Stock up your air to air defense

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Imagine you are the defense ministre of Maldan Island. You have just decided that the Nato is obsolete. The UN a club for the undecided, the Common wealth for poor africans and the european union doesnt want you. So you can count on noone and your citizens demand for more protection from the air. You had the old phantom (5 of 6 are to be found in your national museum of history). Your president asked you to chose a new air to air plane and you have asked for colorful catalogue from all international suppliers. Only 4 suppliers confirmed that they would sign a deal with you if you wish so. Which one would you go for.

X-31 Soon the most agile plane in the sky. Enhanced Fighter Maneuvrability (EFM).

F-15, not a single machine of this type has been shot down in its entire history. But old and not topnotch

Eurofigther Typhoon, mach 1.3 without requiring afterburner, pilot can permanently take Geforce9 without fading, top of the top in the skies so far

Raptor, 100 mio is expensive but considering it is fully stealth and can "nearly" keep up with eurofigthers flying performance.

probably the best source you can find on those planes

[Tamme 0]

I'll take some typhoons with a large coke.

[theavonlady 2]

Raptor, with a side order of fries.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Typhoon, Fries and Coke please

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

That is a very limited argumentation, considering you are spending QUITE A LOT OF MONEY

Is this what you would write into your anual financial defense statement? Are you gonna say: "it came with free fries"?

[theavonlady 2]

Is this what you would write into your anual financial defense statement? Are you gonna say: "it came with free fries"?

I bet no one would ever read it.

edit: Actually, you convinced me yesterday, when you mentioned Eurofighter parts produced in France in the afternoon.

[Tamme 0]

That is a very limited argumentation, considering you are spending QUITE A LOT OF MONEY

Is this what you would write into your anual financial defense statement? Are you gonna say: "it came with free fries"?

Well, yes we discussed this alot and were in quite a few dead ends, but our Foreign Minister finally took the ace outta his sleeve and came up with this decision: The government puts a firm in the Man Islands, puts 15 billion there, then our Home Secretary takes a divorce and under the guise of it we can raise money from there. That way we can afford our now groving military expenses...um... I'll give you a full official report later...... Gotta go see those Typhoons...

[kegetys 2]

I would go for the Su-30MK :P

[EiZei 0]

Whaddayamean im on budget?

[Bordoy 0]

Ain't that Surface to air, not air to air.

Anyway i choose either F-15 or Eurofighter 2000 "Typhoon"

[Nathanz 0]

Typhoon all the way

[MASTAKILLA 0]

Typhoon or Raptor - i think both are great planes...

[The Frenchman 0]

Mirage 2000

*Purrrrrrrr

I dont care for the X31 or the Eurofighter and I HATE the Raptor (WASTE OF MONEY!) So it would be a F15 if I cant get my daily serving of French planes.

[m21man 0]

I'll go with the Raptor !

[hardrock 1]

Some big McTyphoons, please

[Consigliere 0]

The X-31 is not a combat aircraft, it's a concept demonstrator, and is history as of a couple of months ago. It was used to explore very high alfa (AoA) flight.

But seeing as we're choosing an air-air combat aircraft, my choice would either be the SU-35 (good in both air-air and air-ground) or the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (again good in both roles) But I seriously doubt a nation in Malden's situation would be permitted / have the means to purchase / field such systems. I'd say their best bet would be to purchase some 'old' MIG-29s or F-16s and upgrade them.

[denoir 0]

Eurofighter Typhoon, it's cheap, modern and multi-role (in case you should ever want to bomb Everon   )

Actually I'd go for Jas 39 Gripen which is slightly cheaper and has the same performance as the EF, but it wasn't on the list

If you are on a high budget then I'd go for the Su-35. If you are on a ridiculously high budget then go for the Raptor.

However, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the most relevant part of modern air combat the missiles and not the planes? Malden is a small island that doesn't need high speed interceptors as medium range AA missiles will cover a good area around the island. So just buy a couple of cessnas and slap on some AIM-120 AMRAAMs on them and you've got yourself a decent air-defence system

[denoir 0]

This is interesting:

Comparison of 2000s fighter aircraft

Among other things:

Quote[/b] ]

DERA study

Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an operational evaluation comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35.

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft were put in simulated combat against the Su-35. The results were:

F/A-22 Raptor     10.1 : 1

Typhoon            4.5 : 1

Rafale             1.0 : 1

Su-35              1.0 : 1

F-15C              0.8 : 1

F/A-18+            0.4 : 1

F/A-18C            0.3 : 1

F-16C              0.3 : 1

These results mean, for example, that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were shot down for every Typhoon lost.

The "F/A-18+" in the study was apparently not the current F/A-18E/F, but an improved version. All the western aircraft in the simulation were using the AMRAAM missile, except the Rafale which was using the MICA missile.

[Supah 0]

If i was maldan (sp error?:S) i'd rather buy something cheap and tested. Being an island the jets would be over water allot so i would go for two engined security. You dont wanna have you F-16's one engine fail on you 300 km's out of the coast Basically your talking flanker here Cheap, capable, twin engined

[theavonlady 2]

F/A-22 Raptor     10.1 : 1

Typhoon            4.5 : 1

Rafale             1.0 : 1

Su-35              1.0 : 1

F-15C              0.8 : 1

F/A-18+            0.4 : 1

F/A-18C            0.3 : 1

F-16C              0.3 : 1

Like I said, a Raptor, with fries on the side.

[havocsquad 0]

The Eurofighter is all nice and great except in war games and in combat if you have to go up against an F/A-22.  When he's got an AMRAAM ready for you at 18 miles away, definately won't be able to find him with your radar, and you won't get any sensor warning at all, only about 3 to 4 seconds of notice when the AMRAAM turns on its seeker.  Then in that short time, not even ECM or a last second high g turn will save you.

Finally, your aircraft gets turned into a meshed mess of aluminum and titanium alloys with plastic and a little pilot mixed in too.

True, my hat goes out to the F-15 and its excellent service record, the Eurofighter is a great cost conscious and highly capable aircraft, but the U.S. is the king of stealth aircraft and this will manifest itself in the next conflict involving aircraft combat.

The doctrine of higher cost and quality per unit and higher training has proved itself to justify the expense of the F/A-22 and various other U.S. military equipment like the all well known M1 Abrams main battle tank.

This doctrine or military philosophy has proved itself right in the cold war and continues to prove it today.

The F/A-22 and the F/A-35 JSF will rule the skies and estabolish air supremacy the U.S. and for any country that has F/A-35 JSF's, to deny it is to feed one's own ignorance of the facts.

[denoir 0]

The F/A-22 and the F/A-35 JSF will rule the skies and estabolish air supremacy the U.S. and for any country that has F/A-35 JSF's, to deny it is to feed one's own ignorance of the facts.

We'll see about the F-35, but AFIK the F-22 is already history as the US government won't be buying any serious number of them. They are simply too expensive.

Quote[/b] ]

This doctrine or military philosophy has proved itself right in the cold war and continues to prove it today.

Actually it has never proved itself right as it never has been in the position to do so. The only thing it's been up against are two or three generations older systems.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Eurofighter Typhoon, it's cheap, modern and multi-role (in case you should ever want to bomb Everon   )

denoir: the invader.

[Judge Rabbi 0]

I chose the F-15.

Dunno why, perhaps the price and the fact that none have been shot down got its vote.

Now, all I need to do now is recruit some fighter jet pilots and give them "Top Gun" to watch.

Not so harsh on the budget don't you think?

[havocsquad 0]

You think the U.S.S.R fell just because the U.S. scared the pants out of them, no it took a multirole deterent to end the cold war standoff.  That meant having a better economy, better subs, better tanks, better infantry weapons, better nukes, and definately better aircraft.

You don't need a world war to prove the capabilities of something that has no other equal now, it is the only hunter, the perfect bird of prey.  

No, the U.S. hasn't killed off the F/A-22, cutting production numbers doesn't mean anything except the U.S. is currently in a lot of debt because of poor current fiscial policy of the current presidential administration.

Why do you think the Russians never really wanted to provoke a conventional war, they'd have lost it because their equipment was designed badly, constantly breaking down, and ineffective weapons systems.  

Any fool that argues that war is the only way to get a good understanding of a tank, aircraft, ship, or sub is a ignorant person who refuses to do their research before posting about such matters.  You can't simulate everything, but blood is too costly to use for someone wanting statistics.