Re: Jet Aircraft Analysis

**Samoth** · 08-24-2005, 12:39 PM

The aircraft carriers would indicate navy though, would they not? Didnt think the marines had a carrier group.

**TEMM** · 08-24-2005, 12:45 PM

Its not a full sized carrier, its a WASP class carrier... shorter deck so only STOL's can use it, STOL being short take off and landing. Also Known as an assault carrier.

**Dark Viper** · 08-24-2005, 12:51 PM

The Marines do operate closely with the Navy though. The Essex is not a true carrier but an Amphibious Assault Ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_%28LHD-2%29

**Samoth** · 08-24-2005, 12:56 PM

Aah ok, cool. Good to know our weapons of war, thanks. So that would just leave the f-15 out of place?

**FishRoy** · 08-24-2005, 04:23 PM

Yes, the F-15 is out of place. They should probably just have the Hornet, as it is mainly used by the Marines for inland bombing missions. The F-15 is a Fighter that specializes in Air superiority, and not oft used as a fighter/bomber.

In reality, if we are to believe that BF2 takes place in the not too distant future, then the only plane should be the F-35 JSF.

**FishRoy** · 08-24-2005, 04:33 PM

Actually I forgot the F-15E Strike Eagle which is a two-seater fighter/bomber, and in fact this is the aircraft in game. Still, I can't find anything about Marines using F-15Es either.

**StrikeFear** · 08-24-2005, 06:12 PM

The marines don't use the F-15 at all. It is strictly an air force jet.
The marines don't have carriers - just jets on the carriers.
Navy ships often ferry marines around, both ground task forces and aircraft squadrons - and air cavalry task forces as well.
Marine aircraft squadrons often embark on Naval carriers (both the "Attack Carriers" you're used to seeing and the Amphibious carriers like the Essex), as well as the Navy squadrons. Air Force squadrons never make use of ships.

FYI, I spent 8 years in the Navy, including 2 tours on carriers
USS Roosevelt
USS Truman

For 2 of those years, I worked the flight deck of the Roosevelt.

**Legato895** · 08-24-2005, 06:18 PM

just wondering, but isn't the f22 superior as a fighter against the JSF? the IIRC, the JSF is a do-it-all plane that can be used as vtol, stal, fighter and bomber with some stealth characteristics. from what i've heard and assumed, the raptor could take on a jsb in the air, but only as a fighter as opposed to the fighter/bomber status of the F35

**FishRoy** · 08-24-2005, 08:12 PM

The F-22 is the superior to ANY aircraft currently flying when it comes to Air-to-Air combat. The F-22's stealth allows it to go virtually undetected for entire missions. The F-22's bay allows for the use of ATG ordnance too, so it can drop bombs, but will mostly be used for air superiority.

The F-35 is a multirole fighter that can both dogfight and bomb. The F-35 can be launched from carriers as well, making it more versatile than the F-22.

FYI I doubt if the F-22 or F-35 will play a role in future air combat due to the fact that stealth bombers (F-117 and B-2) can penetrate enemy air patrols.

**Legato895** · 08-24-2005, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by FishRoy

The F-22 is the superior to ANY aircraft currently flying when it comes to Air-to-Air combat. The F-22's stealth allows it to go virtually undetected for entire missions. The F-22's bay allows for the use of ATG ordnance too, so it can drop bombs, but will mostly be used for air superiority.

The F-35 is a multirole fighter that can both dogfight and bomb. The F-35 can be launched from carriers as well, making it more versatile than the F-22.

FYI I doubt if the F-22 or F-35 will play a role in future air combat due to the fact that stealth bombers (F-117 and B-2) can penetrate enemy air patrols.

not to mention unmanned drones

**Samoth** · 08-25-2005, 10:30 AM

It'd be cool if fighters could shoot down uav's, if they flew high enough.

**jepzilla** · 08-25-2005, 11:14 AM

I was flying an Su-30 last night and it definitely is not as manoeverable as an F-18 or a J-10. It might have as tight of a turn circle as those smaller fighters, but it is much slower entering turns and its roll rate is also much slower. You can do a decent job at chasing a fighter in one, but it's much harder getting one off your tail.

**TG_JBRanger** · 08-30-2005, 01:44 PM

THE J10 is the most maneuverable, this is a fact. It is smaller, tighter turning radius, etc. In a straight line however other aircraft can catch the J-10. Of course no map is big enough to really spread them out and play catch but from one side of Oilfields to the other it is apparent. The flight models are WAYY outta whack. The yaw is virtually non existant, etc. Heck, they don't even have working flaps!! BUT, if I want correct FM's I'll fly a real "sim"....

**StrikeFear** · 08-30-2005, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by TG_JBRanger

THE J10 is the most maneuverable, this is a fact. It is smaller, tighter turning radius, etc. In a straight line however other aircraft can catch the J-10.

How do you substantiate and prove your 'facts'?
Those are pretty bold statements. I wouldn't ordinarily challenge someone's impression of a vehicles handling characteristics - but I do challenge your 'authoritative' statements. How do you back them up?

**Legato895** · 08-30-2005, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by StrikeFear

How do you substantiate and proove your 'facts'?
Those are pretty bold statements. I wouldn't ordinarily challenge someone's impression of a vehicles handling characteristics - but I do challenge your 'authoritative' statements. How do you back them up?

lol strike, i hope your playing the devil advocate on this one! i donno, i agree with everything that was said about the j-10's superiority, but no, i can't back it up either, it just feels more fluid, and even i can stay on most enemy's tails in it :P

Thread Tools

Display