Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Create an Air Force

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by magic-spaceship
    50 CB-17 Globmasters - converted as heavy platform for saturation launches of
    the stealthy AGM-137 TSSAM (Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile), and
    AGM 136 Tacit Rainbow anti-radiation loitering missles to be sent in after the
    AGM-137's to attack any radars that come on after the initial AGM-137 strike

    1,000 F18G ECM

    1,000 EF-111 Raven ECM - rebuilt with new engines and new electronics

    5,000 Minute Man Silos

    2,000 Midgetman Hardened Mobile Launches


    still thinking of some more

    basicaly my airforce is a wet dream - but it pawns
    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.

    Comment


    • #92
      how about 500 f 22s 200 b 2s and 300 a 10s

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by hello
        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

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by BUFFB52
          Now this is just for fun..the total of aircraft you can have is 1,000, and can use modern or future aircraft.

          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

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Captain C
            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 :)

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by magic-spaceship
              limits are for sissies
              Perhaps, but not playing by the rules of the game is childish.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by B.Smitty
                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)
                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......

                Comment


                • #98
                  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,, 18:13.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Garry
                    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.

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by miglover5
                      1000 aircraft!
                      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'
                      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.


                      Originally posted by miglover5
                      Bombers/attackers

                      25 x tu-160 blackjack

                      25 x b-2C spirit

                      50 x a-10

                      50 x f/b-22
                      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.. ;)

                      Originally posted by miglover5
                      tankers

                      20 x airbus a310 mrt
                      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,, 01:41.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Equilibrium
                        Bombers and C4I
                        30 B 52H- The ultimate nuclear penetration variant- capable of carrying 24 cruise
                        missiles with hundreads of miles of range with either nuclear or
                        conventional warheads.

                        30 B 52D- The true modified area bomber variant, capable of carrying approx 100
                        500lb bombs.

                        2 E-4B- I might have direct my airforce's battle operations, not to mention my
                        strategic nuclear deterrent should it be neccesary.

                        2 VC-25A I must travel with the perception of power and majesty befitting my
                        position.

                        20 B-2-
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Equilibrium
                        10 E-3 AWACS
                        2 EC-135 Looking Glass
                        6 Airborne Laser E-4
                        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.


                        Originally posted by Equilibrium
                        Fighter-Bomber
                        50 F-117
                        100 F35
                        100 F-22
                        70 F/A-18E
                        70 F-15I
                        20 F-105 Wld Weasel
                        40 A-10
                        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. ;)

                        Originally posted by Equilibrium
                        ICBM's
                        20 Peacekeeper
                        40 Minuteman III
                        10 SS-18
                        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..

                        Comment


                        • [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...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Captain C
                            1000 Peacekeeper ICBM's 'Nuff said

                            :ph34r

                            Awesome!! My airforce would look something like that. LOL
                            Last edited by akash; 03 Sep 05,, 23:08.

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=miglover5]
                              Originally posted by B.Smitty
                              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...

                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X