Jet Fighters

[flv*venom* 83]

these are some nice planes indeed, especially the Rhino, I just love that plane, nice work Franze! hopefully you'll manage to sort out the AI bugs...

and I have to agree with Inkompetent, that a Mirage III or maybe even the upgraded version, the one that looked like the Kfir would be an awsome plane for the RACS.

[Blue_Flight 0]

Any infos about that Su-30, ofp2?

[Zadoff1880 0]

...I don't know if I'll be ready to release it before December. The AI problems in particular are especially difficult to fix....

What?! What was that u said about December?!?

What r ur plans about the AH64D???

[verana_ss 0]

WOWWOW

so (Grippen Mirage2000 Rafale F/A-18E SU30MK) these are in progress?

I cant wait till these comes out!

[Blue_Flight 0]

WOWWOW

so (Grippen Mirage2000 Rafale F/A-18E SU30MK) these are in progress?

I cant wait till these comes out!

"Only" things we saw are the F/A-18 and Su-30.

[franze 196]

You can release the one with some glitches for SP/MP only to be used by humans...all its functionalities will be tested and you will get bug reports & feedback for improvement.

Testing isn't really the problem; essentially the F-18 is just a modified version of the F-18 we released earlier this year.

@Inkompetent

The Mirage 2000 was at the top of my list as well, but I figured Frenchpoint mod would be working on one by now. I'm not sure about either the Flogger or the Fishbed.

@Zadoff1880

nodunit has taken over the AH-64D, so that's entirely up to him.

@all

The problem with a lot of these jets is they're complex and expensive, probably quite a bit more than either the RACS or the SLA could afford. Even if you figure the SLA has the Su-34 and Ka-50, that's probably beyond their budget to afford any number of other aircraft - except perhaps dirt cheap planes such as MiG-17 or MiG-21. RACS on the other hand I'm not sure about, although Mirages, F-16s, F-5s, etc. seem like plausible types.

I know if I were to choose just one jet to give to the SLA it'd be the Su-22, with the MiG-23/27 as a close second.

[Jarvis 0]

Well, that's one thing I've been thinking. Definately F-16s(south) would be affordable, but when you get to the Flanker level, it sort of gets to be far fetched, and you'd more really see Mig-21s 23s etc...

[franze 196]

I think the MiG-23/27 would be the most probable type, but I have to admit I'm partial to the Su-22.

I think if I were to come up with a realistic air force order of battle for both the SLA and the RACS, it'd consist of these:

RACS

- 4 F-16A, 2 F-16B

- 4 Mirage 2000-5

- 2 F-5E

SLA

- 4 MiG-23

- 4 Su-22

- 4 MiG-21

I'd be reluctant to concede more aircraft than 12 for either side, and the types above represent a common lineup IMO. If you figure two air fields for both sides, there isn't a lot of area for loads of fixed wing aircraft to operate from.

One thing that might be fun though would be to go back to say the 1970s or 1980s and have a more broader conflict with a larger number of earlier aircraft. In that case, I'd go with something along:

RACS

- 6 F-4E

- 6 F-5E

- 6 Mirage III

- 4 A-4

SLA

- 4 MiG-23

- 8 MiG-21

- 4 Su-22

- 6 MiG-17

But then, one could argue that neither the SLA or RACS could afford the upkeep on 12-24 aircraft, so in that context maybe the Su-34 isn't so bad afterall.

[Zadoff1880 0]

You can release the one with some glitches for SP/MP only to be used by humans...all its functionalities will be tested and you will get bug reports & feedback for improvement.

Testing isn't really the problem; essentially the F-18 is just a modified version of the F-18 we released earlier this year.

@Inkompetent

The Mirage 2000 was at the top of my list as well, but I figured Frenchpoint mod would be working on one by now. I'm not sure about either the Flogger or the Fishbed.

@Zadoff1880

nodunit has taken over the AH-64D, so that's entirely up to him.

@all

The problem with a lot of these jets is they're complex and expensive, probably quite a bit more than either the RACS or the SLA could afford. Even if you figure the SLA has the Su-34 and Ka-50, that's probably beyond their budget to afford any number of other aircraft - except perhaps dirt cheap planes such as MiG-17 or MiG-21. RACS on the other hand I'm not sure about, although Mirages, F-16s, F-5s, etc. seem like plausible types.

I know if I were to choose just one jet to give to the SLA it'd be the Su-22, with the MiG-23/27 as a close second.

RACS can get ANYTHING - they have plenty of oil & can afford toilets made of gold

The perfect choice for RCAS is Ftm's HAWK-200.

[Gedis 0]

i vote for Kuznetsov's airwing, Su-39, newest Su-27 family versions(ofc with 3rd gen. engine uprgrade - more thrust, more reliability, full engine thrust vectoring - like Mig-29OVT) and your birdies will be falling from the sky

btw, if you want to match Su-34, do not dare to say F-15E, newest F-15K has more chanses to do so...

hehe

btw, Grippen is a pretty bird, i bet it can not only fly, but do harm to other birds too.

F-16... nah, Mig-29 beated it long time ago, it can do it again... yeah, F-16 is smiling all the time

Mirage and Rafale, oh those french... romantic planes!

Can't say nothing about F-18, tomcat pilots hate it, i think it's good, but F-14 is(was - removed from service )  more sexier.

Harrier... i like it's technology decisions in those days, i know F-35 is better in all meas, but harrier is a veteran, he needs some respect. Without harrier's creation, there wouldn't be Yak-36 -> Yak-36M(Yak-38) -> Yak-41 and 141 = no F-35.

P.S. that's my personal thoughts in the most simple way as it can be, not including technical datas, etc.

[franze 196]

@Zadoff1880

Affording the aircraft is one thing, keeping them up and running and having space to put them is something else. Availability is also another thing, and I don't think the SLA has access to the gobs of money that the RACS does.

@Gedis

Well, the problem is, Kuznetsov has all kinds of teething problems and upkeep has been pretty poor. The lack of catapults restrict the air wing's capabilities, and to top it off, only the Su-33 operates from it. The Su-39 also ran into these problems of funding, and the Russians didn't want the MiG-29K on the carrier due to lack of range.

Also, "your" birdies have what amounts to trash for A-A capability, especially now that F-18E/F, F-15C/E, F-16C, and F-22 come equipped with AIM-9X and JHMCS. Let's not even go the AIM-120 route or the low observable card, and let's not even start what a Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, and Mirage would do to those junkers. As for A-G, well - bombs and rockets are nice if you can get close enough to use them. Also, the F-15E is plenty capable to take care of the lumbering bomber-Flanker. A better match up would be the Su-30.

A MiG-29 has yet to shoot down a F-16, yet F-16s have shot down a few MiG-29s. I'd hardly say the MiG-29 has beaten the F-16.

Tomcat pilots don't "hate" the F-18; a number of them were eager to transition to the aircraft. The F-14 was getting old and difficult to keep running, and it's combat capabilities were not nearly as advanced as the F-18's.

[Jarvis 0]

Agreed(with you franze).  You(not you franze) must be some fking communist to say that kind of bs .  F-16 was made 30 years ago.  The Eurofighter that was just made a few years ago claims to outdo the F-16 performance wise but damn, it took them a while to catch up...same with the Fulcrum(russians ).  Realistically speaking, a small Island in the Atlantic, even with only 5 oil pumps really would not be able to afford a Navy and all these expesive SUs and Migs, you people really don't get it.  I agree with Franze on the most part.

Pretty much look at all these poorer countries that have "abundant market" equipment.  How many countries have F-16s(18 mill)?  or Mig-21s(10,000+made) 23s(5,000+made, 3.6mill) etc?  There are alot left and they are cheap enough for them to buy. Enough with all these crazy ideas for (expensive and limited) aircraft already.

Look at how few Su-27s are made, and only few are exported to large countries with money.  How much are they like 35 mill each or something?  Su-34 36million -made for bombing and survivability against AA but the Eagle would definately be able to blow it out of the sky.  But neither would be affordable(maybe if they bought 1...not much sense).

-Your other ramblings Gebis I don't understand and don't need to go into that, seems Franze has already gotten you on them all so...

[wolfbite 8]

Su-25's are cheap an cheerfull to run many african countries have em. Plus good for island like sahrani i feel. Maybe some pucara's and bronco's too

[Gedis 0]

first of all Su-39 hasn't been developed for aircraft carrier decks...

second, i don't want to discuss about things which just bumps into the walls, i stated this in my 1st post: as simple way as it can be, no proves with data...

so it ends here.

P.S. Su-30? for ground attack or for aa? it's a multi-role fighter(from my eyes) while Su-34 is ground attack... ok, enough, don't want to start a huge discussion here which i'm sure i can win

oh and about Mig-29 beating F-16 i ment that it beated F-16 in airshow, just don't remember in which, and AA missiles technology which is used in aim-9x, russians/soviets had it earlier.

EDIT

before i say more things, just delete this post, i'm too angry now, just delete till someone sees it and starts to flame. Calling for a firefighters brigade

[franze 196]

The F-16 and the MiG-29 are approximately the same age, with the Fulcrum being about 5 years younger. The MiG-29 is a close option for the SLA given the number of operators, but I'd again have doubts about more than 1 or 2 aircraft. In the face of common-as-dirt MiG-21s and MiG-23/27s, it wouldn't be my OPFOR candidate of choice. Both the Flanker and Fulcrum plus their derivatives are still capable aircraft and it's reflected in the price tag and TCO. The Su-25 is a candidate but it's also a CAS aircraft like the A-10, and fewer of them have been built as opposed to the Su-22 and MiG-21/23/27.

Realistically speaking - barring my estimations earlier, of course - I'd expect this:

RACS

- 2 F-16A, 2 F-16B

- 2 F-5E

SLA

- 1 MiG-17

- 1 MiG-21

- 2 MiG-23

- 2 Su-22

But that's pretty small and not much fun when thinking about a fictional scenario.

EDIT -

Quote[/b] ]

first of all Su-39 hasn't been developed for aircraft carrier decks...

It may have been, if the funding were available at the time. A Su-25UB had been modified for carrier deck trials.

Quote[/b] ]

P.S. Su-30? for ground attack or for aa? it's a multi-role fighter(from my eyes) while Su-34 is ground attack... ok, enough, don't want to start a huge discussion here which i'm sure i can win

Because the Su-34 isn't designed as multirole fighter, and that's basically what we're discussing here. I'd consider the Su-34 something like a pocket Tu-160.

Quote[/b] ]

oh and about Mig-29 beating F-16 i ment that it beated F-16 in airshow, just don't remember in which, and AA missiles technology which is used in aim-9x, russians/soviets had it earlier.

How can one aircraft "beat" another at an airshow?

A shooting contest is a lot different than demonstrating a really capable ejection seat multiple times!

Let's keep in mind that who got it first doesn't mean much when you think of modern equipment. True, the AIM-9X and JHMCS were developed as the result of a perceived Schlem-Archer threat, but now that AIM-9X and JHMCS are in widespread service, there isn't a gap anymore. The Israeli Python 3 and 4 were also in service around the time that Archer started appearing - and Israeli jets were modified to include a helmet mounted cuing system for the Python missiles.

P.S. I edited out your political rants. Let's not drag this thread down the deep end.

[nastros 0]

Personnely think the best thing to do

is forget about what sla and racs could

actually afford because people like to fly fighters

they like or there use to so the best thing to do

is have balance so if someone adds an f16 someone

else should add a mig 29 etc. I know that the sla realistecly wouldnt be able to afford alot of these planes but id

much prefer to see evenness in the game rather than

giving the sla less superier aircraft because its what

they can afford even though i dont think the game ever

stated the sla's budget. well thats my personnel opinion

u may agree or disagree but thats what i feel.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

I dont think you should put so much into the

diffrent sides economics.

Just add what ever you want, as long as the

items are valid to the side. RACS shouldnt have

alot of stuff imho. Let them have whaterver

opforside has abandoned. You know, blackmarket

stuff.

I mean its up to the addoncreator to decide...

The swedish forces would be considdered as

RACS but we have all kinds of verry expensive

items...JAS GRIPEN, LEO´s (Strv122), submarines

etc etc...

[franze 196]

The problem is if you don't take RACS and the SLA with their limitations, then you are effectively unlimited in what you can do. I have nothing against that; but some framework to build upon can keep it from becoming 100 F-22s vs 100 Su-35s.

[Inkompetent 0]

Actually, on the thing with Mig-21s, is that they *are* dangerous to an F-16... up close.

With it's AIM-120 AMRAAMs a F-16 can easily pick off Mig-21s at 16nm maximum distance, but in close encounters the Mig-21 can do something the F-16 can't: maneuver at low speeds.

THe F-16 is designed to have its maximum corner speed at about 300-350kts if I'm not wrong, and it's barely flyable under 250kts (meaning it can't do any advanced maneuvers without bleeding a lot of energy).

The Mig-21 however can maneuver well at much lower speeds and thus cause the F-16 to overshoot when in direct pursuit, meaning the Mig-21 will get free tail-shots with IR missiles at the F-16.

Thus they are far from worthless in such super-tiny airspaces as in ArmA.

[.COMmunist 0]

I great example of the realistic war of the 3rd world countries was the Ethiopia vs. Eretria in the 90's. Take a look at what they had as far as jet fighters, and you can get a very good idea what N.Sahrani vs. S.Sahrani forces should look like.

[franze 196]

@Inkompetent

Actually, in a strict maneuverability match, the F-16 would win against the Fishbed. The Fishbed cannot sustain a long close-in dogfight due to wing design and limited engine power compared to the F-16. A F-4 would be capable of defeating a MiG-21 in a strict turning fight, and this is why the MiG-17 was preferred over the MiG-21 in Vietnam. The MiG-21 was a capable interceptor, not a fighter, and while a good pilot could put the MiG-21 through some serious maneuvers, it is by no means a match for the much more advanced F-16. The MiG-23 is a different story, as it has much more thrust available to it and a better overall design.

The Fishbed is cheap and fast, that's about it. As for the F-16, well low speed maneuvering isn't it's weak point. The weak point of the F-16 is high speed, high altitude, BVR engagements, due to weak radar and fixed air intake.

[sabre4809 0]

A realistic fighter for RACS might be this , the South African Cheetah's which are being replaced now by Gripens.  The most capable is the C variant and is comparable to the f 16.

[Zadoff1880 0]

The problem is if you don't take RACS and the SLA with their limitations, then you are effectively unlimited in what you can do. I have nothing against that; but some framework to build upon can keep it from becoming 100 F-22s vs 100 Su-35s.

What limitations?.. The superpowers have decided to test their war stuff on Sahrani, so there r no financial limitations

President Push & President Tfutin have signed a secret agreement, u know, so that they can see what their armies are really capable of - without starting a nuclear war...

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Yes, that is a verry plausible soloution.!!!

[.COMmunist 0]

Like I said before, check out the Ethiopian war guys. In the 90's, a small part of Ethiopia called Eritria rebelled against the mother country. Eritria virtualy had no air force, but several Arab countries (Sudan, Algeria, Libya) decided to aid this small country. They sponsored purchases of Mig-21s, 23's, 29's from Russia, Belorus, Romania, Bolgaria and others. Ukranian mercenaries were flying those planes fighting the Ethiopians pilots and also Russian mercenaries. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea didn't have well-trained pilots, so the Ukranians and the Russians did all the hard fighting and bombing missions. I still remember how Moscow was flooded with these black guys with briefcases full of cash trying to buy ANY military equipment they could find! So you see, Sahrani could get some outside "sponsors" who can purchase Mig-29's, Grippens, Mirages, Su-27's, F-14's, 16's, 18's. Then some mercenaries can fly those planes for the North and South and we can have some very potent game-story.