A Guide to an Air Force: F-Series Version

[Organized States]

HUDs are usually standardized on USAF, USN, and RCAF aircraft.

This could be an F-15 aggressor for all we know.

Its not I know what an F-15 Eagle HUD looks like trainer HUDs are usually different from actual combat aircraft

I'm aware, I'm raising the question of the accuracy of your sources. We don't have any evidence of the authenticity of the identity of the aircraft type other than your word.

It's just a suggestion for the next time, divesting sources and information is rather important with stuff like this.

Hey its no biggie every plane gets killed
Eurofighter Typhoon which had killed some raptors
had suffered an embarrassing loss from Rafales and F-16 Block 60s.

You should see the Indians at Red Flag. Those boys got their ass handed to them on a plate by the F-22s.

Particularly the Su-30.

S-300 > All pathetic capitalist aircraft

Cruise Missiles, AGM-88s, and Electronic Warfare > S-300

[Transnapastain]

I really enjoy when a player attempts to write a guide to assist other players, it shows a interest in building up the community and assisting new players so they becoming useful contributes to said community. That being said, and I hate to tell you this....but this entire guide is shot through with many, many glaring errors. The guides only work properly when the information they contain is accurate.

I'm hoping someone with more time and energy than myself will be posting some corrections here. OP and assistants, I truly hope you'll be open to criticism and corrections.

Edit: I look forward to seeing this guide grow.

[The Predator Federation]

On the bright side the F-22 has killed every opponent it has faced. (at least once or twice)

All zero of them

I meant in combat exercises

[Inyourfaceistan]

S-300 > All pathetic capitalist aircraft

AGM-88E AARGM. Turn off your radar and move. Watch what happens...

[The Predator Federation]

Its not I know what an F-15 Eagle HUD looks like trainer HUDs are usually different from actual combat aircraft

I'm aware, I'm raising the question of the accuracy of your sources. We don't have any evidence of the authenticity of the identity of the aircraft type other than your word.

It's just a suggestion for the next time, divesting sources and information is rather important with stuff like this.

Hey its no biggie every plane gets killed
Eurofighter Typhoon which had killed some raptors
had suffered an embarrassing loss from Rafales and F-16 Block 60s.

You should see the Indians at Red Flag. Those boys got their ass handed to them on a plate by the F-22s.

Particularly the Su-30.

S-300 > All pathetic capitalist aircraft

Cruise Missiles, AGM-88s, and Electronic Warfare > S-300

Yeah also the F-15 pilots the Indians (and probably the malaysians) were pretty pissed

[The Predator Federation]

Next time I gotta remember to state some evidence

[The Predator Federation]

S-300 > All pathetic capitalist aircraft

AGM-88E AARGM. Turn off your radar and move. Watch what happens...

AWACS can provide info for you

[Vancon]

I really enjoy when a player attempts to write a guide to assist other players, it shows a interest in building up the community and assisting new players so they becoming useful contributes to said community. That being said, and I hate to tell you this....but this entire guide is shot through with many, many glaring errors. The guides only work properly when the information they contain is accurate.

I'm hoping someone with more time and energy than myself will be posting some corrections here. OP and assistants, I truly hope you'll be open to critisim and corrections

Can you:
-Tell me what needs to be changed
-Take this to TGs.
-Not delete everything
-Tell me what the errors are?


As stated in the OP at bottom, I'm always looking for help, and if you would like to I'd appreciate it.

[Inyourfaceistan]

The F-35 is still better. Providing hard data really doesn't help you that much. The modern fighters of this day are made for multi roles, while your silly A-10 is only made around one gun, which, by the way, is way too expensive, and in itself weighs much more than a gun that the F-35 needs. The A-10 also has no maneuverability above 10,000 feet, which would be crucial in other areas of battle. If the A-10 was attacked mid mission, it would die, but if the F-35 was attacked (which the enemy would have a hard time doing), it would kill both targets.

If all you want is guns guns guns, I suggest you look at WW2 tanks, as well as WW2 aircraft, because that's where the A-10 would've had it's mark. The F-16, F-22, and F-35 don't need a stupidly large main gun to do it's job. It can just point and aim with it's missiles, and it's instantly more accurate. And it still can strafe, with damn good efficiency. You're forgetting that the F-16 was rarely deployed against ground targets because it was working on keeping your A-10 able to fly by destroying air targets, so good luck trying to incorporate that skewed data.

The Maximum takeoff weight means how much PAYLOAD IT CAN HAVE ON IT. It's not that heavier than an A-10 empty, but it can fly faster and better. BTW, you've got the wrong data. The A-10 Thunderbolt II flies, get this: 800 miles range. From wikipedia. Note the low range, speed, and combat radius.

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 506 ft² (47.0 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip
Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
Anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofans, 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) each
Internal fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg)
Performance

Never exceed speed: 450 knots (518 mph,[153] 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mk 82 bombs[154]
Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean[153]
Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h) [155]
Combat radius:
CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
Anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nmi (45 mi, 75 km)) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat
Ferry range: 2,240 nmi (2,580 mi, 4,150 km) with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,700 m)
Rate of climb: 6,000 ft/min (30 m/s)
Wing loading: 99 lb/ft² (482 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.36
Armament

Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds (Capacity 1,350)
Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
Rockets:
4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× / 7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively)
4× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets)
6× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm (5.0 in) Zuni rockets)
Missiles:
2× AIM-9 Sidewinders air-to-air missiles for self-defense
6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
Bombs:
Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs or
Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
BLU-1, BLU-27/B Rockeye II, Mk20, BL-755[156] and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or
Joint Direct Attack Munition (A-10C)[157] or
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C)
Other:
SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or
AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods (A-10C) or
2× 600 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.
Avionics

AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny laser tracker pod[158] (mounted beneath right side of cockpit) for use with Paveway LGBs (Currently the Pave Penny is no longer in use)
Head-up display (HUD) for improved technical flying and air-to-ground support.[159]

And here's the F-35. Note the longer range, the bigger payload, and the better speed. Now, it's only been tested at Mach 1.61, but it's much different than it's cousin, the F-22, which was, coincidentally, around Mach 2.2? Anyway, check it out:

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 50.5 ft [539] (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft[N 4] (10.7 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[N 5] (4.33 m)
Wing area: 460 ft²[249] (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: 29,098 lb [540] (13199 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[232][N 6][541] (22,470 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[N 7] (31,800 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[542][N 8] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[542][543] (191 kN)
Internal fuel capacity: 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[544][N 9]
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[253] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[372]
Cruise speed: 1.2 mach for 9.8 min[230]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 613 nmi[545] (1,135 km) on internal fuel
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft[citation needed] (15,240 m)
Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: 0.87
With 50% fuel: 1.07
Maximum g-load: 9 g[N 10]
Armament

Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel Gatling gun, internally mounted with 180 rounds[N 11][253]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[249][253] and two internal bays with two pylons each[249] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[233] and provisions to carry combinations of:
Missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
AIM-120 AMRAAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder
IRIS-T
MBDA Meteor (pending further funding)[260]
Air-to-surface missiles:
AGM-88 AARGM[546]
AGM-158 JASSM[250]
Brimstone missile / MBDA SPEAR[547]
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
Storm Shadow missile
SOM
Anti-ship missiles:
Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)[548]
Bombs:
Mark 84 or Mark 83 or Mark 82 GP bombs
Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) capable
Paveway series laser-guided bombs
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) series
AGM-154 JSOW
B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb[549]
Avionics

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
Lockheed Martin AAQ-40 E/O Targeting System (EOTS)
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system

It can also mount electronic warfare, as well as external fuel tanks.

So, good day, sir.

Edit: Note how the F-35 is under developmental stages, so your argument is really invalid. I could put the F-22 in here, and my argument would still win out.

The F-35 is not designed to support ground troops. The A-10 is and it woefully outmatches it's main Eastern Bloc counter-part, the Su-25/39.

F-35's are supposed to fly in using a combination of stealth and EW to confuse enemy radar and whatnot, and do a "jack of all trades, master of none" role. F-35 can attack ground targets better than the F-22, F-35 can engage aircraft unlike the A-10. F-35 is not made to outright go toe to toe with other enemy air superiority aircraft like the F-22 is, and it is not made to be the angel of the foot soldier with a CAS role like A-10 is.

F-35 flies in, launches missiles/drops bombs, gets out. It's not a horrid plane like its critics claim, and it's not the end-all-be-all like tech fans like you claim. It can do both the F-22 and the A-10's job at the same time, but not as effective as either.

Also, take your anti-A-10 smack talk to any former US Army grunt and they will put you in your in place.

[Organized States]

Working on the PT version, Vancon.

I go into Billy Mitchell and such extensively.

[Transnapastain]

I really enjoy when a player attempts to write a guide to assist other players, it shows a interest in building up the community and assisting new players so they becoming useful contributes to said community. That being said, and I hate to tell you this....but this entire guide is shot through with many, many glaring errors. The guides only work properly when the information they contain is accurate.

I'm hoping someone with more time and energy than myself will be posting some corrections here. OP and assistants, I truly hope you'll be open to critisim and corrections

Can you:
-Tell me what needs to be changed
-Take this to TGs.
-Not delete everything
-Tell me what the errors are?


As stated in the OP at bottom, I'm always looking for help, and if you would like to I'd appreciate it.

1. Off the bat
- F-35 is a multirole, not a fighter, the F-22 is not an interceptor, it "serves in part as an interceptor". Maybe you could talk about some other older american aircraft that actually were interceptors, like the F-106?
- Why do you have trainers listed as support aircraft, but have EW and AWACS as "other" ...What do they do but support allied aircraft and combat operations. Aside from training, how do trainers support combat forces?
- Why do you have carrier aircraft listed separately, but talk about the F-14 under interceptors? Also, the F-14 is maintenance intensive and is not really suited to a "fledgling" nation. F-14 is also still in service, just not in the US, and is still a formidable aircraft.

I know other people are working on other, helpful posts

2: I hadn't intended on it.

3: No, I'm deleting everything, right now.

4: See 1

As stated in my edit: i'm looking forward to seeing this guide grow.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

The F-35 is still better. Providing hard data really doesn't help you that much. The modern fighters of this day are made for multi roles, while your silly A-10 is only made around one gun, which, by the way, is way too expensive, and in itself weighs much more than a gun that the F-35 needs. The A-10 also has no maneuverability above 10,000 feet, which would be crucial in other areas of battle. If the A-10 was attacked mid mission, it would die, but if the F-35 was attacked (which the enemy would have a hard time doing), it would kill both targets.

If all you want is guns guns guns, I suggest you look at WW2 tanks, as well as WW2 aircraft, because that's where the A-10 would've had it's mark. The F-16, F-22, and F-35 don't need a stupidly large main gun to do it's job. It can just point and aim with it's missiles, and it's instantly more accurate. And it still can strafe, with damn good efficiency. You're forgetting that the F-16 was rarely deployed against ground targets because it was working on keeping your A-10 able to fly by destroying air targets, so good luck trying to incorporate that skewed data.

The Maximum takeoff weight means how much PAYLOAD IT CAN HAVE ON IT. It's not that heavier than an A-10 empty, but it can fly faster and better. BTW, you've got the wrong data. The A-10 Thunderbolt II flies, get this: 800 miles range. From wikipedia. Note the low range, speed, and combat radius.

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 506 ft² (47.0 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip
Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
Anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofans, 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) each
Internal fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg)
Performance

Never exceed speed: 450 knots (518 mph,[153] 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mk 82 bombs[154]
Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean[153]
Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h) [155]
Combat radius:
CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
Anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nmi (45 mi, 75 km)) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat
Ferry range: 2,240 nmi (2,580 mi, 4,150 km) with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,700 m)
Rate of climb: 6,000 ft/min (30 m/s)
Wing loading: 99 lb/ft² (482 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.36
Armament

Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds (Capacity 1,350)
Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
Rockets:
4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× / 7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively)
4× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets)
6× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm (5.0 in) Zuni rockets)
Missiles:
2× AIM-9 Sidewinders air-to-air missiles for self-defense
6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
Bombs:
Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs or
Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
BLU-1, BLU-27/B Rockeye II, Mk20, BL-755[156] and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or
Joint Direct Attack Munition (A-10C)[157] or
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C)
Other:
SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or
AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods (A-10C) or
2× 600 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.
Avionics

AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny laser tracker pod[158] (mounted beneath right side of cockpit) for use with Paveway LGBs (Currently the Pave Penny is no longer in use)
Head-up display (HUD) for improved technical flying and air-to-ground support.[159]

And here's the F-35. Note the longer range, the bigger payload, and the better speed. Now, it's only been tested at Mach 1.61, but it's much different than it's cousin, the F-22, which was, coincidentally, around Mach 2.2? Anyway, check it out:

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 50.5 ft [539] (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft[N 4] (10.7 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[N 5] (4.33 m)
Wing area: 460 ft²[249] (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: 29,098 lb [540] (13199 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[232][N 6][541] (22,470 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[N 7] (31,800 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[542][N 8] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[542][543] (191 kN)
Internal fuel capacity: 18,498 lb (8,382 kg)[544][N 9]
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[253] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[372]
Cruise speed: 1.2 mach for 9.8 min[230]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 613 nmi[545] (1,135 km) on internal fuel
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft[citation needed] (15,240 m)
Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: 0.87
With 50% fuel: 1.07
Maximum g-load: 9 g[N 10]
Armament

Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel Gatling gun, internally mounted with 180 rounds[N 11][253]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[249][253] and two internal bays with two pylons each[249] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[233] and provisions to carry combinations of:
Missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
AIM-120 AMRAAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder
IRIS-T
MBDA Meteor (pending further funding)[260]
Air-to-surface missiles:
AGM-88 AARGM[546]
AGM-158 JASSM[250]
Brimstone missile / MBDA SPEAR[547]
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
Storm Shadow missile
SOM
Anti-ship missiles:
Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)[548]
Bombs:
Mark 84 or Mark 83 or Mark 82 GP bombs
Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) capable
Paveway series laser-guided bombs
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) series
AGM-154 JSOW
B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb[549]
Avionics

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
Lockheed Martin AAQ-40 E/O Targeting System (EOTS)
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system

It can also mount electronic warfare, as well as external fuel tanks.

So, good day, sir.

Edit: Note how the F-35 is under developmental stages, so your argument is really invalid. I could put the F-22 in here, and my argument would still win out.

The F-35 is not designed to support ground troops. The A-10 is and it woefully outmatches it's main Eastern Bloc counter-part, the Su-25/39.

F-35's are supposed to fly in using a combination of stealth and EW to confuse enemy radar and whatnot, and do a "jack of all trades, master of none" role. F-35 can attack ground targets better than the F-22, F-35 can engage aircraft unlike the A-10. F-35 is not made to outright go toe to toe with other enemy air superiority aircraft like the F-22 is, and it is not made to be the angel of the foot soldier with a CAS role like A-10 is.

F-35 flies in, launches missiles/drops bombs, gets out. It's not a horrid plane like its critics claim, and it's not the end-all-be-all like tech fans like you claim. It can do both the F-22 and the A-10's job at the same time, but not as effective as either.

Also, take your anti-A-10 smack talk to any former US Army grunt and they will put you in your in place.

Hey, I'm not saying the A-10 should be taken out of service. It does it's job very well, as I have stated before. I like the plane, personally. It would be fun to fly. It's a symbol of basically America. I'm just saying that, if it came right down to it, the F-35 could indeed take it's place and do a fine job at it, with probably greater accuracy and a larger K/D ratio, given time. I'm also saying that the F-35 is indeed a multi role fighter, like you said.

Simply put, there are other planes that could take the A-10's role, such as the F-35, or F-117. But if you want CAS strafing, then go for the A-10 by all means. Unless it's anti infantry. Then you want a gunship. Still, though, the A-10 isn't the best plane out there, and it is actually one of the more... eh... useless planes, like the trainers are, yet still with a role.

[Vancon]

Can you:
-Tell me what needs to be changed
-Take this to TGs.
-Not delete everything
-Tell me what the errors are?


As stated in the OP at bottom, I'm always looking for help, and if you would like to I'd appreciate it.

1. Off the bat
- F-35 is a multirole, not a fighter, the F-22 is not an interceptor, it "serves in part as an interceptor". Maybe you could talk about some other older american aircraft that actually were interceptors, like the F-106?
- Why do you have trainers listed as support aircraft, but have EW and AWACS as "other" ...What do they do but support allied aircraft and combat operations. Aside from training, how do trainers support combat forces?
- Why do you have carrier aircraft listed separately, but talk about the F-14 under interceptors? Also, the F-14 is maintenance intensive and is not really suited to a "fledgling" nation. F-14 is also still in service, just not in the US, and is still a formidable aircraft.

I know other people are working on other, helpful posts

2: I hadn't intended on it.

3: No, I'm deleting everything, right now.

4: See 1

As stated in my edit: i'm looking forward to seeing this guide grow.

1.
"F-35"- Yes, I understand and agree. I'll make the appropriate changes.
"Trainers"-I put the different kinds of planes in their appropriate place because not every nation needs the things in the "other" category. Most nations will need trainers, even if I'm contradicting what I mentioned in the text, but not everyone need the AWACS. It sure would be nice and helpful, but they don't need them. Trainers support the pilots by helping them learn and practice their maneuvers while they are still in training, with out the Gvt having to worry about a multi million dollar investment being destroyed.
"Carrier Aircraft"- This was explaining what they are in general, but I see where you're coming from about the F-14.

2. Well shit

3. NOOHMYGODD'ONT.

4. ......

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

But a support aircraft, by definition, is an aircraft that either actively or passively supports others in combat. The AWACS does this, yet the trainer aircraft are only helpful on the training area of the Air Force or Navy or Army. In fact, I think they should be listed in "Other" as they do not help in combat whatsoever.

Or, actually, you could put a category called "Behind the Lines", and put both the trainer aircraft into there, as well as troop transport, cargo ships, and perhaps the tankers.

[Padnak]

I'm currently working on all the graphics for the MiG/Su guide, and they seem to be coming along nicely

[Vancon]

I'm currently working on all the graphics for the MiG/Su guide, and they seem to be coming along nicely

I will like to see them, so f you could TG them to me, that'd be great.

[Pimps Inc]

You guys know the reason the US still has the B52 right?

[Vancon]

You guys know the reason the US still has the B52 right?

Well, don't leave us hanging. Are you gonna tell us?

[Pimps Inc]

You guys know the reason the US still has the B52 right?

Well, don't leave us hanging. Are you gonna tell us?

During the Cold War,the United States and the USSR made an agreement that if WWIII was to begin then the missiles would be launched.You know first strike.But that's just a small part of Americas and Russia's nuclear warheads.So after first strike,the bombers are sent.The B52 and the Russian counterpart the Tu-95.They aren't fast and quite old but they're meant to be this way.When the bombers are sent during if WWIII starts,then the bombers function as a sort of timer.In order to give time to both sides to possibly end the hostilities before the Apocalypse starts.When the bombers reach a certain "point of no return"(which is when the bombers meet halfway) then basically the timer ends.You know,once the bombers reach their objectives there is no turning back.The end would be inevitable.*takes deep breath*This is relevant to nations in NS that maybe have a rival that they always have near hostilities with.The Bomber Timer.

[Organized States]

Well, don't leave us hanging. Are you gonna tell us?

During the Cold War,the United States and the USSR made an agreement that if WWIII was to begin then the missiles would be launched.You know first strike.But that's just a small part of Americas and Russia's nuclear warheads.So after first strike,the bombers are sent.The B52 and the Russian counterpart the Tu-95.They aren't fast and quite old but they're meant to be this way.When the bombers are sent during if WWIII starts,then the bombers function as a sort of timer.In order to give time to both sides to possibly end the hostilities before the Apocalypse starts.When the bombers reach a certain "point of no return"(which is when the bombers meet halfway) then basically the timer ends.You know,once the bombers reach their objectives there is no turning back.The end would be inevitable.*takes deep breath*This is relevant to nations in NS that maybe have a rival that they always have near hostilities with.The Bomber Timer.

Incorrect.

The reason the US keeps the B-52 around is due to the role of Cruise Missile carrier in accordance with the Air-Sea Battle Strategy in preparation for the eventual fielding of the Next Generation Bomber in the 2020s.

ICBMs have replaced the B-52 and Tu-95 in their original roles as direct Nuclear Weapons delivery, as due to their large Radar-Cross Sections being easy targets for SAMs.

[Vancon]

Well, don't leave us hanging. Are you gonna tell us?

During the Cold War,the United States and the USSR made an agreement that if WWIII was to begin then the missiles would be launched.You know first strike.But that's just a small part of Americas and Russia's nuclear warheads.So after first strike,the bombers are sent.The B52 and the Russian counterpart the Tu-95.They aren't fast and quite old but they're meant to be this way.When the bombers are sent during if WWIII starts,then the bombers function as a sort of timer.In order to give time to both sides to possibly end the hostilities before the Apocalypse starts.When the bombers reach a certain "point of no return"(which is when the bombers meet halfway) then basically the timer ends.You know,once the bombers reach their objectives there is no turning back.The end would be inevitable.*takes deep breath*This is relevant to nations in NS that maybe have a rival that they always have near hostilities with.The Bomber Timer.

Do you have a source for this? I'm curios. To my knowledge, the B-52 is not really liked since it cost the US GvT a fuckload of money to keep them around, which they would rather be spending elsewhere.

[Puzikas]

Well, don't leave us hanging. Are you gonna tell us?

During the Cold War,the United States and the USSR made an agreement that if WWIII was to begin then the missiles would be launched.You know first strike.But that's just a small part of Americas and Russia's nuclear warheads.So after first strike,the bombers are sent.The B52 and the Russian counterpart the Tu-95.They aren't fast and quite old but they're meant to be this way.When the bombers are sent during if WWIII starts,then the bombers function as a sort of timer.In order to give time to both sides to possibly end the hostilities before the Apocalypse starts.When the bombers reach a certain "point of no return"(which is when the bombers meet halfway) then basically the timer ends.You know,once the bombers reach their objectives there is no turning back.The end would be inevitable.*takes deep breath*This is relevant to nations in NS that maybe have a rival that they always have near hostilities with.The Bomber Timer.

wat

wait.




No, really...what?

The US still has the B-52 because its a massive bomb truck that can bring down massive amounts of ordinance to crush ground based targets. Its a massive appropriation of ordinance in a single vessel, and plays a gigantic role in the US doctrine in suppressing and destroying enemy ground forces. Its not some sort of jet-propelled timer, its a damned weapon of war.

[Pimps Inc]

During the Cold War,the United States and the USSR made an agreement that if WWIII was to begin then the missiles would be launched.You know first strike.But that's just a small part of Americas and Russia's nuclear warheads.So after first strike,the bombers are sent.The B52 and the Russian counterpart the Tu-95.They aren't fast and quite old but they're meant to be this way.When the bombers are sent during if WWIII starts,then the bombers function as a sort of timer.In order to give time to both sides to possibly end the hostilities before the Apocalypse starts.When the bombers reach a certain "point of no return"(which is when the bombers meet halfway) then basically the timer ends.You know,once the bombers reach their objectives there is no turning back.The end would be inevitable.*takes deep breath*This is relevant to nations in NS that maybe have a rival that they always have near hostilities with.The Bomber Timer.

Incorrect.

The reason the US keeps the B-52 around is due to the role of Cruise Missile carrier in accordance with the Air-Sea Battle Strategy in preparation for the eventual fielding of the Next Generation Bomber in the 2020s.

ICBMs have replaced the B-52 and Tu-95 in their original roles as direct Nuclear Weapons delivery, as due to their large Radar-Cross Sections being easy targets for SAMs.

It's only part of it.*wheezes*Its going to be replaced until like...2030?and the Tupolev until 2040.
Yet,when countries go to nuclear war,they (usually) don't want to end the world.If the war can be stopped before it destroys us then....good.Right?Now as for SAMs..Um.

[Organized States]

Incorrect.

The reason the US keeps the B-52 around is due to the role of Cruise Missile carrier in accordance with the Air-Sea Battle Strategy in preparation for the eventual fielding of the Next Generation Bomber in the 2020s.

ICBMs have replaced the B-52 and Tu-95 in their original roles as direct Nuclear Weapons delivery, as due to their large Radar-Cross Sections being easy targets for SAMs.

It's only part of it.*wheezes*Its going to be replaced until like...2030?and the Tupolev until 2040.
Yet,when countries go to nuclear war,they (usually) don't want to end the world.If the war can be stopped before it destroys us then....good.Right?Now as for SAMs..Um.

2025 or Earlier.

The whole idea of Nuclear War is to destroy your enemy in a quick decisive action. 1950s Strategic Bombers don't do that.

[Licana]

During the Cold War,the United States and the USSR made an agreement that if WWIII was to begin then the missiles would be launched.You know first strike.But that's just a small part of Americas and Russia's nuclear warheads.So after first strike,the bombers are sent.The B52 and the Russian counterpart the Tu-95.They aren't fast and quite old but they're meant to be this way.When the bombers are sent during if WWIII starts,then the bombers function as a sort of timer.In order to give time to both sides to possibly end the hostilities before the Apocalypse starts.When the bombers reach a certain "point of no return"(which is when the bombers meet halfway) then basically the timer ends.You know,once the bombers reach their objectives there is no turning back.The end would be inevitable.*takes deep breath*This is relevant to nations in NS that maybe have a rival that they always have near hostilities with.The Bomber Timer.

This doesn't even make sense on a basic "what the hell did I just read" level.