conclusion is, if both planes had, like, radar beacons on them - if the 'stealth' element was deleted - then their performance purely in terms of maneuvering, ordnance etc. would be comparable? Good, good to know.

Performance really depends on the plane. The F-22 was designed as a very maneuverable aircraft from the start, and its large flight control surfaces combined with thrust vectoring control make it an extremely agile plane. But that doesn't mean some 4/4.5 generation fighters can't match up to that performance—in particular, you're looking at stuff like Su-35 that can close the gap.

5th generation fighters also don't have ordnance that differs much from legacy fighters. Granted, several very advanced weapons were built for 5th gens (such as the AIM-9X), but these can generally be used by previous fighters as well (it's a matter of programming at that point). Stealth fighters also have to deal with the fact that storing weapons externally on wing pylons would compromise their stealth characteristics, so they generally have internal bays to hold weapons (which are extremely cramped and limited on space). 4th gen fighters don't have to deal with that. Stealth fighters do usually have external pylons as an option though, and can use them at the expense of their stealth characteristics.

Additionally, passively detecting radar transmissions is only helpful if your adversary is actively broadcasting its radar. Realistically, your adversary's stealth fighters won't jump into the battle actively broadcasting their radar - if your enemy's air force is sophisticated enough to operate 5th generation fighters, they'll most likely have a very developed electronic warfare establishment (such as AEW planes) and the air war would have an emphasis not only in aerial superiority, but electronic superiority as well.

As for your comment on a radar beacon: at events like Red Flag where the F-22 is supposed to enter dogfights against allied aircraft, it actually has to wear a Luneberg lens (like this) that essentially increases its radar cross section so it can be detected much easier. This allows other aircraft to be able to track the F-22 during mock dogfights and helps to level the playing field significantly.

[Vorkova]

Which of the Soviet/Russian fighters would be a good choice for a modern mainline fighter?

If you're looking for a fourth-generation fighter, one of the versions of the MiG-29 or Su-27 would work out pretty well. If you would instead prefer a 4.5/4++ generation fighter, which are generally upgraded 4th generation fighters with more advanced electronics and overall capability (largely to allow them to more effectively interface with upcoming 5th generation fighters like the PAK FA), then you should go with a MiG-35 or Su-35.

If you want a stealth multirole fighter, the Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA) is your best bet. It's still a prototype, but I've seen some people use them on NS (albeit poorly).

I don't think I'd be able to hand-wave the T-50 in a decade and a half early. I would like to use it, but it's a bit too advanced for me to use in large numbers yet.

Of the fighters you mentioned, I like the look of the MiG-35 the best. I could probably use a variant of it similar to the MiG-29K on my carriers.

[Omniphasa]

Eqab Type 2
Manufacturer:	Vahrahan Yards ( Government owned )
Unit Cost:	Approximately 59.000 USD
Number Active:	7
Main Armament:	Dawra Rocket 2x
Secondary Armament:	Iz 13mm HMG Mod. 3
Description:	The Eqab Type 2 was the first military helicopter designed and put in service by the Islamic Republic of Omniphasa. It's sublime agility makes aiming with both of it's armaments superb. It usually has a crew of 2, but in times of lacking manpower, it can easily be piloted by just 1 person.

[Atlantica]

Eqab Type 2	(Image)
Manufacturer:	Vahrahan Yards ( Government owned )
Unit Cost:	Approximately 59.000 USD
Number Active:	7
Main Armament:	Dawra Rocket 2x
Secondary Armament:	Iz 13mm HMG Mod. 3
Description:	The Eqab Type 2 was the first military helicopter designed and put in service by the Islamic Republic of Omniphasa. It's sublime agility makes aiming with both of it's armaments superb. It usually has a crew of 2, but in times of lacking manpower, it can easily be piloted by just 1 person.

That looks just about as good as a 500MD Defender... or even a MQ-8B Fire Scout with guns and Hydra Rocket Pods.

[Omniphasa]

No idea. I have no knowledge of those models. The Eqab Type 2 is truly unique.

[Oaledonia]

No idea. I have no knowledge of those models. The Eqab Type 2 is truly unique.

No it's not.

[Morrdh]

Here's a stupid question:

Assuming that my country had some sort of ground-based integrated radar system that could cut through most passive stealth systems, could our front-line fighters (Su-30MKI), or just a generic, good-quality 4.5 gen fighter-plane, hold their own against a more modern, fifth-generation air-superiority fighter?

Several advanced radar systems can detect and track stealth fighters, but at far smaller ranges than conventional non stealth fighters. Passive stealth merely reduces your radar cross section to the point where most radars will filter you out for background noise.

That said, if you had a radar that could detect a stealth fighter at a long range (which doesn't seem possible in the near term), your 4.5 gen fighters probably could hold their own. However, those fighters could most likely be detected by your adversary's stealth fighters at far higher ranges.

Your ground based radars are also subject to SEAD, and any modern Air Force puts a lot of emphasis on that. If you were in a war and the enemy knew about these radars, they'd make those radars among their primary strategic targets.

Isn't there a radar system in Australia that detects the air disturbance round the stealth aircraft rather than the aircraft itself?

[Imperializt Russia]

No idea. I have no knowledge of those models. The Eqab Type 2 is truly unique.

No it's not.

NS nations are perfectly permitted to live in universes in which RL tech does not exist.

Or they could be NS Iran.

[Oaledonia]

No it's not.

NS nations are perfectly permitted to live in universes in which RL tech does not exist.

Or they could be NS Iran.

My region has a North Korea