Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

AUSA and others feel the F-22 in many respects and especially for stealth is about the best out there. However in many Top 10 lists it's easily in the Top 5. It should be noted that the Russians pretty much round out the rest of the Top 5 in combat maneuverability etc., which I fully can appreciate going back to the MiG-29. However the PAK-FA/T-50 appears from a stealth point of view to not be near as good as earlier reported, even the below is suggesting the same not surprised as the F-35 has fallen a little in this category as well. Bottom-line the F-22 will probably remain the only true 5th Gen fighter for many years to come. Next is one with a different take on the Top 10 list...
http://www.military-today.com/aircra...r_aircraft.htm
http://www.military-today.com/aircra...hoi_pak_fa.htm

We had a question I believe in the British OOB/or APC Threads on transport capability...
http://www.military-today.com/aircra...master_III.htm
You can carry one Warrior. The C-17 has a 48.3 ton cargo limit. Therefore from a cost point of view and the obvious risk factors it's unlikely to be used for that purpose.

The West has only one cargo plane to carry that out and it's the C-5A. The original C-5 can hold 2 x M1A1 tanks/16 3/4 ton trucks or 10 LAV-25 vehicles.
http://www.military-today.com/aircra...c_5_galaxy.htm

Now the real reason I'm here...Congratulations to the CORPS...yes they are the first ones to deploy the APKWS II on a fixed wing aircraft the venerable AV-8B Harrier II (And I take this moment to thank our friends "across the pond" for giving us such a GREAT DEAL on their fully updated almost 100 million dollars spent on the GR.7/9 Harriers. ). The USAF won't be far behind as it ran coordinated tests with, can you guess (?), you're right the A-10 WARTHOG. They had some issues with the jets that entailed a modified housing/FIXED. The USAF F-16 and USN F/A-18E/F were also used in testing. I have no data on the status with those jets.
http://www.janes.com/article/59175/a...-usmc-harriers

Time to "wind down" from work. Have a great day!!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Only around 8 months earlier then I had them appearing in the OOB. Rather refreshing to have something deployed early rather then late or not at all.

Also:
http://defense-update.com/20160320_apkws-2.html

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I was reading some of my "newspapers" when I came across the below article. In this case concerning the UK's TYPHOON fighter-bomber. I have openly stated that any aircraft submitted by me will have it's proper "noun name" given vice say F-4/or PHANTOM. Sub typing is important because they represent improved capabilities and progression in technologies and weapons at different times through an aircraft's "lifetime" and makes it easier to apply them to units in the game for instance again using the F-4, there were huge differences from the F-4A > F-4E (The most prolific model of the type.) for instance the "A" wasn't a gun carrier, the "C" didn't have them until they mounted the SUU-16 gun pods which caused serious "drag" issues which wouldn't be addressed until the "E" came along and mounted the internal General Electric Vulcan (M61A) 20 mm, six-barrel, rotary-cannon with 639 rounds. That's just a gun issue and obviously doesn't even touch any other ones that would effect game play such as EW, Vision, Weapons etc. etc.

So back to the article as the above was a "demonstration", if you keep up in the flying world you know the EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON is a highly advanced fighter-bomber it is currently developed up to the TRANCHE 3. The affect to the UK OOB specifically (And I'm afraid to look at the other countries involved.) concerning UNIT 509 EF-2000 is...

1. Name change to TYPHOON TRANCHE 1 or simply TYPHOON T1 as the T# designation is a widely excepted "term" if you will in the literature.

2. A decision will need to be made to " terminate" the TYPHOON T1 with a change to the end date based on this article as the AM/RAF is about to pull the T1 from service as a fighter-bomber to strictly in the role of an air defense only fighter. I believe we should do this when the time comes which seems to be in the not too distant future as I'll have the other types submitted as discussed below.

3. ADD the other two types with the improvements upon each one even if represented by only one game appropriate unit. This will allow me/us to address any advances in technologies and weapons that would improve game play to the type as time moves towards the games calendar end. The UK's TYPHOON T1-T3 will be flying until 2040.
http://www.janes.com/article/59243/r...-defence-force
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

A note about AUSA they are one of the most respected aircraft sites on the web/or publication. They are scientific in their approach and were one of the first to publicly "call out" the capabilities or lack there of the F-35. If interested in jets and air defense systems this is a good place to start. The last update for all articles is shown between the tabs at the top of the page.

As I've noted in this thread before over the history of this game "typing" of armor has been to some degree been handled better than with aircraft. I'm not saying we have a problem to lose sleep over but, some of my biggest issues in dealing with advances as I've noted above, have come from the aircraft side of the house in trying to match the improvements to the proper aircraft where sometimes my best clue comes from the years that aircraft has been submitted for in the game. This to me is a workload reduction issue I think all can benefit from in the long run.

I would guess as far as EW is concerned for fighter-bomber/fighters that the F-22 sets the high water mark in the game? Just trying to define that number so I have a mental "slide rule" to work from. Thanks!

Regards,
Pat

[IronDuke99]

I am confused by this -probably my fault- all I hear from the RAF types is making Typhoon a better Fighter Bomber, since she is already a good air superiority fighter (Indeed the RAF got some flak for getting an aircraft that might win a new battle of Britain, while ditching Royal Navy FAA Sea Harrier 2 and then 'joint' Harriers, all be it the AV8b was crap at air to air)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm not sure of the confusion, I'm merely pointing an aircraft's progression is tied into technological advances across the board to include avionics (Non factor in our game.), electronics (EW, Vision) and weapons. The RAF has not let you down many of the TYPHOON T2/T3 improvements dealt specifically with it's fighter-bomber capabilities some were weapons and others sensor driven (Which means software updates etc. etc.). What I really didn't pay attention to is it's SEAD role it appears to be highly capable of that mission as well. Because I won't pay ADOBE for certain services, I can't extract the data I wanted off their (Eurofighter) PDF download of technical data. However I found the same charts on line for the TYPHOON's various weapons configurations. The comparison picture of the side by side weapons configurations of the TYPHOON and RAFALE are from a different source but very useful none the less.







The actual picture is of a TYPHOON T1. Again do note the SEAD configuration.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I missed this initially as I looked for it under TYPHOON and not EUROFIGHTER..., so these guys are pretty good and it discusses the "progression" issue I brought in my last 2 posts. The following is taken from ref. 1 below..."The contract for tranche 2 phase 1 enhancement (P1E) was placed in March 2007. This includes the integration of Raytheon Paveway IV 500lb and Enhanced Paveway EGBU-16 1,000lb guided bombs and a new laser designator pod."

So as you can see it covers new weapons and an improved laser targeting system. Except for some work here to get these in, I don't know what more I can offer here concerning this plane.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/
http://www.military-today.com/aircra...er_typhoon.htm
http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Mil...-2000-Typhoon/

I'm off to la la land it was a busy week at the "grind".

Regards,
Pat

[IronDuke99]

I note that not everyone likes F35 on here. Understandably enough given its cost, delays, etc.

I used to be a critic of it myself, especially the STOVL F35B for the Royal Navy, being a supporter of putting cats and traps on the two very large new RN carriers and buying Super Hornet and, perhaps, later F35C.

However, sadly, this is not going to happen, although the good news is that the normal, peace time, carrier air group on the carriers will now be 24 -rather than the original rather pathetic 12- F35B...

Why did I change my mind about F35? Simple really, having worked hard for years to make sure my boy did not follow family tradition and join the Army -too many dead soldiers in wars we did not win, and never had a plan to win, in Iraq and Afghan for my taste- he decided to try for a Commission after University in the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm. Oh the plans of mice and men...

Anyway to bring this back on topic, F35 seems just as easy as any other aircraft for SAMs to destroy in the game, despite its (frontal ark) stealth. Is that the case?

[Imp]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

I note that not everyone likes F35 on here.
Anyway to bring this back on topic, F35 seems just as easy as any other aircraft for SAMs to destroy in the game, despite its (frontal ark) stealth. Is that the case?

Probably better asked in a separate thread but game terms defence wise its a standard decent modern ground attack plane similar to British Typhoon, JSF
EW of 7-10 & size of 4-5 are the norm for the good stuff.
So yes its in the same ballpark its not a F22 that's in a different league entirely with its high EW

Its main problem is its slow so fairly vulnerable to AAA guns as they get to fire more shots at it.

[whdonnelly]

The Afghans are starting to use the Super Tocano with laser guided Paveway and Hellfire missile among other options. So far it's been a great option against an enemy without much air defense.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

Its main problem is its slow so fairly vulnerable to AAA guns as they get to fire more shots at it.

It's the classic problem.
Slow aircraft hit ground targets better, fast ones are less vulnerable to AA.