Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Gallia-]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... S-2009.jpg
https://knowledgegenerator.files.wordpr ... 3/ka52.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... n_pic1.jpg

kittycopter :>

[Prosorusiya]

Does anybody know wether Turkey is mainly doing it's air strikes against Kurdistan with F-4s or F-16s? Also, are their F-5s seeing any use?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Designs a little whacky for me

What tech is this for? I'm assuming PMT but I could be wrong.

NSMT-PMT, it's designed as a replacement for the S-3 viking, E-2 hawkeye, and C-2 greyhound. It does look a little goofy, it's a joined wing with a lifting body design designed to maximize lift and L/D ratio which will improve fuel economy and gives the aircraft a higher service ceiling. The trapezoidal shape and the alignment of the wing edges along with the shape of the inlets means the aircraft is "semi-stealthy" which will in addition to the higher service ceiling will enhance survivability.

[Sjovenia]

Designs a little whacky for me

What tech is this for? I'm assuming PMT but I could be wrong.

NSMT-PMT, it's designed as a replacement for the S-3 viking, E-2 hawkeye, and C-2 greyhound. It does look a little goofy, it's a joined wing with a lifting body design designed to maximize lift and L/D ratio which will improve fuel economy and gives the aircraft a higher service ceiling. The trapezoidal shape and the alignment of the wing edges along with the shape of the inlets means the aircraft is "semi-stealthy" which will in addition to the higher service ceiling will enhance survivability.

Not sure about the comparison of stats but why not just go with the E-3 Sentry?

[Crookfur]

NSMT-PMT, it's designed as a replacement for the S-3 viking, E-2 hawkeye, and C-2 greyhound. It does look a little goofy, it's a joined wing with a lifting body design designed to maximize lift and L/D ratio which will improve fuel economy and gives the aircraft a higher service ceiling. The trapezoidal shape and the alignment of the wing edges along with the shape of the inlets means the aircraft is "semi-stealthy" which will in addition to the higher service ceiling will enhance survivability.

Not sure about the comparison of stats but why not just go with the E-3 Sentry?

Because the whole concept is for carrier based support aircraft...

[Sjovenia]

Not sure about the comparison of stats but why not just go with the E-3 Sentry?

Because the whole concept is for carrier based support aircraft...

Shit, think I glazed through that part

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Landing an E-3 on a carrier would be quite the feat

The whole point is to have a common family of support aircraft (ASW, AEW, COD, etc) to make maintenance and logistics easier.

[Sjovenia]

Landing an E-3 on a carrier would be quite the feat

The whole point is to have a common family of support aircraft (ASW, AEW, COD, etc) to make maintenance and logistics easier.

So your aircraft would be kinda across the board sort of thing, able to land on carriers for naval use but able to land on runways for air force use type of deal?

[The Akasha Colony]

NSMT-PMT, it's designed as a replacement for the S-3 viking, E-2 hawkeye, and C-2 greyhound. It does look a little goofy, it's a joined wing with a lifting body design designed to maximize lift and L/D ratio which will improve fuel economy and gives the aircraft a higher service ceiling. The trapezoidal shape and the alignment of the wing edges along with the shape of the inlets means the aircraft is "semi-stealthy" which will in addition to the higher service ceiling will enhance survivability.

Not sure about the comparison of stats but why not just go with the E-3 Sentry?

Because E-3 Sentry is ancient.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Landing an E-3 on a carrier would be quite the feat

The whole point is to have a common family of support aircraft (ASW, AEW, COD, etc) to make maintenance and logistics easier.

So your aircraft would be kinda across the board sort of thing, able to land on carriers for naval use but able to land on runways for air force use type of deal?

It's purely a carrier plane. Air force would have something like the sentry (like a large airliner or airlifter based plane) for AEW which isn't restricted by the size and weight constraints of a carrier based aircraft.

[Sjovenia]

Not sure about the comparison of stats but why not just go with the E-3 Sentry?

Because E-3 Sentry is ancient.

What aircraft isn't though? Besides F35 *looks of annoyance* F-16s. A-10s. B-52s all old

At techno- So what exactly do you mean by common family of support craft?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Because E-3 Sentry is ancient.

What aircraft isn't though? Besides F35 *looks of annoyance* F-16s. A-10s. B-52s all old

There's always E-767 but that's prolly irrelevant since we're looking for carrier-compatible aircraft.

[The Akasha Colony]

Because E-3 Sentry is ancient.

What aircraft isn't though? Besides F35 *looks of annoyance* F-16s. A-10s. B-52s all old

All of those were modern when they were introduced.

Shockingly though, things age.

There's no point in buying a forty-year old design right now. Especially if you're PMT and are thus even farther in the future. The Boeing 707 isn't even in production anymore, and hasn't been since the 1970s.

[Minroz]

The Ka-52 is a better choice. The Mi-28 is a very heavy and poorly armed helicopter, Ataka in particular is not a modern ATGM at all.

In that case, Ka-52 it is then.

Onto another helicopter, what do y'all think of the Harbin Z-19? I'm thinking of using them as my equivalent of AH-1 SuperCobra.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Ka-52 is a better choice. The Mi-28 is a very heavy and poorly armed helicopter, Ataka in particular is not a modern ATGM at all.

In that case, Ka-52 it is then.

Onto another helicopter, what do y'all think of the Harbin Z-19? I'm thinking of using them as my equivalent of AH-1 SuperCobra.

Why do you need a SuperCobra equivalent? AH-1 still exists because the USMC never got the money to buy Apache and navalize it.

There's already a naval variant of Ka-52 though, so just use Ka-52K.

[Minroz]

In that case, Ka-52 it is then.

Onto another helicopter, what do y'all think of the Harbin Z-19? I'm thinking of using them as my equivalent of AH-1 SuperCobra.

Why do you need a SuperCobra equivalent? AH-1 still exists because the USMC never got the money to buy Apache and navalize it.

There's already a naval variant of Ka-52 though, so just use Ka-52K.

No wonder the USMC kept their SuperCobras into their service.

Alright, I'll use Ka-52K then.

[Sjovenia]

What aircraft isn't though? Besides F35 *looks of annoyance* F-16s. A-10s. B-52s all old

There's always E-767 but that's prolly irrelevant since we're looking for carrier-compatible aircraft.

True but it does look a lot smaller than an E-3

What aircraft isn't though? Besides F35 *looks of annoyance* F-16s. A-10s. B-52s all old

All of those were modern when they were introduced.

Shockingly though, things age.

There's no point in buying a forty-year old design right now. Especially if you're PMT and are thus even farther in the future. The Boeing 707 isn't even in production anymore, and hasn't been since the 1970s.

And shockingly the military of almost every nation still uses outdated air craft....shockingly the military still uses vehicles that are probably as old as you are if not older.

[The Akasha Colony]

And shockingly the military of almost every nation still uses outdated air craft....shockingly the military still uses vehicles that are probably as old as you are if not older.

They buy them when they're new. They get old over time, but they don't buy them old to begin with. Otherwise the USAF would just buy early-model F-15s and F-16s forever rather than develop new fighters to replace them like F-22 and F-35. Or it'd just buy more B-52s rather than develop B-21.

Nations that don't have the money or industry to develop new aircraft on their own or who do not believe they can wait to buy newer aircraft in development by nations with these industries will buy older aircraft (newer model F-15s and F-16s are still selling), but a nation that is willing to develop a VLO carrier-launched AEW&C aircraft (and indeed has enough money to operate a reasonable carrier force) probably has enough money to develop something newer than E-3, if only to make something like Boeing Wedgetail using a newer airframe and more modern avionics.

E-3 is so old the Japanese couldn't even buy it when they wanted to, they had to buy E-767 instead and that was twenty years ago. Do you think Boeing is going to bring back the 707 within the next 20-50 years?

It'd be one thing if you were recommending E-3 to a pure MT nation looking for an off-the-shelf option, although even then there are newer platforms like Wedgetail and even E-767 available. Moving to E-767 at least gives you an aircraft that's still in production. But given the timeline issue (PMT makes the age issue worse) and the fact that Technocratic Syndicalists is clearly not looking for an existing option, E-3 is a somewhat less helpful suggestion.

[Sjovenia]

And shockingly the military of almost every nation still uses outdated air craft....shockingly the military still uses vehicles that are probably as old as you are if not older.

They buy them when they're new. They get old over time, but they don't buy them old to begin with. Otherwise the USAF would just buy early-model F-15s and F-16s forever rather than develop new fighters to replace them like F-22 and F-35. Or it'd just buy more B-52s rather than develop B-21.

Nations that don't have the money or industry to develop new aircraft on their own or who do not believe they can wait to buy newer aircraft in development by nations with these industries will buy older aircraft (newer model F-15s and F-16s are still selling), but a nation that is willing to develop a VLO carrier-launched AEW&C aircraft (and indeed has enough money to operate a reasonable carrier force) probably has enough money to develop something newer than E-3, if only to make something like Boeing Wedgetail using a newer airframe and more modern avionics.

E-3 is so old the Japanese couldn't even buy it when they wanted to, they had to buy E-767 instead and that was twenty years ago. Do you think Boeing is going to bring back the 707 within the next 20-50 years?

It'd be one thing if you were recommending E-3 to a pure MT nation looking for an off-the-shelf option, although even then there are newer platforms like Wedgetail and even E-767 available. Moving to E-767 at least gives you an aircraft that's still in production. But given the timeline issue (PMT makes the age issue worse) and the fact that Technocratic Syndicalists is clearly not looking for an existing option, E-3 is a somewhat less helpful suggestion.

F-22 never replaced the F-16 and the F-35 has its problems. Couldn't tell you if its been fixed or not but they had a lot of electrical problems and pilots were not getting along well with the new HUD and Helmet system. I don't know if I stated it in the last post but I was definitely considering it anywho I'll just say it now. I wasn't aware that the nation was PMT until after when I had asked him what tech this was. At the same time I never knew it was carrier only. As stated previously I may have glazed over that part where it said it was carrier only.

[Mynockia]

If a country wanted to produce a new build arsenal plane/missile carrier (rather than an ancient Cold War bomber, let's say the country didn't field strategic bombers during that time period), what would it look like? Obviously it would be using commercial high-bypass turbofans for efficiency reasons (Rolls-Royce RB-211 or Pratt & Whitney PW2000, for example). Would they be best served by taking a military cargo aircraft or commercial airliner and converting it into a bomber? Do you guys have designs of this sort?

[Laritaia]

If a country wanted to produce a new build arsenal plane/missile carrier (rather than an ancient Cold War bomber, let's say the country didn't field strategic bombers during that time period), what would it look like? Obviously it would be using commercial high-bypass turbofans for efficiency reasons (Rolls-Royce RB-211 or Pratt & Whitney PW2000, for example). Would they be best served by taking a military cargo aircraft or commercial airliner and converting it into a bomber? Do you guys have designs of this sort?

no but Boeing does

http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/747-200F-ALCM-Carrier.jpg

[The Akasha Colony]

F-22 never replaced the F-16 and the F-35 has its problems. Couldn't tell you if its been fixed or not but they had a lot of electrical problems and pilots were not getting along well with the new HUD and Helmet system.

F-22 was never supposed to replace F-16 by the time the design was anywhere close to final so I don't know why that's relevant. If you meant F-15, then it was supposed to but the USAF couldn't buy enough so F-15 still exists, but the USAF still isn't buying any more of them, they're just trying to modernize the aircraft they've already bought. Lack of funds to purchase sufficient numbers of F-22s didn't make the USAF decide to buy more F-15Cs.

The same thing is true of F-16, even as F-35 has encountered delays (although it finally reached IOC with the USAF). Despite these delays, the USAF is still not purchasing any new F-16s and instead only providing modernizations to existing inventory.

It's almost as if they have no desire to buy new versions of old aircraft when there are newer aircraft available (that they paid good money to develop) for their limited procurement budget...

[Sjovenia]

If a country wanted to produce a new build arsenal plane/missile carrier (rather than an ancient Cold War bomber, let's say the country didn't field strategic bombers during that time period), what would it look like? Obviously it would be using commercial high-bypass turbofans for efficiency reasons (Rolls-Royce RB-211 or Pratt & Whitney PW2000, for example). Would they be best served by taking a military cargo aircraft or commercial airliner and converting it into a bomber? Do you guys have designs of this sort?

I think a PMT bomber's engines would best be installed with the likes of a Ford Pinto....from 1972.

Clearly kidding

F-22 never replaced the F-16 and the F-35 has its problems. Couldn't tell you if its been fixed or not but they had a lot of electrical problems and pilots were not getting along well with the new HUD and Helmet system.

F-22 was never supposed to replace F-16 by the time the design was anywhere close to final so I don't know why that's relevant. If you meant F-15, then it was supposed to but the USAF couldn't buy enough so F-15 still exists, but the USAF still isn't buying any more of them, they're just trying to modernize the aircraft they've already bought. Lack of funds to purchase sufficient numbers of F-22s didn't make the USAF decide to buy more F-15Cs.

The same thing is true of F-16, even as F-35 has encountered delays (although it finally reached IOC with the USAF). Despite these delays, the USAF is still not purchasing any new F-16s and instead only providing modernizations to existing inventory.

It's almost as if they have no desire to buy new versions of old aircraft when there are newer aircraft available (that they paid good money to develop) for their limited procurement budget...

Originally they were supposed to but the F-16 was seen as an upgradable air craft and they kept it around. Not to mention funding problems with the F-22 which kind of put a halt on the project. I know F-15s still exist....they fly over my work and place of rest EVERYDAY and its so effin annoying. Buuuut they're taking out ISIS 30% of the time so I guess its alright. Otherwise I'm told its training missions, TDY's, and occasional patrols (probably an excuse for more flight time). The F-16 did have its problems hence the nickname lawn dart which I highly disagree with. Sorry I'm biased towards F-16s...my favorite planes growing up and still are today. Yea no Lockheed Martin is just updating and modifying current systems to make them "new" or rather up to date. However....I believe and I'm not 100% sure on this but Lockheed is still making F-16s (newer models) for NATO countries such as Norway and Turkey and Israel (NATO member?)

[The Corparation]

Since I was designated as OP of this thread by OP of prior thread and since we're on the last page I;m going to designate OP for next thread so we don;t end up like the other threads that hit the limit recently. I hereby designate The Akasha Colony as OP of Air Force Thread Mk III

[Free Asian Ports]

Any thoughts on the Novi Avion?