Spreading your resources awfully thin...

Concordia

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Haesslich
Problem with this is the 'eggs in one basket' situation - you put everything onto one ship in this fashion (anti-capship, anti-fighter), you're bound to run into issues if the ship gets damaged or destroyed. Better, at least in WC terms, to have a carrier and a cruiser with several destroyer escorts, so you can a) attack from multiple sides, and b) even if you lose one ship, you haven't lost all your capabilities.

Yeah, but either way I can't win. The only way I could win would be if I designed a cruiser with two detachable Destroyers which are normally attached, and then seperate a'la the saucer section in Star Trek and then function independantly after that!

-Concordia
 

Jezzerr

Spaceman
Originally posted by Concordia
2.) Mini-Megacarrier: Hear me out. Basically it's like a Ranger/Eagle-Class - Sized carrier (slightly smaller actually), but fitted with several torpedo tubes, AMG's and other shield penetrating weapons. The idea is to basically make a small, but independantly operating carrier.

Think of this as Carrier turned Cruiser. Big Carrier, Little-Cruiser. However it would be classified as a Cruiser or something as to avoid politicians making a fuss over building more carriers.

Don't Confed already have these as the Hades class? IIRC the Cerberus has both torpedo tubes and the plasma gun as well as the ability to launch fighters.
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by Cam
Who would be stupid enough to send a carrier into war without escorts?

Captain Paulsen in WC4N: he orders Lexington in pursuit of a damaged carrier but without a fighter screen to defend against incoming bombers, or else any destroyers or frigates to defend against any incoming destroyers which the Border Worlds might send.... or for, that matter, having even his turrets on. :p
 

Cam

Spaceman
Originally posted by Haesslich
Captain Paulsen in WC4N: he orders Lexington in pursuit of a damaged carrier but without a fighter screen to defend against incoming bombers, or else any destroyers or frigates to defend against any incoming destroyers which the Border Worlds might send.... or for, that matter, having even his turrets on. :p

Well that's what he gets for being a spoiled little brat with no combat experience and a rich family that got him his job. :)
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
Originally posted by Haesslich
The Joint Strike Fighter (based off the Lockheed Martin X-35 design) is a project that was intended to replace the F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8 Harriers, and the F-16s currently in service with the US Navy, US Marine Corps, and the USAF. The F-22 Raptor was a seperate project, and it won the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) competition between it and the YF-21 because the F-22 had more 'stealthy' characteristics than the YF-21.

The big thing about the JSF is that it's supposed to reduce costs in supporting it (the parts are standard across all three services, reducing logistical issues and allowing savings in parts acquisition), and to be able to support the F-22, along with handling ground-attack missions. The F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter, while the JSF is more of an all-around plane.

Think the difference between a Vampire and a Tigershark from WCP, if it helps. Or the WC4 Bearcat versus the bog-standard heavy fighters or Excaliburs.

Next time, do a little reading up? :D


Ouch... so sorry to break it to you... but the YF-21 was practically superior to the F-22 in every aspect... *especially* stealth... the deciding factor was cost...oh yeah and i do a lot of reading on aviation... it my hobby :)
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by Maniac II
Ouch... so sorry to break it to you... but the YF-21 was practically superior to the F-22 in every aspect... *especially* stealth... the deciding factor was cost...oh yeah and i do a lot of reading on aviation... it my hobby :)

My mistake; it's the YF-23, and I heard that it wasn't quite as stealthy and didn't include the thrust-vectoring capabilities that the YF-22 brought to the table even if they may have the ability to compromise the stealth from the rear, where the vectoring goes on. In other words, while the YF-23 is faster... the F-22 is more maneuverable and overall stealthy, at least according to the general consensus.
 

Rambo_UK

Spaceman
F-22 v F-23

Actually the YF-23 was almost certainly more stealthy, but that came at the price of agility. Size, weight and cost were also probably factors in the decision. Northrop also has a habit of losing out on these contracts...
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
the YF-23 also could carry amraams, at least for the trials that determined which would go into production, the interior missile bay only allowed the F-22 to carry Sidewinders

and they both had the same 2 engines (the originals hadnt decided between a GE engine or a P&T), each was capable of supersonic without afterburner.

From what i remember and saw the YF-23 was superior in all aspects, but it simply cost more.
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by Napoleon
the YF-23 also could carry amraams, at least for the trials that determined which would go into production, the interior missile bay only allowed the F-22 to carry Sidewinders

and they both had the same 2 engines (the originals hadnt decided between a GE engine or a P&T), each was capable of supersonic without afterburner.

From what i remember and saw the YF-23 was superior in all aspects, but it simply cost more.

As I recall, the YF-22's thrust vectoring provided superior maneuverability to the YF-23's system, even if the thrust vectoring may have also reduced the stealth capabilities slightly due to the less-than-optimal angles that can produce.

That's what makes it more 'fighter-like' than the YF-23...
 

Rambo_UK

Spaceman
F-22 agility

Assuming the figures published in the EF2000/F-22 TAW guides for turn rates are correct, the F-22 isn't actually all that good without the thrust vectoring.

Not that you should be looking for a knife fight in a phone booth if you can kill the guy from 30 miles away with a BVR shot... ;)
 

Concordia

Swabbie
Banned
Honestly if I was the one making the choices, I would have simply made the F-23 with modified nozzles to make it more like the F-22, re-designed the nose (in that one respect it was LESS stealthy than the F-22, otherwise it was stealthier in all aspects... with a modified nose, it would have been more stealthy), and used the F-120 engine (Variable cycle: Think of it like a turbofan that can transform into a Turbojet; to the more educated: A turbofan which can vary it's bypass ratio).

-Concordia
 
Top