Shipbucket

Slingsby Firefly perhaps for an elementary trainer? Also of note the F-15C model appears to be an F-15E.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

My navy will operate 2 Fleet Logistic Carriers and 5 large Amphibious ships, that is where the F-18s and F-35s are going.

The trainer aircraft for my Armed Forces are BAE Hawks, are those not good trainers? I suggested when you haven't got any propeller planes in your inventory you wouldn't need them as trainer either.

But I'll look into those trainer options, and will use the correct F-15.

But Thiel please do not refer anything from my AU to the real life, for instance if the Cold War would have continued the Tornado's would easily have flown another few years. But as I said the Tornado would be phased out around the year 2020, when the delivery of all F35s is completed, so that will take care of that problem.

Edit
I added the Pilatus PC-9 trainer next to the BAE Hawk, and used the F-15A model for the F-15C, I suppose they are the same in outer appearance?

_________________
“The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it.”

You can't just drop people onto jets from simulators you need some sort of physical experience previous to doing so. Alternative if you don't want to add them to your own inventory is to write in a pact/agreement with somewhere else to aid with the pilot training.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

PC-9 solves that problem?

_________________
“The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it.”

The Hawk is a perfectly good trainer, but just like you didn't take your drivers licence in a Porsche 911, but in a banged up station wagon, new pilots train in relatively cheap, and sturdy, prop trainers.
Jets, no matter the type, are demanding machines and you you have to know how to fly before you start flying them.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

To show you guys that I have not been sitting still over the past couple of days, I want to show you two of the designs for my navy.

I will add a lot more information over the weekend, but it is just to share them with you, and maybe catch some comments about them.


This is the 1996 design of the Global Operations Command Cruiser, intended to operate as a
flagship in any fleet, and provide long-range air-defense. Pretty much the same role as the Ticonderoga
Cruisers in the USN. Note the earlier version of the APAR, which needed more space because of the computers
in the 1990s. The guns are from another AU, but they have to resemble a 155mm gun from Fox Industries in
cooperation with Oto Melara, and the 76mm's at the rear are Oto Melara's 76mm SR/Next Generation. A little
different RAM, which uses the StarStreak missile from the UK. And the smaller guns are Stealth versions of the
Goalkeeper, with Mk.2 software installed. Further more 2x 64cell VLS Mk42 (A derative of the Mk41 to operate larger cruise missiles).


A design from 1994. This class is intended to replace the S-class frigates from 1999-onwards.
Note the US-influence on the overall building style, and the same radars as the M-frigates. At first
these ship were considered top-heavy, which resulted in a much wider beam than the original design.

These ships were also intended as the test-bed for NATO's first dedicated Anti-carrier missile, the TMS-01,
otherwise known as the AGM-44 Spear. They were also equipped with the TMS-11 medium-range SAM, which
is to replace the Sea Sparrow in service.

Have fun enjoying them

_________________
“The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it.”

I like them, especially the first one!
btw, is the SMART-L placed to the side or am I seeing that wrong?
the only problem I have with this ship is that the VLS at the stern might interfere with the rudder mechanics.
and why have you taken a starstreak without it's 'subminitions' ?
and for the second one: are those STIR 240's you have placed on it? (I am currently working on an better version of the 240 myself, but I don't have it perfect, and yours look slightly different from the real ones, so.....)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

No, it means to resemble a central tower with leaning curves, but I see I forgot to color it properly.
And note definitely take on the rear VLS, that is not possible so I'll have to look at that again.
I thought that was the drawing of the starstreak missile, do you have the correct one? And yes
that is the STIR 240, in combination with the STIR 180. I believe or Alvama, or Mitchell drew those
a little while back.

_________________
“The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it.”

That cruiser is a damn sight better than anything I've come up with, rather impressive.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

miho drew the 180, and I started drawing the 240 yesterday...

can't get it right though, and where have you find that 240 then? I haven't seen it yet....
and for the starstreak: http://www.shipbucket.com/Parts%20Sheet ... ersSAM.png this (old) sheet has one that I used myself, and I thought it showed the missile more correct..... yours is exactly the same, except for one pixel on top, if I'm not wrong....

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin