Air Units

[akghosh]

Hi guys, what air units are there for the 3 sides. I know A10's F-15's F-18's, what else. Also what will be the Main Battle Tank for the Consortium. I believe it is the T-55.

Reply Soon, Looking foreward to the Demo, can you guys tell me when the singleplaner demo will come out? Also the MP Demo?

[AgmLauncher]

I would wager that your guess about the T55 is correct. It looks like the Consortium has a few Russian units (oddly it also has some US Marine Corps units :lightbulb ) so the T55 looks about right.

The official Act or War website has a count down timer for the demo which I think is the single player demo.

[5*General]

I know for sure the F/A 22 Raptor will be one of the aircraft, and the F-35 JSF will also be one. I think the Raptor is for the regular US units, and the JSF will be for Task Force Talon. Makes sense. I've also seen B-2s, which were a shoo-in anyways. Of course, as you have mentioned, A-10s. If there is any navy, then there will be F-18s. With the Raptors/JSFs though, I see no reason for Eagles (F-15s), nor have I seen any in any screenshots. Raptors are better by a longshot anyways though ;) and will eventually be the main fighter craft in the US Airforce (and since this is in the near future, we can expect that that change has already taken place during the setting of this game). For the Consortium, I'm not quite sure, I haven't seen much air from them, but I do know they get the Black Widow (F-23). I also think they get some version of an SU (27 I think). I wouldn't be surprised if they also had some kind of Mig.
In terms of ground forces, I've heard of Paladins, and Abrahms are a definite. So are Humvees and Strykers. Bradely is another definite. For the Consortium, T-55 possibly, more likely, I think at least, the T-72. I know that the BTR 80 will definetly make it into the Consortium's array of vehicles (their main transport). I also know that Task Force Talon will have some kind of buggies. I'm not quite sure about there being Navy, but I think if there is, it will only be in the campaign in certain missions (like in C&C Generals: Zero Hour).
In conclusion, I think, for the US, that they have access to 3 aircraft, those being: B-2 Spirit, A-10 Thunderbolt 2, F/A 22 Raptor. I'm not sure about Task Force Talon, but think this: B-2 Spirit, A-10 Thunderbolt 2, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

[nastykiller]

Not enough units.. they should make the Harriers, F-16 for extreme long range, B-52 and also the DB version which is the Megafortress, and also the Vampire bomber.

[akghosh]

Thanks guys, Yes there will be buggies! DUNE BUGGIES, for usa or TFT. In the screens i also saw an F-18! What are the system req. I want to run the game on am Inspiron 5150, here are the stats!

Inspiron 5150
P4 no ht, 3.060 Ghz
512 MB 333mhz ddr ram
64 Mb Geforce FxGo5200
Now this is ****! It's not worth my money if i wanna buy the game and run it on this. Will the game work? What type of System should i get, im gonna build this. This game looks, graphics wise soo good, that I think 128 MB Graphics card with 8X AGP will be min Req for a graphics card! Since i cant upgrade anything besides RAM on this laptop, i guess i gotta build a comp :) THIS GAME LOOKS AWSOMEEEE, they have one customer!

P.S. I also noticed that Consirtum has Mi-8 Hip transports :)!!!
Also, anyone who went to the press meeting thing. How the Hell do you capture people, do you outnumber them, then surround them? Or if they are alone do you just capture them?

[5*General]

There won't be F-16s. The Raptor replaced the F-14, F-15, and F-16. The JSF replaces the Harrier. The B-2 pretty much replaced the B-52, and they are keeping it realistic so no vampire and megafortress things...

Edit: The Raptor and JSF are in the process of replacing these crafts. This game is set slightly in the future, and by then the replacements will be complete, so there won't be any F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, Harriers, and not even F-18s probably b/c the JSF replaces those too.

[Silver Hawk]

You need to study more. The F/A-22A Raptor only replaces the F-15C, the F-15E will stick around and the JSF will replace the F-16C/D and the A-10A. The Navy is adding the JSF to replace F/A-18C and the F/A-18E is replacing the F-14B/D. Along with the JSF replacing the AV-8B in the Marine Corp.

Along with the B-52H, it's going to be in the US inventory for the foreseeable future. The B-2A was never meant to be a replacement in anyway for the B-52 Combat Platform, it's just too expensive and payload restricted, not to mention the more missions it's flies the more likely that Golden BB gets'em.

[bomber666]

just as a side note for the b-2. i believe that after an hr of flying it has to go under maintenence for about 17hrs to ensure that its electrical systems and stealth capabilities are at their optimum capabilities

correction about the b-2a's maintenance.Currently, the B-2 requires an unprecedented 24.6 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flying time. in other words this should be a very hard special ability to get and recharge time should be double or triple of whatever another special ability( unless another special ability can create mass devastation)

[Silver Hawk]

That's nothing, the Lightning Mk.II that the Brits used for Cold War Supersonic Interception of Soviet Nuclear Bombers required 70+ Hours of maintence for each hour of flight time! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[bomber666]

:0 thats crazy amount of maintenance. wonder what it is nowadays with the new technology

[BOMBLORD]

Originally posted by Silver Hawk
That's nothing, the Lightning Mk.II that the Brits used for Cold War Supersonic Interception of Soviet Nuclear Bombers required 70+ Hours of maintence for each hour of flight time! :eek: :eek: :eek:

what is the lighting mk II ? I am a pretty much aircraft lover,It will be good if you will give me some link......I wander if they will have an aurora as a recon ? but na...I don't think so......there are settlites for that.......the b-2 is so varnbule,even the smellest scratch can harm it's "stelthy" protection.and I don't think that the B-52 will be replaced in the near 25 years.
o
for more info on the aurora(that site got so much bullshit on it)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/aurora.html

[Silver Hawk]

A Stealthy Aircaft only needs it's shape and design to make it stealthy. RAM (RADAR Absorbant Material) only completes the illusion, the B-2A suffers more stealth loss from when it opens it's payload doors for bomb delivery then if it were to cruise around with just standard paint.

So the main risk lies in it being shot down and it's technology stolen and sold on the black market.

[BOMBLORD]

I don't knwo of any country (exepte russia and USA it self) that have the cash to build such hi-tec and expensive aircraft.russia don't need that technology,that's for sure ! the got something even better(plasma stalth generators):p:

[5*General]

Actually, in the end, the Raptor does end up replacing all the mentioned aircraft, at least in a general term. The Raptor can indeed complete just about all of their missions, and there is no need for them once the Raptor has been mass produced (and since this is near-future, that will have happened). The JSF doesn't end up replacingthe A-10 really, more or less just the Harrier and F-18. The B-2, by this point, will have replaced the B-52, although it originally was not meant to, it has proved itself now just as capable, and for the game, you can sure bet it accomplishes anything the B-52 would do. Which basically was my whole point. For what the aircraft will be used for in the game, the Raptor, A-10, JSF, and B-2 just about cover it all. There will also be the Global Hawk, F-23, and I think SU-27. The F-23 and SU-27 are for the Consortium.

[Silver Hawk]

I repeat, the B-2A WILL NEVER REPLACE THE B-52H! It's payload is simply not as high and the extremely senstive technology needed to make it run make it to high of a risk to fly it on all but the most scripted of missions. The JSF will be the replacement of the A-10A, at least in the fact of deployment, even if the A-10A is going to stick around until well past 2025 now. The F/A-22A simply does not posses any sort of AG ability besides the ability to carry 2 JDAMs internally or 8 JDAMs if it runs Dirty.

[BOMBLORD]

Originally posted by 5*General
Actually, in the end, the Raptor does end up replacing all the mentioned aircraft, at least in a general term. The Raptor can indeed complete just about all of their missions, and there is no need for them once the Raptor has been mass produced (and since this is near-future, that will have happened). The JSF doesn't end up replacingthe A-10 really, more or less just the Harrier and F-18. The B-2, by this point, will have replaced the B-52, although it originally was not meant to, it has proved itself now just as capable, and for the game, you can sure bet it accomplishes anything the B-52 would do. Which basically was my whole point. For what the aircraft will be used for in the game, the Raptor, A-10, JSF, and B-2 just about cover it all. There will also be the Global Hawk, F-23, and I think SU-27. The F-23 and SU-27 are for the Consortium.
do you know haw much money it costes to keep it in shape ?
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/b-2_spirit.pl
IT WILL NEVER REPLACE THE B-52.end of argue.what can I do ? money talks.

[nastykiller]

not only can it not carry as much payload, it can't even be upgraded as much. B-52 has too much space to spare, i bet it can even fit a global hawk or something in the bomb holding place (i might be exagerating a little since i don't really noe how big the area inside is but i'm definately sure it can hold alot of ****)

[BOMBLORD]

Approximately 70,000 pounds (31,500 kilograms) mixed ordnance -- bombs, mines and missiles. (Modified to carry air-launched cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship and Have Nap missiles.)why to put a globel hawk inside ? the globel hawk got a very very long range.it

[Slacky]

F22's are getting very dated now, and there are better planes out there, out of logic i will say the Euro-fighter, with all it's computers. The pilot ain't really needed in the dam thing, it's the most technilogically advanced plane in the world with 20 computers backing it up and sending it different information, of course if one of these computers crashed it would be the most technilogically advanced bricks to ever fall out of the sky. F22's are just behind times, and they are easy to shoot at. Speed is there only saviour.

[BOMBLORD]

I hope that you will not forget the cost of one raptor..... 100 million $ per unit.and euro fight is a flyng worthless hi-tec junk.

[Silver Hawk]

What have you been smoking on reguards to the F/A-22A? You couldn't be farther from the truth about it!

[bomber666]

yeah. the f/a-22 is state-of-the-art plane. and OH wow 20 computers. with the stealth technology and the power to fire all its missiles at once that Eurofighter would go down becuz the F/a will almost always get a shot off if it gets a good fighter pilot

[BOMBLORD]

it is just me,or there is the RAF sign on the comanche ? (in the new screens that have been realesed) and BTw, nobody said that war is a cheap thing........

[PqLear]

The "US Army" (includes Navy, Air Force and Marines units as well) uses A-10s, F-15s, B2s, Apaches and Blackhawks. In some missions, you also call in F/A-18 airstrikes.

Task Force Talon uses JSFs as multirole fighter-bombers, Osprey rotorcraft for troop transport, Global Hawk drones and Comanches for both recon and CAS missions.

The Consortium uses YF-23 stealth fighters, Mi-35 Hinds, Mi-17 Hips and V-22 and V-24 rotorcraft. In some single-player missions, they also use MiG-21s.

There are plenty of reasons for this particular (very subjective) selection; most importantly, it works really well in the game.

[Slacky]

You have noticed stealth these days is out the window for the US (i think) but certainly the UK. We have picked up so many US stealth fighters on our new radars that is getting silly that the US deny them all. A good fighter pilot for a plane... the top 100 top guns in the US wouldn't get in the top ten in the UK RAF, partly because we train ours longer. And a general disregard in US is notable, if a pilot ejects out of plane they send him back up again, I mean what?!? Over here they have to retire. Plus the Euro fighter doesn't need a pilot, thats the point of the '20' computers (I think you failed to see the under-eageration). Thats the silly thing, the pilot sits there and conferms everything. The Euro-fighter IS the most advanced fighter, why the hell have the Us bought a load if they weren't? What would they need them for... I mean you obviously the US are better... *cough cough* More doesn't mean better, remember you didn't rule half the world at one time. Go join George Bush and go to Korea, it'll make you feel good.

[Slacky]

sorry, that was harsh.

And I'm no patriot so don't get all 'I'm American and your British' on me. Tis a pity that you have all that tech and Bush leading the way. If only someone else would stand up instead of Kerry.

[BOMBLORD]

lets not turn this into a political conflict..I am isrealy,and I can tell you certinly that the IAF pilots of beat the **** out of the US pilots.........I wonder what will happen if a virus enters the euro fighter's computer......today,it's not about the skill of the pilot,but about the technology.anyway,I personaly think that the euo is just an expensive flyng super computer.and BTW,that aircraft don't ahve too much preformnce......

[MetalPhoenix]

Nice game this is turning out to be.

BTW, about the aircraft:

1)The B2 isn't gonna replace the B52, they have different roles. The 52 is for general bombing. B2s are specialized aircraft, used when you need to penetrate air defences or precision bombing.

2)There's no way an F22 could lose in a BVR fight. It's good at hiding from radar, has good manuverbility, excellent speed, and top-notch avionics. The F35 is the light companion of the 22 (think F15 and F16 or Su-27 and MiG-29) and can be used more widely due to its lower cost. It's got decent A2A, but it can handle ground attack well.

The Eurofighter is a good fighter. It's capable of fufilling the many roles the European countries involved in its production need.

3)These days, dogfights are (usually) about the machine, not the man. Whoever can spot the opposition first, evade the enemy missiles and get his own off accurately will win.

4)Do IAF pilots know how to dogfight? They're mostly involved in ground attack anyway...

[Slacky]

We are usually ground attacking, I know I should REALLY shut up now, but come on, don't make me bring up vietnam and the fact that all you do is pound Iraq (you being the US sorry making this personal). Napalm was a bit far though, the UN is gunna give Bush a wooping for that little move. Euro fighters are a bitch though, don't think I lik 'em they are pants, I know it's dumb but go F-14's! I love 'em so much. but back to the euro fighter as I said before: 'It's the most technilogically advanced plane in the world with 20 computers backing it up and sending it different information, of course if one of these computers crashed it would be the most technilogically advanced bricks to ever fall out of the sky.' It sucks. but remember no matter how good your plane is don't fly over China FFS. They still use fecking flack for pitys sake, they shot a U2 down with it, if I recall.

[Silver Hawk]

Standard Air Campigan Produres are followed reguardless of the abilitys of the plane. The Stealth of the Raptor will just insure that it gets the drop or is prvented from being bounced by opposing Air Forces. As for your China Thing, thats completely wrong, only 1 U-2 Dragon Lady was shot down and that was by Russian using a High Alt. SAM against it (The SA-2 Guideline to be exact.) At the Alt. that the U-2 flys at (70,000 + Ft.) Convential Flak and Ballistic Rounds are unable to reach the Recon plane, much less many Interceptor Fighters.

[BOMBLORD]

Originally posted by MetalPhoenix
Nice game this is turning out to be.

BTW, about the aircraft:

1)The B2 isn't gonna replace the B52, they have different roles. The 52 is for general bombing. B2s are specialized aircraft, used when you need to penetrate air defences or precision bombing.

2)There's no way an F22 could lose in a BVR fight. It's good at hiding from radar, has good manuverbility, excellent speed, and top-notch avionics. The F35 is the light companion of the 22 (think F15 and F16 or Su-27 and MiG-29) and can be used more widely due to its lower cost. It's got decent A2A, but it can handle ground attack well.

The Eurofighter is a good fighter. It's capable of fufilling the many roles the European countries involved in its production need.

3)These days, dogfights are (usually) about the machine, not the man. Whoever can spot the opposition first, evade the enemy missiles and get his own off accurately will win.

4)Do IAF pilots know how to dogfight? They're mostly involved in ground attack anyway...
isrealis don't know haw to dogfight ? **** YOU.the IAF pilots are the best ever! haw do you think that we defended our skyes during all the wars ? you think that we throw rockes at the enemys elite piloted mig-21's and killed tham ? americans say that they are best in world,but the iraqis got no other aircraft to resist.and anyone can drop bombs at biulding.so watch your mouth!

[MetalPhoenix]

so watch your mouth!
Look who's talking... .:rolleyes:

haw do you think that we defended our skyes during all the wars ?
1948 is too old to bring up, and I don't recall any major air-to-air engagements during the Six-Day War. There might have been other conflicts which I can remember that involved some A2A though.

enemys elite piloted mig-21's
The MiG-21 is utterly obsolete, and I wouldn't consider the Arab nations' pilots to be elite, not by a long shot.

Oh, and I'm not American, nor have I ever implied to be.

[BOMBLORD]

OUT DATED ? in the begining of the 60's the mig 21 was NOT OUT DATED AT ALL.while IAF had mirage (franch ****)and half of isrealy wars ware in the sky.read and learn some history.and 1948 ? there was allmost no aircraft at that time(no at IAF anways.....)

[KingsRevenge]

GO USA!!

[BOMBLORD]

GO USA! sly all the iraqis that you can ! destroy everything,leave nothing behind(a line from generals...)

[TanKilleR]

Geeze you guys, cant you see that he comes from Location: isreal,haifa
You think that hes going to let you get away with diss'n his homeland's air fource:D I dont blam him. And I have to agree, Isreal is quite a military power to be fought with.:tup:

[Ithaca]

F-22 is a fine plane... US navy is the top. CIA seems to know everything...

But they simply can't protect everyone.

America should step back and take care of their own problems.

Bush makes me feel sick with his talk about Iraq. He attacked a country without any approval from the UN.

---------------------------------------------
Pretty offtopic, and totally NOT important for this topic, don't you think... SO lets stop arguiing about foreign countries airforce

I think that they made the right choices, the game is set in de near future so JSF, B-2 and F-22 are smart to pick.

A-10 is kind of a strange choice... all new planes and the A10. Understandeble; perfect plane, can carry lots of payload, and can take a lot of damage before it goes down.

It is a game... not reality. They just picked a few state-of-the-art planes. :)

[akghosh]

Isreal's Airforce is EXCELLENT. I mean, even though Isreal is not a big country, i'd like to see ANY arabian, and middle eastern country to attack it! BTW IAF and their F-16 kick some serious butt! Also BTW i'm indian, so i know what Isreal faces with terrorist threats and all, and believe that the US should learn more from them! Isreal knows guriella warefare, and counter terrorism like the back of their hand, just like india is starting to do now!

[painfulsunrise]

Originally posted by Ithaca
F-22 is a fine plane... US navy is the top. CIA seems to know everything...

But they simply can't protect everyone.

America should step back and take care of their own problems.

Bush makes me feel sick with his talk about Iraq. He attacked a country without any approval from the UN.



Since I worked for Bush Cheney and I am a Republican Rep. I feel incline to defend.

The United States steps in when no one else will.

The United Nations is out of date and doesn't accomplish anything anymore. Other than bicker and bitch. I am anti-UN for the fact they don't accomplish anything, they allow countries to walk all over them and to hide things from them.

President Bush was presented with intel from domestic and international reports. Any President in his position would have made the same decision.

Now, Bush did not lie about WMDs, Saddam DID have either built WMD, or materials to do so. Before the US-led invasion, the WMD or the materials where sold to Syria and or Iran. Lots of documents to support that notion. Not to mention, hordes of biological and chemical weapons (which are even documented in use during the Iran - Iraq war) have been found and guess what category they fall under? That's right, WMD.

Now, how do I know all of this you ask? I abuse my civilian access at the Pentagon and dig deep in files. Something alot of people don't do.

I'll add on to this in a bit.. I need to restart my computer.

[painfulsunrise]

Actually, I void my 'add-on' statement. Let's get this baby back on topic.

[Draetiss]

Bush IS a terrorist.
What do you think attacking Irak does ? Do you think it will stop terrorism ? Are you kidding ?
It's better to solve problems far than to look at our own faults.

[Gurgel]

Originally posted by painfulsunrise
Since I worked for Bush Cheney and I am a Republican Rep. I feel incline to defend.

The United States steps in when no one else will.

The United Nations is out of date and doesn't accomplish anything anymore. Other than bicker and bitch. I am anti-UN for the fact they don't accomplish anything, they allow countries to walk all over them and to hide things from them.

President Bush was presented with intel from domestic and international reports. Any President in his position would have made the same decision.

Now, Bush did not lie about WMDs, Saddam DID have either built WMD, or materials to do so. Before the US-led invasion, the WMD or the materials where sold to Syria and or Iran. Lots of documents to support that notion. Not to mention, hordes of biological and chemical weapons (which are even documented in use during the Iran - Iraq war) have been found and guess what category they fall under? That's right, WMD.

Now, how do I know all of this you ask? I abuse my civilian access at the Pentagon and dig deep in files. Something alot of people don't do.

I'll add on to this in a bit.. I need to restart my computer.

:p:

[painfulsunrise]

Originally posted by Lancea
Bush IS a terrorist.
What do you think attacking Irak does ? Do you think it will stop terrorism ? Are you kidding ?
It's better to solve problems far than to look at our own faults.

President Bush is NOT a terrorist.

Let me fill you in on some facts.

Iraq (this is how it's spelled my dear, not Irak) had over 30 al Queda training camps, which were all operational until the US-led invasion. Saddam had a wire account that fed money to Osama bin Laden or any of al Queda's top members at anytime from any place on the globe.

That is how Saddam was linked with 9/11. There was no doubt he wanted to strike at the United States, why wouldn't he help someone else achieve that goal?

Saddam killed millions out of pure genocide for over 20 years of his regimes reign. Yes, millions.

Did the UN do anything? No. Did they stop Saddam by using peaceful means (peace talks and using sanctions)? No. He simply kept on.

When Saddam was asked to disarm his WMD, he said NO. What does that tell you? Obviously he HAD something or he would have simply stated 'I have nothing, thus I am disarmed.'

The UN was involved for a long time in the matter, the prime minister to the UN for Iraq was asked about WMD in his country and if so to disarm them at once. The Iraqi prime minister to the UN LEFT the building, leaving the question unanswered and caused much speculation.

Since the UN did NOTHING but be led on a wild goose chase and were to BLIND to see the truth, the United States pulled from UN-involvement and went in with our 30 allies.

You need to get your facts straight my friend.

On a side note, I don't want to make enemies with any of you, but I major in political science, historic events and current domestic and international affairs. I also don't have a problem debating or proving anyone wrong with facts and statistics on my side. :D

[BOMBLORD]

relly,lets go back into topic......
the topic was about aircraft ...sowhat do you think is better ? lots of cheaper aircraft ,or a smeller (alot smeller)number of more expensive and more advenced aircraft ?

[Duncsta]

I personally go with numbers before quality. So i'd have to say lots o' cheap aircraft.

[painfulsunrise]

Sorry guys. :D

Well, I just would like alot of aircraft.. PERIOD.

A nice combination of planes and helicopters would be perfect.

[I3ag_OF_I3ones]

Anyway Raptor is a fine plane, costs too much though, 258 million per jet.

BTW, one crashed today.:tonguegre http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2716560&nav=168XUOrD

As for sake of discussion, i think su-47 is equal to it, if not better. Better manueverability but the stealth makes it even. All about escaping the first shot .:tup: .

[bomber666]

:tup: we are back on track

[phoenixstar]

Let's get some of the units the Pentagon and DARPA are looking at like the UCAR (unmanned helicopter for the Army - even though it's been cancelled, which was a funding problem, not program problem)

JASSM missile http://www.fas.org/man/dod-01/sys/smart/jassm.htm

ATACMS missile http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/atacms-bat.htm

LOCAAS sub-missile http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/pressreleases/02pressrelease/111402_LOCAAS.htm


Pelican http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_pw.html

x-50 Dragonfly

[Warspite]

I'm glad to see this thread is back on track -I would hate to think that I might have to start intervening in threads here the same way I have to in the DBZ forums. Freedom of speech rules here, but there must be no flaming of other users, no harrasment and no swearing. If anyone has any problems with the content of the posts, let me know.

PS Where is the Vulcan bomber for this game huh? Finest and noisiest machine ever created by man!!Makes a B-52 sound like a Nissan Micra :D VULCAN! (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=2979&item=5530699633&rd=1#ebayphotohosting)

[Orion Saccuroa]

erhm Vulcan Bomber:weirdblue

digs in history text book ....


freaks out:eekblue:

Erhm wouldn't that be kind of a very very BIG plane... or my picture isn't right

http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/history/timeline/neptune-1967.jpg

[Warspite]

They aren't Vulcans!!!:eekblue:

THIS is a Vulcan!!

[Orion Saccuroa]

see :p: I knew I made a mistake with that site I took them from ^^ haha that picture was on it alwel and thats the plane I was talking about I was reading its dimensoins on the site and damn that thing is huge for a jet bomber...

[BOMBLORD]

what are the parameters for this aircraft ? it lookes quite big .....

[Warspite]

It was designed for carrying nuclear weapons - it was fast and had a very long range.It was always my favourite at air shows, and I saw the last ever flight - brought a tear to my eye:frownblue

STATS (http://www.visionengineer.com/aero/vulcan.shtml)

They don't make 'em like that anymore - new planes are rubbish:rolleyes:

[painfulsunrise]

Originally posted by Warspite
They aren't Vulcans!!!:eekblue:

THIS is a Vulcan!!

:eek:

I want to play!!!!

[Orion Saccuroa]

Originally posted by Warspite

STATS (http://www.visionengineer.com/aero/vulcan.shtml)

They don't make 'em like that anymore - new planes are rubbish:rolleyes:

yup your right thats one nasty good plane :)

[bomber666]

:devil: its soo beautiful. It brings a tear to my eyes. Imagine what kinda devastation we ,players, could do with that. *evil laugh*

[Orion Saccuroa]

level a city :lightbulb

since they where build to carry Nukes...:tonguegre

[MetalPhoenix]

The Avro Vulcan is helluva old, and thus won't appear ingame. It's too bad, it was a great plane. Expecially what it did at the end of its career (ong-range bombing mission from Britain all the way to Argentina, during the Falklands war).

[BOMBLORD]

the point is that naw it costes just too much to operate.and the USAF probbly prefer to use the b-52 for most of the bombing missions(that aircraft can carry some much of "smart bombes"...)

[5*General]

I don't, at all, get the use of F-15s over Raptors. Raptors are THE number 1 fighter jet in the world (they are actually around 20 mil for mass ordering, the first 11 were more expensive, but with the mass order they will be cheaper). The Raptor has beaten 3 SU-37s (yes, they are 37s, not 47s bag of bones ;) in an actual aerial test using lasers to tell if the stuff woulda hit and whatnot. The Raptor has 2 advs over the 37s: Stealth, and yes, maneuverability. The Raptor's nozzles can go 4 ways as opposed to the 37's 2 vertical ways. The Eurofighter falls in behind both. The Raptors would be far better than F-15s in this game, especially for the role they play. The stealth makes it easier to drop their load, they can go up to Mach 2! (fastest fighter ever made) and note that their name is the F/A 22 Raptor and not just F-22, although the F part is its primary purpose. So, we're talking, quick, invisible, missile dumps on a target versus slower, painfully visible, attacks on targets. I vote F/A 22!

[Thunderchild]

Surely the fastest fighter ever made was the Mig25 - mach 3 for crying out loud! Even your common or garden Tornado or Phantom can nail almost mach 2.3. In fact, the Lightning has been nailing Mach 2 and higher since 1949!!!

So what is the top speed for the F-22? And until it has been around and proved itself, why NOT stick with the F-15? its a 30 year old design, but it is still absolutely outstanding:tup:

[Sabin Falknir]

The F-22 eventually will replace the F-14/F-15 series, but it’s more to do with the older planes just phasing out with age. F-22 is costly, but do keep in mind what country is paying the bill, and that the jet is about air superiority by a low-observable, highly maneuverable airframe with supersonic cruise without afterburner (and so on).

So in comparison without going into great detail it does the air superiority role better, it stays up in the air longer and can maintain high speed flight over a greater duration, and has the equipment to get to hot spots fast and usually get the first move in the air (which is a precedence of air combat).

The B-2 will not phase out the B-52, unless somewhere between now and this game’s time where the B-52 lost combat survivability and outweighed mission completion. In fact, that would probably would cause stealth bombers and-or other aircraft to be phased in to increase survivability of the aircraft and crew while completing the missions at hand.

It doesn’t matter about airframe ordinance allowance if the aircraft cannot manage to survive the combat situation/mission, but I don’t see any reason to phase out the B-52 till cause required change is presented.