LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotehow about 500 f 22s 200 b 2s and 300 a 10s
Even after you've added this second list of aircraft your airforce is 34,350 which is still 650 aircraft short of Su47s airforce of 35000.Originally Posted by magic-spaceship
My airforce is less than 10000 and many people have stuck to the 1000-plane limit.
how about 500 f 22s 200 b 2s and 300 a 10s
Even after you've added this second list of aircraft your airforce is 34,350 which is still 650 aircraft short of Su47s airforce of 35000.
My airforce is less than 10000 and many people have stuck to the 1000-plane limit.
limits are for sissies
Ok, a bit contrived, but what the heck,
FIghter & Strike Aircraft
230 x F/A-22 Block 40
80 x B-2C "Conventional" Spirits
171 x F-35C (enough for 3xCVF sized carriers plus some spares and training)
20 x EF-18G (would rather have an F/A-22 or F-35 jammer)
10 x AC-130U
Intelligence, Surveillance, Recon
10 x E-10 Spiral 1 (MP-RTIP)
20 x E-10 Spiral 2 (AWACS)
10 x E-10 Spiral 3 (ELINT)
10 x E-2C+ Advanced Hawkeyes (carrier-born)
20 x RQ-4B Global Hawk (MP-RTIP)
30 x MQ-9A Predator B
20 x 737 MMA
4 x Acquacade SIGINT satellites
4 x Intruder COMINT/ELINT satellites
4 x KH-12 IMINT satellites
4 x Discoverer II SAR/GMTI satellites
20 x various SATCOM satellites
33 x GPS BLock II F satellites
Support
20 x KC-33A (747-400F based tanker conversion)
20 x A330 MRTT
45 x A400M (with tanker pods)
45 x C-17
30 x CH-53 HLR
20 x CV-22
70 x NH90
Traning
20 x T-6 Texan II Primary Trainer
20 x EADS Mako LIFT
10 x Su-30MKI (DACT)
10 x Mig-29SMT-2 (DACT)
Total = 1000
Hey, we are talking fantasy here right???? If you're going to have a fantasy, might as well make it a good one!!!!!!
Clp
Now we are talking.
" I WILL GRAB MY WORLD AND TAKE IT TO MARS"
leave you guy's here in space. Keep fighting
Perhaps, but not playing by the rules of the game is childish.limits are for sissies
I guess that both Su-30MKI and MiG-29SMT-2 are too inefficient to be a trainer aircraft. In fact any battle aircraft is inefficient trainer. The resource of the aircraft - hours it can fly and number of landing/take off cycles is limited - training flights on actual fighter may exaust aircraft like it happens now in India. In addition to that aircrafts which are not designed as trainers have costly engines to replace.
That is why a whole range of special sub-sonic trainers were designed. These have cheaper engines to replace and higher resource in terms of hours and take off/landing cycles. The justification is that only 5% of training requires super sonic capabilities.
In my view Russian Yak-130 and its Italian copy Aermacchi M346 are the best trainers at the moment......
1000 aircraft!
Well, the Belgian aircomponent doesn't have so many aircrafts!
fighters
75 x jas gripen
200 x f/a-22A raptor(can't do without them these days I think)
100 x su-30MKI
50 x eurofighters
75 x f/a-18e superhornet
80 x f-35A jsf
20 x f-16c falcon 'wild weasel'
Bombers/attackers
25 x tu-160 blackjack
25 x b-2C spirit
50 x a-10
50 x f/b-22
recon/patrol
25 x br-1150 atlantique
15 x airbus a310 aew
5 x e-8 jstars
transport
65 x airbus a400M
15 x an-125 condor
uav
15 x rq-1 predator
15 x rq-4 global hawk
tankers
20 x airbus a310 mrt
helicopters
50 x pah-2 tiger
75 x augusta a-109
50 x eh101 merlin
Last edited by miglover5; 30 Aug 05, at 19:13.
I don't use them as trainers, per se. I use them as aggressors in Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT).
My primary trainers are 20 x T-6 Texan IIs and 20 x EADS Mako LIFTs.
Who so many types? I can see NavAir vs AF, but why Gripen, Flanker, Falcon, JSF and Raptor? 'Bout the only reason I can think of is one helluva DACT fleet.
Why Blackjacks and Batwings? Why not either/or? (B-2s are far more capable, BTW)
IMHO, A-10s are a waste in this type of exercise, but whatever..
A310 MRTTs are relatively small hose-and-drogue only tankers. That means you can't use them to refuel your F-22s, F-35s, F-16s, B-2s, FB-22s, A-10s, or E-8s, and I kinda doubt they can handle any Russian aircraft.
Better to use the larger A330 MRTTs or KC-767s, with both hose-and-drogue and boom capabilities. Plus, they both have significantly larger fuel offload capability.
Last edited by B.Smitty; 31 Aug 05, at 02:41.
B-52s are nice if you actually have to worry about money, but in this thread, might as well go for all B-2s. Batwings can fire JASSMs and carry large amounts of ordinance, but BUFFs can't penetrate a sophisticated IADS.
Decent, though only 10 E-3s will make it tough to put up round the clock coverage over more than a couple areas for any length of time. Plus you lack a SAR/GMTI capability.
ABLs are neat, but I'd invest more in ISR capabilities.
If you have F-22s and F-35s, then Nighthawks aren't needed.
F-22s can do everything F-15s can do and a LOT more.
F-105s are museum pieces.
A-10s, eh.. your airforce, not mine.
ICBMs are an interesting choice here, but why not just go all Peacekeeper? If you're gonna start lobbing them, might as well have enough MIRVs to irradiated the whole planet..
[QUOTE=B.Smitty]Who so many types? I can see NavAir vs AF, but why Gripen, Flanker, Falcon, JSF and Raptor? 'Bout the only reason I can think of is one helluva DACT fleet.
Every type of plane has it's one benefits. F.e. the gripen is a good point defence fighter because is is designed to operate from highways and it has an excellent thrust/weight ratio; the f/a-18e is a good strike aircraft because of its high payload; ...
By the way, exept for the f-16c those aircrafts aren't combat tested yet, and I think you can't rely on statistics...
There are so many types of planes in my airforce because I think it is a sort of insurance policy...
Awesome!! My airforce would look something like that. LOL
Last edited by akash; 04 Sep 05, at 00:08.
[QUOTE=miglover5]
Gripen doesn't have close to the T/W of an F-22, Typhoon or even Su-30MKI, and if you're forced to fight a war from highways, you're screwed. Plus it has miserable range. Fine if you want to defend the local Quick-E-Mart, but terrible if you actually want to take the war to the enemy.
The biggest thing going for the Super Hornet is it can land on carriers, otherwise it's nothing special. Both the F-22 and Su-30MKI can out carry it, and the F-22 will eat its lunch in A2A.
Combat testing is nice, but not essential. I'll take untested F-22s over all the other comat tested types out there and sleep well at night. The fact of the matter is, we know stealth works, and the F-22 is one of the stealthiest out there. Add to that it's world-beating kinematic performance, and the only thing you need to worry about is rebooting your avionics in flight.
The best thing about the F-16C is its price. But since we aren't dollar constrained in this exercise, it's not all that special. A useful HARM shooter perhaps (but then again, so is the F/A-18E)
An insurance policy is maybe two types (with different engines). More than that is a waste, IMHO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: