| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| Multi-Role Fighter http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3160 |
Page 1 of 5 |
| Author: | gordo8000 [ June 10th, 2012, 11:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Multi-Role Fighter |
Since these polls seem to be all the rage right now, I decided to make one. I've been having trouble deciding on the primary multi-role fighter for my new AU. I'm rather partial to the F-14, but I could definitely be persuaded to go with a different aircraft. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ June 11th, 2012, 12:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter |
Who are you close to? When are you buying (any time after about 1990 the F-14 is out of the question)? The when question really drives the selection. |
|
| Author: | gordo8000 [ June 11th, 2012, 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter |
Haven't really worked out the details but I was originally thinking close to the US. I think I'm going to remove the last option because there no way in hell the US would export the F-22 in any form. |
|
| Author: | Trojan [ June 11th, 2012, 12:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter |
awww beet me to the next poll the F-14 is a 40 some old design so I don't think you should go with that I'm a huge fan of the Gripen its very agile, the NG versions adds some much needed payload to the design, has a new AESA radar, can takeoff from your everyday freeway, has low maintenance, and is relatively cheap. While it would cost a lot to develop a carrier version you can partner with Brazil on making it THe F-35C is arguably the best design around but I don't think you would be able to have it in service for around another ten years though I may be wrong about that Su-33 isn't a multi-role fighter and RUssia is replacing it with the Mig-29K so I don't know how capable it is though you could upgrade it with western systems but that could create its old problems. F-22 is impossible to get and would cost a ton plus carrier development costs ***edit I see this option has been eliminated FA-18E is an excellent design, is proven, and should not be very expensive as large numbers are being built I think its a good choice though a very few parts of the design may are a bit long in the tooth its essentially an entirely new aircraft Rafale is great but it requires all its own weapons compared to your other planes I'm assuming you have. Unless you are ok with this or can convince the French to let you modify it to use AMerican and European weapons I don't think its your best bet (remember India already uses these weapons) thats just my honest opinion and two cense. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ June 11th, 2012, 12:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter |
You still haven't answered my when question. Are you buying in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, or 2015? |
|
| Author: | gordo8000 [ June 11th, 2012, 12:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter |
2005-2010 time frame. |
|
| Author: | klagldsf [ June 11th, 2012, 12:31 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter | |
Since these polls seem to be all the rage right now
Yeah well there's a reason why I never participated in them...Anyway, with no information whatsoever about your AU I would guess either F-18 or Rafale, just because they would represent the most bang for the buck. I'm going to be generous and assume your nation doesn't have the typical unlimited GDPs that are common in NationStates. |
||
| Author: | gordo8000 [ June 11th, 2012, 12:33 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter | |
Yeah well there's a reason why I never participated in them...
No it does not. And on a side note, I think NationStates is a complete and utter sham.
Anyway, with no information whatsoever about your AU I would guess either F-18 or Rafale, just because they would represent the most bang for the buck. I'm going to be generous and assume your nation doesn't have the typical unlimited GDPs that are common in NationStates. |
||
| Author: | TimothyC [ June 11th, 2012, 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter |
Well 2005-2010 means that you can still buy into the F-35 program, but the first aircraft are the better part of a decade away. The Su-33 isn't a new plane, and as others have noted, are being replaced. Ski-jumps wreck havoc on aircraft. The F-14D tooling doesn't exist anymore, so that's out of the running also. The Navalized Gripen doesn't exist in any other form than dirty paper as far as I've been able to tell, and with that size, buying into the HAL Tejas program would probably be a less-bad purchase (think about that for a moment). A Navalized F-22 is on the other side of plausibility relative to us from the navalized Gripen (it would be an all new airframe). That leaves us with the Rafale or the Super Hornet. Such a decision would come down to a lot of factors including who offers the better overall package and who is less likely to cut you off if you start going weird. |
|
| Author: | gordo8000 [ June 11th, 2012, 2:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Multi-Role Fighter |
On the topic of a navalised F-22, may I direct your attention to this link: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html |
|
| Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|