It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ATS Air Force

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:54 AM
Are we using F-4...?? pretty strange if we also have F-22 and other super fighter... And hey... What about the ATS-1...

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:17 AM
I would DEFFO use the F-4 Phantoms but as reserve/spare fighters or for homeland defence maybe.

I asked someone on another thread if the F-15/F-22 has a tailhook, The
F-15 does, not sure about the F-22 so the F-15 may be carrier capable after all but it may still need some adjustments with its landing gear and its tailhook may not be for constant use but if it is carrier capable, we could still use it the way it already is and just designate it as an F-15N Sea Eagle.

Maybe i would list the B-52 Bomber down but im still not sure becouse it is too big and pricey to run so i might list the good old British V Bomber force.

For bombers, How about a massive force of F-4 Phantoms that would turn fighters once they have dropped all thier bombs, F-111 Aardvarks, somthing less bulky, more agile and capable of Fighting/Defending itself?

I know its old but i admire the Republic F-105 Thunderchief becouse it was designed as a small low level bomber that could also be a fighter, It could carry more iron bombs than a WW2 B-17 Bomber and it had great speed for a single engined airframe, Would only use for bombers so no need to use somthing 'Hi Tech'.

The A-5 Vigilante was only a burden for its rubbish bomb load otherwise it would have been a sucsess.

Well its the Millenium now, we should really look at more modern stuff.

F-4 Phantoms, F-15 Strike Eagles, FB-22/23?, These may be good but some of the F-4 Phantoms dont have guns installed, Suppose we could still use them just as bombers.

SUU 23 Vulcan Gun Pods could be installed on our 'Bomber Phantoms' that have no gun armament. The F-4E Phantom with longer noses do have guns installed in them.

I dont think i trust the British FG1/FGR2 Spey Phantoms, Ok they are cheaper to run, have quicker take off, low level flight capability, But on the other hand, They have no guns, they are slower in the sky and had the most crashes and faults.

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Browno]

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:07 PM
I say we drop the F-15's if favor of SU-37s. They are based off a carrier version of the Flanker, and turn out to be even more stupidly manuverable than what I'd previously heard.

The Su-37's astounding maneuvers included the "Super Cobra", demonstrated for the first time. In this move, the aircraft enters with a speed of 400 kmh and is pulled through to an alpha of 135 deg, then recovered to the vertical and held in place for 4-6 seconds. The nose is then allowed to fall to the horizontal position, emerging at 150kmh with no loss of height. Another used the thrust vectoring to flip the Su-37 onto it's back, and then to rotate it upright and continue in the opposite direction. The most impressive manouver was the kulbit (somersault). With an entry speed of 350 kmh the aircraft flipped onto it's back (a full 180 deg) facing the opposite direction, inverted and practically stationary. After 'pausing', thrust vectoring completes the kulbit (a 360 deg somersault) with a nose down angle of 30 deg and an exit speed of 60 kmh.

Note to fighter pilots, if you're behind it, it's probrably got radar lock on you, and don't think it can't shoot at you there.

*Edit: small, grainy video

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Travellar]

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:35 PM
Travellar, Su-37's are not based off of the Su-27 as a Carrier fighter.

The Su-37 isn't even a production model, the Su-37 is the technology demonstrator for the Su-35. Basically the Su-37 is a supped up Su-35 which in turn is a supped up Su-27. The Su-37 has thrust vectoring and other new avionic goodies that give it "super manueverability".

Yes, the Su-37 is an amazing aircraft and I for one would replace any plane(except the F-22 and YF-23) with the Su-37, but the facts are is that the Su-37 is a tech demonstrator, but it's still cool to watch it perform super manuevers. If I had to go with the next best thing, it would either be the Su-47 or the Su-35.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 23-1-2006 by ShatteredSkies]

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:41 PM
hey, it's a far cry more usable than the F-19 or half a dozen other fictional/developmental aircraft.

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Travellar]

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 02:03 PM
That's true.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:29 PM
Srapped some stuff from the list

Standard Fighter Class:

F-16 Falcon

Medium Fighter Class:

Mig 29 Fulcrum

Heavy Fighter Class:

F-14 Tomcat(ATS Navy)
F-15 Eagle(Including proposed naval variant)
SU27 Type aircraft including latest variants(May replace both listed above?)

Troop Transport:

C-46 Commando(SF use only, May replace with Gulfstream Jet)
C-130 Hercules(Latest Variant with turboprops)

Heavy Transport:

C-17 Globemaster 2


KC-10 Extender


Chinooks (Heavy Transport Chopper)
Pumas (Army, Air Force Use)
Super Frelon (Navy, Marines, SAR Use)
Seabat/Choctaw (For troops, Prefer these than UH-1s, Also used as Gunships)
Eurocopter EC135(Armed, For VIP use)

Attack Choppers:

AH-56 Cheyenne
AH-64 Apache
RAH-66 Commanche (Not sure out of these)

Stealth Fighter:

F-19 Specter

AWACS Plane:

Any latest around

Recon Plane:

A-12 Blackbird

High Altitude Interceptor:

F-12 Blackbird
Mig 31 Foxhound?

F-4 Phantoms, F-15E Strike Eagles to be used as Attacker/Bomber Force.

Still need to scrap some aircraft off my list, I may replace F-15s with SU27 type aircraft.

Shattered, Are the Sukhois cheaper and more reliable than most NATO Fighters? If so I may replace ALL or MOST fighters with them.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Browno]

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:36 PM
I wouldn't say cheaper, but I'll tell you this right now, the F-15 is considered inferior to most Russian fighters from the MiG-29 and up. (F-15 variants C and below, E is strike capable F-15 and D is just record breaking eagle I believe, the Streak Eagle)

Now the export Sukhois and MiG's might be cheaper, but if I had to make a choice, I'd keep F-15E, get rid of F-15C and replace the F-15C's with Su-35's(which are actually more expensive, but by a margine). Now, get rid of the naval proposal of the F-15(I still don't know why you're emphasising it as I think we've already agreed that it would be a waste of money on the other thread that was made for this variant if there even was a proposal, I'm doubting there even was a design phase for it) and replace that with the Su-33 and you're good to go.

But that's just my opinion, you might be open to different things and other people will definetly see differently, but hey, it's my opinion. And to for a definite answer to your question on price, I wouldn't be able to tell you pecisely, so ask waynos or Matej, matej would know definetly.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:05 PM
I don't get why would you want 30 year old planes

The F14 -15 are old planes . Maybe he f15 for reserves but nothing more...

And yes the su-35 might be considered superior but why would you have it when you can get Raptors and a whole commnad system that works with eagles?

Beacuse the F-15 still has better avionics

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:04 PM
The Su-35 IS considered superior, in ever aspect.

And F-22, well not even the US Air Force can fork over enough money to pay for an ENTIRE fleet of Raptors. Hell, we're scrapping projects here and there just to make money for the Raptor.

Let's be a bit reasonable with what we have.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:52 PM
which is the entire purpose of F-16s, F-18s, F-35s, ect. Medium fighters to provide a presence when we just don't have enough F-15s, F-14s, F-22s. *sigh* somebody REALLY should've provided budgets for this project.

Anythow, the competition doesn't even seem to respond, so air supremacy is a mute point. What we really need is a good discussion of the best bomber for our needs. B-52s and TU-160s each carry a very impressive payload, but I think the B-52 has better smart bomb programming capacity, and might have a better loiter time as well. Since the skies are already free, we may as well use a bomber that can hang out and enjoy it.

Or an entire fleet of C-130s and C-117s to airdrop our power armored infantry for an invasion. (hey, it is the ATS army, surely we'd have the super-cool stuff that's right around the corner, right?)

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:56 PM

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
(F-15 variants C and below, E is strike capable F-15 and D is just record breaking eagle I believe, the Streak Eagle)

The D is just a two seat C. The Streak Eagle was a one off stripped down A model just to break records.

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:26 AM
I just can't agree with this soviet fighter supremacy. In a way its the same as the old discussion wether a phono (russian fighters) sounds better than a CD (F-15) In theory during perfect conditions an LP with every perfect component (tube amplifiers, gold cables, etc).

However this analog technology (such as russian fighters) is prone to malfunction after the first time.
The record will deteriorate such as the neddle and so on. The point about tis is that in theory russian fighters might be better but in reality they always suffer malfunctions that are related to its nature (such as LP's) of coarse construction inherit to the Russian way. Also there is no secret that when it comes to electronic and comp. systems the US in way ahead of everybody else (such as a digital circuitry is so much advanced in its processing). So these fighters in reality are not better because they will never function at a 100% while the F-15 will. Their engines can fail, theri electronics might not be accurate that day and so on...

So at the end of the day the cd will sound better than the LP and as so the F-15 will perform better and thus making a better plane.

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
(F-15 variants C and below, E is strike capable F-15 and D is just record breaking eagle I believe, the Streak Eagle)

The D is just a two seat C. The Streak Eagle was a one off stripped down A model just to break records.

Really? Thought the Streak Eagle recieved it's own variant designation.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:12 AM
Hey guys someone really ought to make a budget for these lists and at least use planes that are real or going to be real because your not going to get far in a real battle with planes out of fiction are you (well you are if they're really good lol)

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:21 AM
let's see what we can do with $10B, and an annual operating budget of $2B.

If we do that, it'll be time to start looking up unit costs and operating costs of these airframes we keep mentioning. I'll see how many I can edit into this post before I run out of time.

Unit cost: $30M
Operating cost: ?

Unit cost: $100-$200M depending on production rate.
Operating cost: ?

Unit: $152
Operating: ?

Unit: ?
Operating: 40% lower than previous operating cost?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Travellar]

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Travellar]

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:16 PM
Ive decided i will stick with NATO standards but i WILL keep the listed Soviet fighters in the Joyrider Squadron. My chopper list is sorted, Medium fighter will be the F-4E, Im NOT replacing the F-14 but if i do, I will just use a 2 seater F-15 but just use it on carriers(The F-15 Does have a Tailhook).

Not sure with attack choppers, Ok for heavy transport, Tankers, Standard fighters, Stealth fighter, Recon plane, F-12 for Interceptor, TA-4 Skyhawk for trainer.

Im still thinking about the Transall C-160 and the C-123 Provider for troop transport, Will any of these be useful, Cheaper to run?

I know the F-22 is a boss fighter but its extremely expensive to buy, Shame to lose them in combat so i would use 4th generation fighters, Still thinking about the F-35 JSFs.

I may replace half or most F-111s with F-15E Strike Eagles, I seen on this site below that the F-35 can match the F-111s so maybe i could use them?.

I heard the AH-56 Cheyenne had the same capabilities of a WW2 B-26 bomber but it was cancelled becouse of the USAFs jealousy.

Wonder what Waynos would use? He Knows his stuff.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Browno]

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:40 PM
Why are you using F-15 on carriers... we both know that it isn't realistic... OK, maybe it isn't realistic to see American and Russian fighter fly side by side... But the facts still have to be corect in my opinion...

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:22 PM
can we even afford a carrier? If not, worrying about what kinds of aircraft we can operate from one is pointless. If so, are we talking catapults or launch ramp?

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:22 PM
Although i started this whole thread, I do NOT want to be the Boss of it all,

Well....... Yes we can have a Carrier/Assault ships(If anyone wants one)

The Nimitz class carriers are the most advanced in the world today, I admire these new Royal Navy CVF carriers and the Essex class attack carriers.

Id prefer the steam catapult but the ramp would save funds, what about this new proposed electromagnetic catapult?

My Fave is the USS Enterprise but its too old and the most expensive to run so maybe somthing slightly smaller than the Nimitz, Slightly bigger than the Essex?

well i think its for all of us to decide.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Browno]

new topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in