Fantasy Airforce

Why not just use B-52H?

Shattered OUT...

Air Superiority Fighter - Tomcat 21

Strike Fighter/tactical bomber - Tomcat 21

Stategic Bomber - Tu 160

Transport - An124

Trainer/light combat - Tejas

Yes im a F14 fanboy.

Thought I have a go at an extended list, with piccies

Interceptor - Fairey Delta Three



Tanker - Vickers 'Triple VC-10'



Light tactical fighter - BAe P.1208



Tactical airlifter - Westland WG-22



Bomber - Avro 730



Fleet fighter - Hawker P1154

Here's an unbeatable 'fantasy airforce', optimized for a cold war doctrine.

Air Superiority Fighter: Su-50 (400 units)

Strike Fighter: FB-23 (400 units)

Tactical Bomber: B-1R (200 units)

Strategic Bomber: B-70 Valkyrie II (50 units)

Transport: An-70 (300 units)

Joint Service Trainer: F-20 II (800 units)

Fleet Defense: Tomcat 21 (600 units)

Close Air Support: RAH-66 II (500 units)

reply to post by SteveR


Wow, you're right, really is fantasy.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


As you may have noticed, that's why we're on this thread ShatteredSkies.

Fantasy yes, impossible no.

No, no I think it's impossible.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


That's politics for you.

reply to post by SteveR


I don't see what's "unbeatable" about it, as I said before, set a price limit, procurement limit (only current systems) and come up with a war scenario (or several) to use as the default battle forces for these air forces. Factor such as pilots, training, tactics would have to be kept the same as we are concerned with evaluating the aircraft.

Lets select a few "knowledgeable" members from within our community to act as judges and get this started. We can work the details out later but that would be one interesting competition. While this may currently be entertaining it is also largely meaningless.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Factor such as pilots, training, tactics would have to be kept the same as we are concerned with evaluating the aircraft.

This sort of idea would most likely degenerate into "Aircraft X is better than Aircraft Y because A" versus "Aircraft Y is better than Aircraft X because B". Although some scenarios are clear cut, like the Raptor against a MiG-21 is going to end up pretty obvious. Then we have to factor in things that aren't so clear cut. How's a Rafale against a Typhoon in different situations? How about an F-18 E/F and a Typhoon? Then we have aircraft which are current, but little is known about them. The Su-35 we can quote statistics on, but the fact remains that we know little about how well those systems mesh to create the whole airplane. Oh, then we have the stealth problem. The eternal stealth problem. How stealthy is an F-22 versus an F-35? How far can an F-22 track Planes X, Y, and Z? What about, once again, the Su-35, which we know has had serious thought given to RCS decreases, but where we can't quantify them?Ultimately we're forced to use speculation, upon which we've rarely had mass consensus before.

I expect that this will end up in a single sticky scenario bringing a short end to the fun.

While this may currently be entertaining it is also largely meaningless.

Eh. Keeps things friendly.

[edit on 12/7/2007 by Darkpr0]

Air Superiority Fighter - F-22 - 460
Strike Fighter/tactical bomber - F-23 - 220
Multirole - F-35A - 550
Transport - C-17 - 200
Jet Trainer/Light Combat - L-39
Interceptor - Boeing YAL-1 (laser) - 50
Deterance - Project Pluto - 1000
Strategic Bomber - B-52 / B-2 x 200.


And a bunch of AWACS and JSTARS / KC-777.

[edit on 7/12/2007 by C0bzz]

reply to post by Darkpr0


Well, we would have to rely on open source information, the rest would be up to the judges, every member participant would have to accept the judges ruling, although I suppose we make a one time appeal process etc… Now we all know where most of us stand so this would have to be a somewhat "balanced" and open minded panel. Preferably comprised of people with first hand experience and or direct knowledge of the field. Also, to keep it more partial, each decision the judges make would have to be largely based on the information the members presented and on how convincing/solid their information and case was.

Now, of course it would not be perfect, even NATO simulations cannot perfectly recreate actual combat results, due to inherent unknowns, and they have Infinitely more resources and information that us here on ATS. But the point of this would not be to determine finally for all humanity without question which aircraft is the "best". The point would be to challenge members to come up with creative arguments, information and actions within a set of equal parameters. He who best represents himself in this contests would ultimately "win". All other details can be worked out later, so, is anyone else game?

[edit on 8-12-2007 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by WestPoint23


It just depends if our selections have to fit the current political landscape. Obviously mine and a few other's do not.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also, to keep it more partial, each decision the judges make would have to be largely based on the information the members presented and on how convincing/solid their information and case was.

The difficulty that arises is the stickiness of source trustworthiness. What is a trustworthy source? Of course, this is up to the judges, but nonetheless someone is going to have to decide. An argument properly done would be constructed of a combination of a) commonly accepted facts here (F-16 is more maneuverable than F-14) and b) specific facts that are sourced (The 117S engine is currently mounted on the Su-35 Prototype. See the NPO Saturn website under 5th-generation engines.). Either way, the facts as the writer would see it would mean exactly the same thing to the writer as to the judge, since they would be actual facts. Actual facts are invariably inarguable.

The problem arises with the ambiguities, and the particularly nasty ones where we know a range of values that a particular specification could be, but everywhere in between is disputed. Even with a judge, the problem is that the end ruling will be what the judge(s) decide, which can only be at best a guess unless the actual fact is identified and confirmed.

The point would be to challenge members to come up with creative arguments, information and actions within a set of equal parameters.

I don't know exactly what creative arguments will be around. I assume that if you're simulating something you start out with a fixed set of parameters with which you can work (aircraft numbers, loadouts, air defenses, intelligence, reinforcements, etc.), but then everything else is basically a reaction to evolving data. BVR combat usually turns out to be "Get intel. Look for enemy. See enemy. Fire missile. See tiny 'SUCCESS' on HUD. Repeat from step 2.", and missiles fly left and right. WVR combat is significantly more tactical, I'll give it that, but it's pretty consistent over ATS that WVR is not a likely scenario unless someone epically fails.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am really trying not to burst bubbles here. But we've tried doing a couple simulations over ATS involving 1 aircraft against 1 other aircraft. These have been difficult. What you're proposing is not merely a tactical scenario, but a much more strategic overview. The amount of variables involved is absolutely colossal. There's more variables than there are viewers of American Idol! I don't personally think that it will turn out quite how you expect. However...

Still, if this is going to take place, I'd put forth the following ideas (These are to the community, not to anyone in particular):
-Agree on the capabilities of all aircraft PRIOR to engaging in a simulation. I think it's positively necessary to know exactly how everything (Aircraft, armament, air defense, intelligence, airfields, refueling, geography, I mean EVERYTHING) is going to work before setting about. This will minimize any squabbles over what can do which and whatnot.
-If directing the actions of aircraft, be specific to a T. Rather than "My squadron attacks your squadron", I'd say exactly what each aircraft targets, fires, and especially how they move. This will make combat much more a) realistic and b) comprehensible for those that aren't involved.
-Define a massive map of the battleground. Know which airfields are where, where the Early Warning stations are, where the air defenses are, where the patrols will be at what times, and where different aircraft are stationed. This will tell you what resources are in a given tactical area and, more importantly, what the response times of active aircraft, and aircraft ready for scrambling and response for enemy attack.

That's all I can think of for now. Sorry for the long post.

Oh, and if you can get the ball rolling, I'm definitely in.



[edit on 12/8/2007 by Darkpr0]

reply to post by SteveR


No they don't, but for the sake of some realism we should limit it to currently operational an or available systems. Or at least systems about which there is a substantial amount of concrete information available. But this can be a fuzzy point; by my standard the PAK-FA could be considered due to a lack of available information about the aircraft.

Also, excellent points DarkPr0. We could definitely organize such an event but yes we ill need to first work out the basics then the details.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by WestPoint23


There will always be some unavailable systems selected for a fantasy airforce. The best I can do is provide statistics from their operation in the past, and offer realistic conjecture for the modernized version.

But why bog it down with anal statistical analysis driving us towards bitter arguments about who's choices are right and wrong? Also why aim for realism? when did a fantasy ever demand realism? My fantasies about Hayden Panettiere are quite unrealistic.

Obviously my choices are all borne out of a personal bias and also all completely obsolete. I know that. I wasn't aiming for a 'best' air force, just one I would like to have seen. I thought that was the point? If I was aiming for a best one my choices would be completely different, but it wouldn't be my fantasy air force.

By allowing a pure fantasy element you should get quite a bit of variety, aiming for a 'best' however will see lots of lists looking almost exactly the same, which quickly becomes boring as we all know the crack in general capabilities, with lists mainly only varying by the odd plane here and there.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by waynos]

@ Westpoint.
Although your suggestions are good and would really get some intereting results, the actual idea of this thread was for people, just as SteveR and Waynos have done, to demonstrate a completely unrealistic (fantasy) selection of aircraft which represent the person's personality and bias one way or the other.

Incidently if you want to go ahead with your ideas, I would be very happy to help and participate.

Jensy

I'm going to select aircraft that have all been built, whether in prototype or production form:

Trainer: Aero L-159
Transport: C-5
Tanker: KC-10
Patrol: Nimrod
AEW: E-3
Attack: A-10
Fighter: F-22
Tactical Bomber: TSR.2
Strategic Bomber: XB-70
Recon.: SR-71

This is my fantasy airforce guys:

Air Superiority Fighter - SU-35 BM

Strike Fighter/tactical bomber - SU-34

Stategic Bomber - TU-160

Transport - Ilyushin 76-MD90 (can also be used as a AWACS and tanker etc.)

Trainer/light combat - Hmmmm is the Saab 39 gripen a good light combat aircraft???

Here are some optional things:

Interceptor - Light- MiG-31
- Heavy- TU-161 (modification off the TU-160)

Awacs - A50 Beriev (modification off Ilyushin-76)

Tanker - Ilyushin-78 (modification off the Ilyushin-76)

Reconaisance - SR-71

Well this is my list.

Cheers