Air Superiority and Strike Fighters improvement suggestions

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      Again as I said, the F-22 and the F-35 Have listening radars. But they wont use their AESA radars encase someone locks onto them.
      The point of them is, you outta know where you enemies are. Or use force multipliers like some AWACS.

      Simply put, they easier to detect with when they using their radars to search for things. Harder to spot when not
      The Stealth Aircraft should still be given radars until CON can sort out Turning Radars on and off. I just don't what idiot though it would be a great a idea to not give 5th generation fighters equipped with the best radars available, but then give heavy bombers radar. It should be the other way round. I am performing tactical bombing missions using strategic heavy bombers and stragetic bombing using stealth fighters. Stealth fighters have radar, but they have the capability not use them. But not giving them radar quite literally makes no sense whatsoever. Especially when they giving units radar which don't even posses such ability.
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      If the F-35 killed off all the raptors, why are the raptors supposed to fulfill the failing air to air role of the F-35.
      The F-35 killed off the Raptors funding since it was meant to be a cheaper 5th generation fighter to complement the F-22. Like the f-16 was to the F-15. But the F-35 ended up being just expensive and even problematic. The F-22 is not fulfilling the F-35 role in any way whatsoever. The F-22 was the replacement to the air superiority variant of the F-15 Family (F-15A, F-15C/D). But even the F-22 has not replaced the F-15 since the USAF stop buying F-22s and F-15s are still in service. There are so few F-22's that the USAF is going to have to upgrade the ageing F-15s. The F-35 role is contuining to be furfilled by what it was suspossed to replace the F-16, F-15E, F/A-18, AV-8B Harrier. Like with the F-22 the US military has been forced to buy or upgrade legacy fighters since the F-35 is no where to be seen.

      But I completely agree with you on the F-15SE it looks like a sick and more pratical 5th generation fighter to develop. If I was in the US administration today. I would kill the F-35C variant and launch a 5th generation naval fighter programme. I would also pour money into the F-15SE so it can replace the older F-15 legacy fighters and complement the raptor and replace some of the older F-15e strike Fighters. Sadly it is too late to kill the F-35A and F-35B. The F-35B cannot be killed due to the fact it is the variant the British government is buying so the US has international pressure from it's primary international partner to keep that one going, also the new US defense secretary was a former marine, so I doubt he will kill off the US Marine Corp's replacement for the AV-8B. Although TBH why do the Marines even need a airforce? F-35A also has too many international orders for the US to cut production. If the US cancelled its procurement of the F-35A, it would make the F-35A more expensive for everyone else to the point they will cut production. If that happens these customers will look elsewhere for a 5th generation fighter and my even develop their own (Japan and Turkey are already doing so). Europe would probably collectively develop another Typhoon like fighter. So despite all it's flaws there is still alot of money to be made by keeping it going for the US. So my conclusion Kill the F-35C and build the F-15SE. But the Pentagon seems lack any coherent strategic vision or fiscal control. So I doubt this will happen. If anything the F-15SE will be developed by Boeing for the Export market (Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia). When old USAF begin falling out of the Sky then maybe the USAF will buy some.
    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      If the F-35 killed off all the raptors, why are the raptors supposed to fulfill the failing air to air role of the F-35.
      The F-35 killed off the Raptors funding since it was meant to be a cheaper 5th generation fighter to complement the F-22. Like the f-16 was to the F-15. But the F-35 ended up being just expensive and even problematic. The F-22 is not fulfilling the F-35 role in any way whatsoever. The F-22 was the replacement to the air superiority variant of the F-15 Family (F-15A, F-15C/D). But even the F-22 has not replaced the F-15 since the USAF stop buying F-22s and F-15s are still in service. There are so few F-22's that the USAF is going to have to upgrade the ageing F-15s. The F-35 role is contuining to be furfilled by what it was suspossed to replace the F-16, F-15E, F/A-18, AV-8B Harrier. Like with the F-22 the US military has been forced to buy or upgrade legacy fighters since the F-35 is no where to be seen.
      But I completely agree with you on the F-15SE it looks like a sick and more pratical 5th generation fighter to develop. If I was in the US administration today. I would kill the F-35C variant and launch a 5th generation naval fighter programme. I would also pour money into the F-15SE so it can replace the older F-15 legacy fighters and complement the raptor and replace some of the older F-15e strike Fighters. Sadly it is too late to kill the F-35A and F-35B. The F-35B cannot be killed due to the fact it is the variant the British government is buying so the US has international pressure from it's primary international partner to keep that one going, also the new US defense secretary was a former marine, so I doubt he will kill off the US Marine Corp's replacement for the AV-8B. Although TBH why do the Marines even need a airforce? F-35A also has too many international orders for the US to cut production. If the US cancelled its procurement of the F-35A, it would make the F-35A more expensive for everyone else to the point they will cut production. If that happens these customers will look elsewhere for a 5th generation fighter and my even develop their own (Japan and Turkey are already doing so). Europe would probably collectively develop another Typhoon like fighter. So despite all it's flaws there is still alot of money to be made by keeping it going for the US. So my conclusion Kill the F-35C and build the F-15SE. But the Pentagon seems lack any coherent strategic vision or fiscal control. So I doubt this will happen. If anything the F-15SE will be developed by Boeing for the Export market (Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia). When old USAF begin falling out of the Sky then maybe the USAF will buy some.
      Dude its not too late. And they should cancel all 3 variants not just 1. The Pentagon has said that the F-35 will not be used for air to air combat and that the F-22 will fulfil that role ( I know how utterly stupid that is, brits dont have F-22 neither does USMC or the USN. And the Air force doesn't have enough F-22s. O yea, the F-22 is overrated t0o) (Cant find the link now, will have to do it later). I wouldnt keep the F-35 in any service branch tbh.

      But yea, F-15s still the best in the world. I like the European fighters, but couldnt say any can beat the F-15. Either in the strike role (Rafele or Gripen) The F-15 Eagle wins. Or the Air supremacy role ( Typhoon ) Id say the F-15 will still kick as$.

      Stealth is really a myth or a over hype. Really its an advantage but doesnt mean they are completely invisible, just gives the upper hand some times. Cant sacrifice certain requirements for stealth ability. Stealth ability should come secondary to a good fighter. Which is the case with the F-15 Silent eagle
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      But yea, F-15s still the best in the world. I like the European fighters, but couldnt say any can beat the F-15. Either in the strike role (Rafele or Gripen) The F-15 Eagle wins. Or the Air supremacy role ( Typhoon ) Id say the F-15 will still kick as$
      Maybe 10 years ago the F-15 would have been dominant im air-air. But in mock battles conducted between the Luftwaffe and RAF against the USAF the Typhoon wins. Typhoon has a smaller Radar Cross section, is more agile and has AESA radar. Something the F-15 still lacks (Although not for long). The F-15 however can carry a heavier payload, is faster and has longer legs. The F-15SA and Typhoon would be a closer match. But the F-15E and F-15C although very capable aircraft are not in the Typhoons league when it comes to air-air combat. This is not because the aircraft is bad. But because the USAF has overemphasized the importance of stealth aircraft in achieving air superiority, despite the numerous performance drawbacks of the F-35. And the US having the largest air combat fighter fleet in the world has focused more resources strike aircraft than it has in air superiority, meaning the F-15C/D hasn't been upgraded in a while. I would say the best 4th generation "air superiority fighter" today is actually the Su-35S. Its a pure breed air superiority fighter designed to be a 4th generation aircraft that can kill 5th generation aircraft. The F-15SA is primarily a strike F-15E at heart. The Su-35S can match it in long range combat and trump it in a dogfight. Its cheaper too. For 3 F-15SA fighters you can get 4 Su-35S Fighters plus left over cash to buy a stockpile of missiles to arm them. The Su-35S combines the agility of a Typhoon with the long range hitting power of a F-15. However the Su-35S does have a drawback. It isn't particularly multi-role like the Typhoon and F-15SA. The Typhoon is ridiculously overpriced though it's over $90 million for aircraft that hasn't really changed much since the 1990s. The latest Saab Gripen costs around $50 million. It only slightly less capable than the Typhoon. I would buy Gripen's over Typhoons any day, just too expensive. It's choosing over last year's Ferrari super-car model which is half price or this year's ferrari super-car why pay double for something with relatively minor improvements.

      The Su-35S is a better air-superiority aircraft than the F-15SA. But the F-15SA is a multi-role fighter. If you want to defensive Su-35S is the better option. If you want a more offensive air force. F-15SA is better.
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      The Pentagon has said that the F-35 will not be used for air to air combat and that the F-22 will fulfil that role
      The Pentagon did say that. But they also said the older F-15C/D Eagles will have to do the F-22's job as well since their aren't enough of them. The F-22 is not a perfect aircraft. When the Stealth factor is removed the F-22 struggles against the Euro-fighter Typhoon and F-15 in air-air combat. Their was also that altitude related problem which resulted in pilots being poisoned by the Oxygen generating system if they got to high. I'm not sure if they resolved that issue. Although the Pentagon makes it out to be completely invisible, it does have a IR signature which the Russians have exploited with IRST (Infra-red Search and Tracking) sensors. It's Pretty much equipped to all Russian fighters (MiG-29, MiG-35, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Su-50) which detects the IR signature of Aircraft. meaning even if the F-22 didn't turn on it's radar it could still be detected by the PAK FA (Su-50) without it using it's own radars. Interestingly on paper the PAK-FA looks superior to the F-22 in all most all performance parameters expect stealth and Engine performance where the F-22 takes the lead. Although the Su-50 is due for a engine upgrade in the Mid-20s so that advantage will be negated as well.

      The F35 is pretty sh*t. It's not fast, agile or very stealthy. It has software issues. The F-35B STVOL is not a harrier which can take off and land vertically and considerably lower maintenance. The F-35C is yet to take off a carrier with a combat loading. The F-35A is probably the only one that will end up operational after much expense. But as you said previously it such a flawed design because of the other two. I would agree with you that the programme should be cancelled. But it won't too many have invested in it from the international side. And it's already entering production, even though it isn't ready. The UK really f***ked up when it got rid of the Harrier Jump jet. It would have been cheaper for us to just build newer updated harriers (like harrier 3). The USMC might have even brought some, after they realized how bad the F-35B was compared a modern built Harrier. But seriously what idiot thought of the JSF programme. The aircraft could have shared avionics (Radar, Electronic Warfare suit etc), but sharing the same air-frame and engines for 3 completely different fighter aircraft, is just plain madness.
    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      The Pentagon has said that the F-35 will not be used for air to air combat and that the F-22 will fulfil that role
      The Pentagon did say that. But they also said the older F-15C/D Eagles will have to do the F-22's job as well since their aren't enough of them. The F-22 is not a perfect aircraft. When the Stealth factor is removed the F-22 struggles against the Euro-fighter Typhoon and F-15 in air-air combat. Their was also that altitude related problem which resulted in pilots being poisoned by the Oxygen generating system if they got to high. I'm not sure if they resolved that issue. Although the Pentagon makes it out to be completely invisible, it does have a IR signature which the Russians have exploited with IRST (Infra-red Search and Tracking) sensors. It's Pretty much equipped to all Russian fighters (MiG-29, MiG-35, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Su-50) which detects the IR signature of Aircraft. meaning even if the F-22 didn't turn on it's radar it could still be detected by the PAK FA (Su-50) without it using it's own radars. Interestingly on paper the PAK-FA looks superior to the F-22 in all most all performance parameters expect stealth and Engine performance where the F-22 takes the lead. Although the Su-50 is due for a engine upgrade in the Mid-20s so that advantage will be negated as well.
      The F35 is pretty sh*t. It's not fast, agile or very stealthy. It has software issues. The F-35B STVOL is not a harrier which can take off and land vertically and considerably lower maintenance. The F-35C is yet to take off a carrier with a combat loading. The F-35A is probably the only one that will end up operational after much expense. But as you said previously it such a flawed design because of the other two. I would agree with you that the programme should be cancelled. But it won't too many have invested in it from the international side. And it's already entering production, even though it isn't ready. The UK really f***ked up when it got rid of the Harrier Jump jet. It would have been cheaper for us to just build newer updated harriers (like harrier 3). The USMC might have even brought some, after they realized how bad the F-35B was compared a modern built Harrier. But seriously what idiot thought of the JSF programme. The aircraft could have shared avionics (Radar, Electronic Warfare suit etc), but sharing the same air-frame and engines for 3 completely different fighter aircraft, is just plain madness.
      Id say the brits will be in such a jam they may look at the sea gripen. As I dont see any other alternatives for their carriers. And being as broke as they will be... Gripen a better choice.


      But you are damn right, The other issue with the F-22 is it is extremely weak. Like a 50Cal would take it out. The typhoon is being used in such a disgraceful way too, I see it as a nice big air supremacy fighter but they want to more or less make it into a all in one multi role aircraft which bothers me. UK,France,Italy, Germany, Turkey, they all need 2 fighters. The high low mix, one big bad a$$ dual engine air supremacy fighter with all the bells and whistles. Big price tag too ( Typhoon, F-15, F-14). And then more plentiful single engine strike aircraft with secondary air - air abilities for defense really. (f-16, maybe the Gripen)



      The must humerus part of the F-35 is the fuel tanks. They explode when they get too near rain storms. I.. Like not even commercial turboprops have that issue.

      I take it your British?
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      But yea, F-15s still the best in the world. I like the European fighters, but couldnt say any can beat the F-15. Either in the strike role (Rafele or Gripen) The F-15 Eagle wins. Or the Air supremacy role ( Typhoon ) Id say the F-15 will still kick as$
      Maybe 10 years ago the F-15 would have been dominant im air-air. But in mock battles conducted between the Luftwaffe and RAF against the USAF the Typhoon wins. Typhoon has a smaller Radar Cross section, is more agile and has AESA radar. Something the F-15 still lacks (Although not for long). The F-15 however can carry a heavier payload, is faster and has longer legs. The F-15SA and Typhoon would be a closer match. But the F-15E and F-15C although very capable aircraft are not in the Typhoons league when it comes to air-air combat. This is not because the aircraft is bad. But because the USAF has overemphasized the importance of stealth aircraft in achieving air superiority, despite the numerous performance drawbacks of the F-35. And the US having the largest air combat fighter fleet in the world has focused more resources strike aircraft than it has in air superiority, meaning the F-15C/D hasn't been upgraded in a while. I would say the best 4th generation "air superiority fighter" today is actually the Su-35S. Its a pure breed air superiority fighter designed to be a 4th generation aircraft that can kill 5th generation aircraft. The F-15SA is primarily a strike F-15E at heart. The Su-35S can match it in long range combat and trump it in a dogfight. Its cheaper too. For 3 F-15SA fighters you can get 4 Su-35S Fighters plus left over cash to buy a stockpile of missiles to arm them. The Su-35S combines the agility of a Typhoon with the long range hitting power of a F-15. However the Su-35S does have a drawback. It isn't particularly multi-role like the Typhoon and F-15SA. The Typhoon is ridiculously overpriced though it's over $90 million for aircraft that hasn't really changed much since the 1990s. The latest Saab Gripen costs around $50 million. It only slightly less capable than the Typhoon. I would buy Gripen's over Typhoons any day, just too expensive. It's choosing over last year's Ferrari super-car model which is half price or this year's ferrari super-car why pay double for something with relatively minor improvements.
      The Su-35S is a better air-superiority aircraft than the F-15SA. But the F-15SA is a multi-role fighter. If you want to defensive Su-35S is the better option. If you want a more offensive air force. F-15SA is better.
      Course the F-15E wouldnt beat the typhoon, aint designed for that. I was under the impression that those mock battles were the F-15E same with the ones in lake district near cormbia Not the F-15C. The F-15.. ahh now, lets take the newer ones.

      My counting is dodgy at best, but I see missiles there. What about you? Dont worry, the F-15 is no cesna for speed. Typhoons aint got the abilty to dodgy these. I like the typhoon but wouldnt bring it in a fight against the F-15 anyday for a battle in the skies. And its pure rubbish in for the air to ground role. But who cares, the plane is a good air supremacy fighter. 2nd to 1 :P

      Im unaware of any multi-role ability of the Typhoon, And the extremests in Iraq and Syria are too. All they get to see are Tornados
      Again, I am a strong beleiver in 2 aircraft. 1 for air to air, and one for air to ground. The idea of mixing them contributed to the F-35 and look how that is going. So I wouldnt compare the F-15SA to the SU-35. And neither would I get caught up in that 4th and 5th generation stuff. Its mostly over hyped. But yes the gripen is quite the little fighter, not only is it much cheaper than the typhoon but operational wise. 10minutes turn around time or so they claim...

      But I still wouldnt compare the Gripen to the Typhoon, two different aircraft I see them as. 1 for air supremacy and the other for strike
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      The must humerus part of the F-35 is the fuel tanks. They explode when they get too near rain storms. I.. Like not even commercial turboprops have that issue.
      That's not the only fuel issue. I heard they had to build special shelters for fuel trucks because the fuel gets unsuitable for the F-35 when it reaches a certain temperature. They also had to change the paint on fuel trucks as well to cool the fuel down. Whether this is just a rumour or it is true I don't know. But it's one in a number of a huge list of problems for the F-35.

      I don't think the USAF should upgrade the F-15C/D. It's getting old and has a big Radar Cross section for a modern combat aircraft when radars are becoming better and RCS becoming smaller. They should just skip straight to buying new built F-15SE (Silent Eagle). I hear price wise it's estimated to be around $100-120 million which would make it very competitive to the F-35 which is only slightly less cheaper at around $95 million (For a piece of garbage). It would be better economically as well keeping Boeing's F-15 factory Jobs and is wanted abroad, so has export options. If it's that cheap for a 5th generation aircraft it would be a low-cost solution to a high cost problem (complementing F-22, doing air superiority for F-35 and replacing the F-15 fleet). I reckon potential international customers of the F-15SE would be Israel (already stated it's intention to buy them), Saudi Arabia, Japan (In exchange for Boeing helping it out with it's own fifth generation fighter) and maybe even Germany (not buying F-35 so will need something to replace the Tornado tactical bomber). This would help drive down costs if more are manufactured so would be good for the USAF. The sad truth is the USAF plans to retire the F-15 after the F-22, which just shows how little investment they plan to put into maintaining the Raptor fleet and the fact they don't plan to replace the F-15A/C/D (which is bad).

      F-15 Eagles in service (A/C/D Models)
      Israel: 43
      Saudi Arabia: 70
      Japan: 223
      USA: 254

      Tornado IDS in service with countries that are buying F-35 to replace them:
      Germany:93
      Saudi Arabia: 82

      Number of F-15SE that could be manufactured: 765
    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      The must humerus part of the F-35 is the fuel tanks. They explode when they get too near rain storms. I.. Like not even commercial turboprops have that issue.
      That's not the only fuel issue. I heard they had to build special shelters for fuel trucks because the fuel gets unsuitable for the F-35 when it reaches a certain temperature. They also had to change the paint on fuel trucks as well to cool the fuel down. Whether this is just a rumour or it is true I don't know. But it's one in a number of a huge list of problems for the F-35.
      I don't think the USAF should upgrade the F-15C/D. It's getting old and has a big Radar Cross section for a modern combat aircraft when radars are becoming better and RCS becoming smaller. They should just skip straight to buying new built F-15SE (Silent Eagle). I hear price wise it's estimated to be around $100-120 million which would make it very competitive to the F-35 which is only slightly less cheaper at around $95 million (For a piece of garbage). It would be better economically as well keeping Boeing's F-15 factory Jobs and is wanted abroad, so has export options. If it's that cheap for a 5th generation aircraft it would be a low-cost solution to a high cost problem (complementing F-22, doing air superiority for F-35 and replacing the F-15 fleet). I reckon potential international customers of the F-15SE would be Israel (already stated it's intention to buy them), Saudi Arabia, Japan (In exchange for Boeing helping it out with it's own fifth generation fighter) and maybe even Germany (not buying F-35 so will need something to replace the Tornado tactical bomber). This would help drive down costs if more are manufactured so would be good for the USAF. The sad truth is the USAF plans to retire the F-15 after the F-22, which just shows how little investment they plan to put into maintaining the Raptor fleet and the fact they don't plan to replace the F-15A/C/D (which is bad).

      F-15 Eagles in service (A/C/D Models)
      Israel: 43
      Saudi Arabia: 70
      Japan: 223
      USA: 254

      Tornado IDS in service with countries that are buying F-35 to replace them:
      Germany:93
      Saudi Arabia: 82

      Number of F-15SE that could be manufactured: 765
      That is true, the F-35 could not operate because the fuel was too warm for the aircraft. I didnt know they were going to build shelters for them. I just had been hearing lots of stuff regarding the issues taking in warm fuel.

      I do think that the F-15s need to be upgraded but Minimising the radar cross section isnt a real priority. Again fighter first stealth capabilities are nice little touches. Lots of low frequency radars can penetrate the skin of the aircraft and paint it nice and in colour for the AA crews :P

      The low radar cross section is bonus but I wouldnt say a game changer
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:

      Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
      I dont follow? Do you mean how you have to have the Conventional Strike Aircraft in order to unlock the naval strike aircraft?
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      That is true, the F-35 could not operate because the fuel was too warm for the aircraft. I didnt know they were going to build shelters for them. I just had been hearing lots of stuff regarding the issues taking in warm fuel.
      Yh Sun Shelters, keep the fuel in the shade. Although operationally speaking fuel trucks should be kept in mortar proof shelters anyway in my opinion.But still Bonkers right? Especially considering the USA has mostly been fighting in warm climated countries since Vietnam it's just ludicrous. But there not the only ones. The UK's Royal Navy type 45 Destroyers (Best Destroyers in the world in terms of air defense, not much good for anything else) breakdown in warm water due to a faulty part in the power generation system. Although sadly it is often blamed on the British Rolls Royce engines, which is false. The engines work fine, it's just a American bit which doesn't work well in warm water. The sad thing is that this wasn't found out after they were built and put to sea the government knew about the faulty part the shipbuilders had contracted. Instead of delaying the warships and replacing the faulty components, they rushed them into service. Know they are largely useless in warm waters of the Gulf, Indian ocean, Pacific Ocean and Mediterranean.
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:

      Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
      I dont follow? Do you mean how you have to have the Conventional Strike Aircraft in order to unlock the naval strike aircraft?
      That is part of what I mean, So let's assume you have the first tier for both regular and naval air superiorities. Regular air gets 3 upgrades and spends 3 days and 15hrs with a 7 power advantage before naval air superiority can catch up. I would like to see them scale together. If not just having the naval air be more powerful due to all of the other reqs. (like having an aircraft carrier, assuming you're building them for their normal purpose and having to wait 3 days before one can be built initially.) The same cannot be said for the naval strike fighters, I think their stats compared to their land twins clear up any disparities. Especially since the Navy SF is fundamentally geared towards ship combat.
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.
    • Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:

      Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
      I dont follow? Do you mean how you have to have the Conventional Strike Aircraft in order to unlock the naval strike aircraft?
      That is part of what I mean, So let's assume you have the first tier for both regular and naval air superiorities. Regular air gets 3 upgrades and spends 3 days and 15hrs with a 7 power advantage before naval air superiority can catch up. I would like to see them scale together. If not just having the naval air be more powerful due to all of the other reqs. (like having an aircraft carrier, assuming you're building them for their normal purpose and having to wait 3 days before one can be built initially.) The same cannot be said for the naval strike fighters, I think their stats compared to their land twins clear up any disparities. Especially since the Navy SF is fundamentally geared towards ship combat.
      Not really, naval SF isnt geared towards ships. It must have that ability obviously but I wouldnt suggest that.
      So you are saying rather than having 3 levels of naval aircraft have all 7 or so...?
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      That is true, the F-35 could not operate because the fuel was too warm for the aircraft. I didnt know they were going to build shelters for them. I just had been hearing lots of stuff regarding the issues taking in warm fuel.
      Yh Sun Shelters, keep the fuel in the shade. Although operationally speaking fuel trucks should be kept in mortar proof shelters anyway in my opinion.But still Bonkers right? Especially considering the USA has mostly been fighting in warm climated countries since Vietnam it's just ludicrous. But there not the only ones. The UK's Royal Navy type 45 Destroyers (Best Destroyers in the world in terms of air defense, not much good for anything else) breakdown in warm water due to a faulty part in the power generation system. Although sadly it is often blamed on the British Rolls Royce engines, which is false. The engines work fine, it's just a American bit which doesn't work well in warm water. The sad thing is that this wasn't found out after they were built and put to sea the government knew about the faulty part the shipbuilders had contracted. Instead of delaying the warships and replacing the faulty components, they rushed them into service. Know they are largely useless in warm waters of the Gulf, Indian ocean, Pacific Ocean and Mediterranean.
      Dam thats a shame, they lovely looking warships. My knowledge is better in the skies than on the sea. But Id still say the Burke class would sink a Type 45
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      Dam thats a shame, they lovely looking warships. My knowledge is better in the skies than on the sea. But Id still say the Burke class would sink a Type 45
      They could easily be sunk for 3 Reasons. 1) The Type 45 only has 48 VLS cells which can only launch air interception missiles or Surface to air missiles, and only 48 of them in total (Either Aster 15 or Aster 30). 2) The type 45 is a terrible anti-submarine warfare ship, it's really noisy apparently as well. 3) No Anti Ship Missiles. The Government just scrapped the Harpoon AShM Launchers leaving them largely defenseless against modern Guided Missile Destroyers.

      Other reasons included poor performance in Warm Water and limited numbers (6 out of a original plan for 12). The really sad thing is that they cost around the same as a Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, but are not very multi-role and come with some massive flaws.The UK royal Navy is dying a slow painful death. I recently heard that the our new aircraft carriers are pretty much going to be part of the US navy. Apparently they are going to host USMC F-35B instead of our own and operate as part of the US Pacific fleet or something. So pretty much made in Britain for the US Navy. Should have just gone for small light aircraft carriers like the Invincible class instead of a massive pile of scrap we can't even use. Waste of money. They wasted £1 Billion ($1.7 Billion at the time) changing the design from CATOBAR to STVOL. Each Carrier is more expensive than Nimitz. It would have been cheaper to license build Nimitz Aircraft carriers than to design a less capable super-carrier.
    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      Dam thats a shame, they lovely looking warships. My knowledge is better in the skies than on the sea. But Id still say the Burke class would sink a Type 45
      They could easily be sunk for 3 Reasons. 1) The Type 45 only has 48 VLS cells which can only launch air interception missiles or Surface to air missiles, and only 48 of them in total (Either Aster 15 or Aster 30). 2) The type 45 is a terrible anti-submarine warfare ship, it's really noisy apparently as well. 3) No Anti Ship Missiles. The Government just scrapped the Harpoon AShM Launchers leaving them largely defenseless against modern Guided Missile Destroyers.
      Other reasons included poor performance in Warm Water and limited numbers (6 out of a original plan for 12). The really sad thing is that they cost around the same as a Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, but are not very multi-role and come with some massive flaws.The UK royal Navy is dying a slow painful death. I recently heard that the our new aircraft carriers are pretty much going to be part of the US navy. Apparently they are going to host USMC F-35B instead of our own and operate as part of the US Pacific fleet or something. So pretty much made in Britain for the US Navy. Should have just gone for small light aircraft carriers like the Invincible class instead of a massive pile of scrap we can't even use. Waste of money. They wasted £1 Billion ($1.7 Billion at the time) changing the design from CATOBAR to STVOL. Each Carrier is more expensive than Nimitz. It would have been cheaper to license build Nimitz Aircraft carriers than to design a less capable super-carrier.
      They scrapped the harpoon? I heard that only 4 were getting it and not all of them?

      Yea the royal navy is in a mess. The F-35 is a center of it. Thats a shame about being part of the US Navy but I really dont think that will go ahead. Especially with Trump and the man the legend Nigel Farage. Id say it will be good to see them operate together ( RN + USN) But what can the RN really operate? Subs are no longer even being fielded because of a lack of sailors. Carriers are a piece of junk, no decent airwing. Only thing going for them are the Wildcats which I would prob put above the Seahawks etc ( Ever wonder why I came up with this name SH-60F :P ). The royal navy I doubt has ever been this weak? compared to other navies. I think its official The United Kingdom is no longer a blue water navy. Damn France really making the royal navy look even worse.

      UK really need a new strike fighter, simple as. Make a carrier variant and a RAF variant. New carrier CATBOR, no need for magnetic, steam will do. Scrap the damn F-35s before its too late. But I do feel it is too late for the new carriers :/
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      Only thing going for them are the Wildcats
      Not anymore. The Wildcats we are buying are being downgraded from original specs and we don't have weapons to put on them. The Royal Navy literally just retired the Lynx (Probably the best small military utility helicopter in the world). I doubt we will buy a wildcat for every Lynx lost. It's so f***ed. We went from the best, to one of the best. We were one of the only blue water navies in the world. But it now looks like France and the UK will loose that to China, Russia and India. The only decent ship we got operating at the moment to full capacity with weapons is the ageing type 23 Frigate, which is probably the best ASW frigate in service. But even it's replacement seems in doubt. There are even reports that the future type 31 could be a downgraded Type 23 with a stealthy superstructure. The F-35 isn't the problem it's the MoD (Civilian agency running the Military) and the government cutting funds but cooking the books to deny that they are (They are including pensions and the intelligence budget to inflate the Military budget). On top of that we are spending at least £2 Billion propping up human rights abusing armies in Asia and Africa and supporting terrorists in Syria. It isn't just the Navy either. The Army just brought a bunch of armored vehicles that are rubbish and scrapped our MRAP vehicles we used in Afghan after spending Millions bringing them back home. Their drones don't work, we need new infantry weapons and a new MBT. The Royal Air Force is also in a bad shape, but is doing slightly better than the other two services although we don't have Naval Patrol aircraft, are short on Chinooks and brought F-35B which haven't materialized to replace the ageing Tornado.
    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:

      Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
      I dont follow? Do you mean how you have to have the Conventional Strike Aircraft in order to unlock the naval strike aircraft?
      That is part of what I mean, So let's assume you have the first tier for both regular and naval air superiorities. Regular air gets 3 upgrades and spends 3 days and 15hrs with a 7 power advantage before naval air superiority can catch up. I would like to see them scale together. If not just having the naval air be more powerful due to all of the other reqs. (like having an aircraft carrier, assuming you're building them for their normal purpose and having to wait 3 days before one can be built initially.) The same cannot be said for the naval strike fighters, I think their stats compared to their land twins clear up any disparities. Especially since the Navy SF is fundamentally geared towards ship combat.
      Not really, naval SF isnt geared towards ships. It must have that ability obviously but I wouldnt suggest that.So you are saying rather than having 3 levels of naval aircraft have all 7 or so...?
      That's essentially what I am saying, separate trees for each not interdependent, or researching an "in between" tech for one grants the stat boost to both.
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.
    • I think Naval Aircraft in this game are too Op. Despite requiring a lv.3 Airbase they are just as good as the upgraded Land based equivalents. Like it takes 2 upgrades for them to match a Lv.6 equivalent. Although Land based aircraft get the streamlined production upgrade making them cheaper and require lower level bases to build. I think the Naval aircraft should have slightly shorter range than their land based equivalents.