Jump to content

OOC: Aircraft


Aiden Ford
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a response to Coby Sebs assumptions about Aircraft.

First, let us go to engines.

Almost All Aircraft since the 1970s in American Inventory have used the same engine under different Modification, the F101 General Electric Turbofan.(B-1 Lancer, F-16, F-14, B-2 Spirit, Lockheed U-2) that engine alone, generates enough thrust for everything I need. Then considering the next two engines in Aviation Development(American Side) the General Electric YF120 Turbofan began testing as part of the YF-23 and YF-22 Programs. It lost to the Pratt & Whitney F119 Engine in the competition, but instead was converted into the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 Engine for the JSF Program. Since the F/A-22's engine's first test run was in the early 80s, as part of the Program, the Pratt & Whitney F119, and General Electric YF120 are both capable for service for anyone who wants to use them prior to 1987. Now, should you wish to go Russian Side, they have been using the Saturn AL-31 Turbofan Engine for all Sukhoi Jet Fighters since the SU-27 took flight in 1977. The AL-31 is capable of thrust vectoring, it is an overall good engine.

Secondly, let us go to Avionics.

The APG-63 Avionics Package built into the F-15 Fighters is the standard for most Aircraft today(Design wise). It was first fielded in 1973, it provides the radar support for the entire aircraft.

Thirdly, let us go to Missiles.

Omm nom nom nom, the AIM-9 Sidewinder. Such an old little thing there aint she? Started Production in 1953. Currently, the USAF uses the AIM-9R Sidewinder, developed in 1987.

Ohh, the AIM-7 Sparrow, the AIM-7D in 1959, AIM-7F in 1976, or AIM-7M 1982(What is used today). I do not even feel like posting that entire argument.

Currently the only thing that was out of service is the AIM-120 AMRAAM. It was first introduced in 1991. It had been tested in the 1980s, and used by a A-10 in 1982 as part of a test firing.

------------------------------------------

So, Herro. I think I have just laid out all of the arguments against custom Aircraft.

Oh yea, Physics. Forgot all about Physics.

If you develop something like say this

F302.jpg

and expect it to fly against something like say this?

F15Wing1.jpg

I would put my money on the F-15 with one wing. I am pretty sure anyone else who knows something about Aircraft would tend to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem RPing modern aircraft...its the peeps who say they've got 2010 aircraft and think its a hell of alot better because its 2 years past me...

Last time I checked, 1987 aircraft are just as effective as some current models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem RPing modern aircraft...its the peeps who say they've got 2010 aircraft and think its a hell of alot better because its 2 years past me...

Last time I checked, 1987 aircraft are just as effective as some current models.

They are the current models

This is why I don't custom build anything. I'd rather just use actual military technology then make tiny tweaks as my tech level goes up.

I mostly use Modern Aircraft as a Basis of of models. My Mainstay, the MiF is a extensive F-15 modification for higher speeds and a heavier load. Unfortunatly that caused a massive reduction in turning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the current models

I know, but I'm talking about a 1987 squadron vs. a 2010 plane. People say the one plane wins simply because there is 23 years between the two different aircrafts. It happens alot and I see it. Just because someone says they have modern planes they can just win a dogfight simply because thier planes are modern. No strategy involved...might I add.

The last war was terrible with it. Should aircraft strategy, formations, positioning, and environment play an effect on this game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, but I'm talking about a 1987 squadron vs. a 2010 plane. People say the one plane wins simply because there is 23 years between the two different aircrafts. It happens alot and I see it. Just because someone says they have modern planes they can just win a dogfight simply because thier planes are modern. No strategy involved...might I add.

The last war was terrible with it. Should aircraft strategy, formations, positioning, and environment play an effect on this game?

If it did play a part it would be a much better game. For instance.

Lynneth has a Anti-Air Network that he claims is unstoppable. I admit, there are very few reasons I would ever want to have to tackle it, but if forced into a conflict with him via my Parent State Rebel Virginia, I would have a certain strategy to go about it. I would use a tactic developed in vietnam called the Wild Weasel, which is where you use one Aircraft as bait(Usually a Bomber Formation) to determine where your enemies RADAR and SAM installations are, while a squadron of low flying Aircraft(less than 50 meters above the ground) goes in with Unguided or Guided Munitions, and hits the sites, thus disabling the enemies Air Defenses.

In Dogfighting, yet again tactics should play a part in my mind, but that is because I know more about tactics, say someone like Lavo was against someone like say James Wilson, Lavo would eat him alive, even with Inferior Aircraft because Lavo would use manuvers and tactics that are used in real life against adversaries. If you got an Aircraft behind me, and I was flying a J-35 Draken I would use something called the Cobra to make you fly past me, while I use my superior agility to get a lock on you, and get out of dodge after I fired off a shot.

So, in effect, they should, but shouldn't.

Tactics should be an offset to Technology. You can have superior technology and retarded pilots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynneth has a Anti-Air Network that he claims is unstoppable.

That is actually partially propaganda on my side. 'Course it isn't impenetrable and someone with the right tactics could get through. But it's hard, and you have to do it right. Possibly like what you described there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just overwhelming firepower.

Lanchester's laws is scientific stuff.

I read that, it has some bearing in combat, but I believe there are only 3 Factors

People(The Soldiers)

Technology(body Armor, not so much weapons. a SMLE can outfire a M-16 with a Trained Soldier)

Luck(Yes, luck)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem RPing modern aircraft...its the peeps who say they've got 2010 aircraft and think its a hell of alot better because its 2 years past me...

Last time I checked, 1987 aircraft are just as effective as some current models.

While this is somewhat true, it is also true that aircraft developed in 87 have since been significantly upgraded, and newer models are more effective than older ones.

As for tactics, when your RPing large engagements doing tactics one on one doesn't really work out practically.

Edit: I will say that I've done quite a bit of research on the JSF. I am pretty convinced that people are under selling it here. By most professional accounts I can find its is the second best fighter too the F-22. I do not think arm chair generalling on the part of teenagers/college students should be taken as gospel over actual professionals there.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the first aircraft picture just for reference to new aircraft (its from stargate :awesome:)? I'd put my money on the F-15 with one wing still.

Training/tatics/good RP can be better than another person with good tech (now we all gotta faer whoever has both! :o). An example: Canada has some of the best sniper training in the world, and is known to have extreamly good snipers; on the other hand, the U.S. has far better sniper-rifles, but the snipers (although good) are not as good as Canadian snipers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is somewhat true, it is also true that aircraft developed in 87 have since been significantly upgraded, and newer models are more effective than older ones.

As for tactics, when your RPing large engagements doing tactics one on one doesn't really work out practically.

Edit: I will say that I've done quite a bit of research on the JSF. I am pretty convinced that people are under selling it here. By most professional accounts I can find its is the second best fighter too the F-22. I do not think arm chair generalling on the part of teenagers/college students should be taken as gospel over actual professionals there.

The JSF is awesome. Pretty much my entire RP airforce is JSF's.

I agree with most of the sentiment in this thread. I'm quite boring and it riles me when people start establishing over the top technologies, especially with aircraft and navies (bloody EMP weapons for eg). Personally i'd prefer to see all military hardware based upon real life, existing or in development equipment, but i recognise that would not be acceptable to many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having it a bit advanced is not a big deal. (EMPs btw are not end all stuff, a lot of units are designed to withstand EMPs as it is part of a nuclear explosion and particularly weapons in the Cold war were designed to operate in full scale nuclear war in Central Europe.)

I think though if you claim that your Gen 5 or Gen 6 fighter is completely beyond the F-22 or F-35 that is stretching it. The F-22 and F-35 are 2020 tech. The same way the F-15 is 1995 tech despite starting service in the 70s. These are the units that are going to be in service at the time. If you have something better thats fine but if you go toe to toe with these things, and tech levels are within a few years of eachother, you can assume some upgrades similar to the way the F-15, F-16, and F-18 have been upgraded through the years to put them on par with these craft.

I'm fairly confident from what I've read, that the other major powers of the world in 2020 (China, EU, Russia) will still be plenty scared of the F-22 and F-35. Additionally you gotta take a full range of capabilities into account, C3, missile range, pilot training etc. Nations which have foughten more wars (assuming all their airforce didn't get shot down) or RP a lot of pilot training probably have better pilots. If someone at roughly my tech year RPs fully upgraded F-22s versus my F-50s, my F-50s may have some edge, but they aren't going to massacre the F-22.

What I don't like is when people find a picture and then claim it, and then when others try to find a picture to build a matching fighter people !@#$%*. It seems unfair to me.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I RP my Lufforsvare (airforce): There are a bunch of arcades all around the nation, and they have simulator games which are not unlike our ASFs and JAS-39s. The kids (usually around 10) who perform exceptionally well, are chosen for pilot training. They are heavily educated, heavily trained, and well treated.

But then someone says, LOL F-22s! And $%&@ all about my training, they've got retards piloting F-22s.

super-retard.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ awesome

I could see a fighter designed like the b-2 bomb. As just a flying wing, but just because you're behind in tech year doesn't mean you isntantly lose. Old fashioned guns STILL shoot down jet planes.

And thats been aircraft tech since when? early world war 1?

IG stats are a nice starting point for basic advantages and how events will start off. RP decides the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not lie, the F/A-22 has several features that are great. namely

* Stealth

* Thrust Vectoring

* Its a frigging computer

However, the F-35, by all accounts is just trying to do to much. It would be like creating an swiss army knife that had a bazooka, and ak-47 built in. then, dont even get me started on the cost.

-------

On to the EMP Subject.

Sure, fire away, here let me jump in my draken, and watch as you go QQ while I go Pew-Pew in your base because I don't rely on electronics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not lie, the F/A-22 has several features that are great. namely

* Stealth

* Thrust Vectoring

* Its a frigging computer

However, the F-35, by all accounts is just trying to do to much. It would be like creating an swiss army knife that had a bazooka, and ak-47 built in. then, dont even get me started on the cost.

-------

On to the EMP Subject.

Sure, fire away, here let me jump in my draken, and watch as you go QQ while I go Pew-Pew in your base because I don't rely on electronics.

I've read accounts on both sides, its no doubt not an F-22. However, compared too other planes they are good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...