Advertisement
by Itailian Maifias » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:44 am
Minnysota wrote:If the F-16, F-15, and F-14 are so awesome why does the US even bother using 5th Generation fighters?
by Arkinesia » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:55 am
Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.
by Itailian Maifias » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:56 am
Arkinesia wrote:
No, fifth-gen-humping has been going on since before Gates. The F-22 came out of a project put forth by Reagan (yeah…seriously) in 1981. It was to counter, I shit you not, the Su-27 and the MiG-29. The latter of which was equal with the F-16B, which was already being readied for production.
The F-22 was a waste of time, we learned, once we learned what the Flanker was capable of. It turned out that the ATF program was a waste. But by that time, Clinton was in charge, and in order to earn more right-wing votes, continued the production prep.
by Itailian Maifias » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:59 am
Minnysota wrote:So, the later versions of the F-15, F-16, and F-14 could still make the US Air Force the best in the world?
by The Corparation » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:00 am
Minnysota wrote:So, the later versions of the F-15, F-16, and F-14 could still make the US Air Force the best in the world?
| Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
| Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Itailian Maifias » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:12 am
The Corparation wrote:Minnysota wrote:So, the later versions of the F-15, F-16, and F-14 could still make the US Air Force the best in the world?
USAF never used the F-14. Navy and Marines did. They have the F-18 now. which is slightly newer. And more capable.Itailian Maifias wrote:Yes.
The Raptor and Lightening II are just way over kills
Raptors not overkill. Raptors will get their asses kicked by the PAK FA in a dogfight.
by Greater United Russia » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:20 am
by Arkinesia » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:57 am
Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.
by The Corparation » Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:11 pm
Arkinesia wrote:The Corparation wrote:Raptors not overkill. Raptors will get their asses kicked by the PAK FA in a dogfight.
Give me an L! Give me an O! Give me an L! Give me a W! Give me a U! Give me a T! Put it all together and what does it spell? LOLWUT!
You're talking about a jet with LPIski that isn't of any value because 6 of its 8 hardpoints are external, has inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, massively inferior max and cruise speed, and similar range. Oh, and weighs about the same empty as the Raptor does at max takeoff weight.
It also has inferior technology. Literally no advantage whatsoever, and that's the wanked specs the Russkis claim.
| Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
| Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Minnysota » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:05 pm
by Licana » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:56 pm
Arkinesia wrote:Narexia wrote:
As a fighternik, I'm going to be a picky little son of a bitch and tell you why your air force is sheer crap.
1. With Fulcrums, what the FUCK do you have Fishbeds, Su-24s, and MiG-25s for? I mean damn.
2. Su-15 Flagons are shit, and they were shit when new. They were a plane designed for interim use until a better interceptor came along. The Fishbed had superior avionics.
3. The Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-35, Su-37, MiG-35, and Sukhoi T-50 do the same thing so why do you have all of them? The Flanker is a shitty series of jets anyway. Stick to the T-50 or Terminator, and junk the rest, or just do the smart thing and scrap all seven and use the MiG Project 1.44, which is the odds-on favorite as the base for the FGFA (the real jackpot of Soviet fighter development).
4. The T-50 is not even aerodynamically capable of mach 4+. I don't even claim that on my mildly wanked X-02 Wyvern, which is about 2040s in terms of tech. I feel antsy claiming the Mach 3.2 I claim for it.
5. What kinds of missiles do these rickety shitbuckets carry?Soviet Haaregrad wrote:
N.
You don't want F-15Es for air superiority. The only reason they're intended to be retired so late by the US, after the other F-15s, is role (tactical strike) and airframe hours.
Some F-15Es for air-to-ground operations would be useful, but offset them with some amount of F-15s equipped for the counter-air role.
Or also consider an all F/A-18 force, with F/A-18 models at sea, F/A-18L models on land and F/A-18E/F/G models as your heavy fighters, and possibly even a Super Hornet stripped down to resemble with L configuration for a heavy land based fighter.
Why blow all the cash on F/A-18s when you could do NS F-14Ds? Or F-16E/F|F-16 Block 60 (which are in service irl)?
With Tomcats in the air superiority role and Vipers in ground attack role you could have an awesome air force for pennies. Plus the F-16 carries AGM-65 Maverick.
by Strykla » Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:40 pm
by Narexia » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:43 pm
Arkinesia wrote:As a fighternik, I'm going to be a picky little son of a bitch and tell you why your air force is sheer crap.
1. With Fulcrums, what the FUCK do you have Fishbeds, Su-24s, and MiG-25s for? I mean damn.
2. Su-15 Flagons are shit, and they were shit when new. They were a plane designed for interim use until a better interceptor came along. The Fishbed had superior avionics.
3. The Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-35, Su-37, MiG-35, and Sukhoi T-50 do the same thing so why do you have all of them? The Flanker is a shitty series of jets anyway. Stick to the T-50 or Terminator, and junk the rest, or just do the smart thing and scrap all seven and use the MiG Project 1.44, which is the odds-on favorite as the base for the FGFA (the real jackpot of Soviet fighter development).
4. The T-50 is not even aerodynamically capable of mach 4+. I don't even claim that on my mildly wanked X-02 Wyvern, which is about 2040s in terms of tech. I feel antsy claiming the Mach 3.2 I claim for it.
5. What kinds of missiles do these rickety shitbuckets carry?Soviet Haaregrad wrote:
N.
You don't want F-15Es for air superiority. The only reason they're intended to be retired so late by the US, after the other F-15s, is role (tactical strike) and airframe hours.
Some F-15Es for air-to-ground operations would be useful, but offset them with some amount of F-15s equipped for the counter-air role.
Or also consider an all F/A-18 force, with F/A-18 models at sea, F/A-18L models on land and F/A-18E/F/G models as your heavy fighters, and possibly even a Super Hornet stripped down to resemble with L configuration for a heavy land based fighter.
Why blow all the cash on F/A-18s when you could do NS F-14Ds? Or F-16E/F|F-16 Block 60 (which are in service irl)?
With Tomcats in the air superiority role and Vipers in ground attack role you could have an awesome air force for pennies. Plus the F-16 carries AGM-65 Maverick.
(I love your humor) for air-to-air missiles use the AA-7 Apex: R24R, R24T. AA-8 Aphid: R60MK. AA-9 Amos: R33E, R33, R33S. AA-10 Alamo: R27R, R27ER, R27ER1, R27ER2, R27AE, R27EM, R27T, R27ET, R27EA. AA-11 Archer: R37E, R73M, R74M. AA-12 Adder: R77, R77M1. AA-13 Arrow: R37, R37M for air-to-air. For aair to surface/ground we use; AS-7 Kerry: (Kh-23, Kh-23L, Kh-23M). AS-9 Kyle: Kh-28. AS-10 Karen: (Kh-25 variants: ML, MP, MR, MT, MTP, MA, MAE, MS, MSE and MPU). AS-11 Kilter: (Kh-58, variants: U, E, EM, UShE, UShKE and A). AS-13 Kingbolt: Kh-59 variants: M, M2, ME, MK, MK2. AS-14 Kedge: Kh-29L, LE, T, TE. AS-15 Kent: Kh-55, Kh-55SM, Kh-65SE, Kh-SD, Kh-101, Kh-102 Kh-555. AS-16 Kickback: Kh-15, Kh-15P Kh-15S. AS-17 Krypton: Kh-31 variants: A, P, AD, PD, AM, PM. AS-19 Koala: Kh-90 (experimental only) AS-20 Kayak: Kh-35U, UE and Kh-37.by Arkinesia » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:26 pm
Narexia wrote:Arkinesia wrote:
Well, our "rickety shitbuckets" as you lovingly put it
Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.
by Idaho Conservatives » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:01 pm
Strykla wrote:The rudders look small for the size of the actual wings, but other than that pretty slick.
by Arkinesia » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:16 pm
Minnysota wrote:In spite of the modernization of the Republican Military, we are proud to announce that the following are our main fighter aircraft:
Ri-12 Harbinger C AND E variant
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9497/ri12.png
LY910 Shadowhawk Air Superiority Fighter
http://media.photobucket.com/image/Nati ... hawk-1.png
LY909 Sparrowhawk Multi-Role Fighter
Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.
by Minnysota » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:18 pm
by St George of England » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:26 am
by Ramsetia » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:25 am
by Imeriata » Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:05 pm
by Strykla » Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:28 pm
Narexia wrote:Arkinesia wrote:As a fighternik, I'm going to be a picky little son of a bitch and tell you why your air force is sheer crap.
1. With Fulcrums, what the FUCK do you have Fishbeds, Su-24s, and MiG-25s for? I mean damn.
2. Su-15 Flagons are shit, and they were shit when new. They were a plane designed for interim use until a better interceptor came along. The Fishbed had superior avionics.
3. The Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-35, Su-37, MiG-35, and Sukhoi T-50 do the same thing so why do you have all of them? The Flanker is a shitty series of jets anyway. Stick to the T-50 or Terminator, and junk the rest, or just do the smart thing and scrap all seven and use the MiG Project 1.44, which is the odds-on favorite as the base for the FGFA (the real jackpot of Soviet fighter development).
4. The T-50 is not even aerodynamically capable of mach 4+. I don't even claim that on my mildly wanked X-02 Wyvern, which is about 2040s in terms of tech. I feel antsy claiming the Mach 3.2 I claim for it.
5. What kinds of missiles do these rickety shitbuckets carry?
Why blow all the cash on F/A-18s when you could do NS F-14Ds? Or F-16E/F|F-16 Block 60 (which are in service irl)?
With Tomcats in the air superiority role and Vipers in ground attack role you could have an awesome air force for pennies. Plus the F-16 carries AGM-65 Maverick.
Well, our "rickety shitbuckets" as you lovingly put it
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Hundredstar, The Aquaria
