US contractors are known to stamp F designations to crafts that are actually F/B or B. It's because the F designation is more popular, and more likely to get funds approved. It is also the only reason the F-117 bears the F designation.
And the F16 is a true fighter craft, but the F18 is a strike fighter.

When the IAF destroyed the Iraq nuclear plant the F16's carried the bombs and the F15's flew air cover.

Yes, there were about 50 of them, and they did such a damn good job of it that they had to send in 50 more F-117s to do it right

the p41 mustang carried bombs too but it was strictly a fighter

i look at the f-18 as the navel version of the f-16 and it probable has to have capabilities that the f-16 doesn't have

@The_Regicide (Reply#53) ????????????????

They had to send somewhere around 50 F16s to "destroy" Osiraq, and then they had to send qabout 50 F117s just to do the job right. What don't you understand?

I don't think the IAF has ever had any F117's ...???

the f-16 is the fastest and only aircraft that go from the ground straight up to its celling

You must be thinking of the F-15. That fighter has a better than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, so it can fly up. I don't think F-16s can do that. (Side note: the F-16 has been described as a "multi-role fighter," which is as good a name as anything for most modern fighters. Even F-22s can carry bombs.)

According to Wikipedia, Osiraq was crippled in '81 by the Israelis and completely destroyed in Gulf War I.

nope not thinking about the f-15 the only advantage that the f-16 has over any other fighter is ability to go for floor to ceilling strieght up

And I have found a copy of the thing I was talking about on wikipedia:
"Three days into the Desert Storm air raids, 56 F-16s attacked the facility followed by F-117 raids three days later. The facility, one of Iraq's most fortified targets, was not fully destroyed until another raid, when 48 F-117s targeted the facility 7 more times for over a month along with 17 F-111Fs weeks later. Only 19 days into the strikes did the US Defense Intelligence Agency find the site to be "severely degraded"."

here are the stats on both planes and guess what f-16 has a bigger thrust

General Characteristics
Primary function: Tactical fighter
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Power plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100, 220 or 229 turbofan engines with afterburners
Thrust: (C/D models) 23,450 pounds each engine
Wing span: 42.8 feet (13 meters)
Length: 63.8 feet (19.44 meters)
Height: 18.5 feet (5.6 meters)
Speed: 1,875 mph (Mach 2.5 plus)
Maximum takeoff weight: (C/D models) 68,000 pounds (30,844 kilograms)
Ceiling: 65,000 feet (19,812 meters)
Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
Crew: F-15A/C: one. F-15B/D/E: two
Armament: One internally mounted M-61A1 20mm 20-mm, six-barrel cannon with 940 rounds of ammunition; four AIM-9L/M Sidewinder and four AIM-7F/M Sparrow air-to-air missiles, or eight AIM-120 AMRAAMs, carried externally.
Unit Cost: A/B models - $27.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars);C/D models - $29.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)
Date deployed: July 1972
Inventory: Active force, 396; Reserve, 0; ANG,126.

Point of Contact
Air Combat Command,Public Affairs Office; 115 Thompson St., Ste. 211; Langley AFB, Va. 23665-1987; DSN 574-5014 or (757) 764-5014; e-mail: acc.pai



General Characteristics
Primary Function: Multirole fighter
Builder: Lockheed Martin Corp.
Power Plant: F-16C/D: one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200/220/229 or General Electric F110-GE-100/129
Thrust: F-16C/D, 27,000 pounds
Length: 49 feet, 5 inches (14.8 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.8 meters)
Wingspan: 32 feet, 8 inches (9.8 meters)
Speed: 1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude)
Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)
Range: More than 2,000 miles ferry range (1,740 nautical miles)
Armament: One M-61A1 20mm multibarrel cannon with 500 rounds; external stations can carry up to six air-to-air missiles, conventional air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions and electronic countermeasure pods
Unit cost: F-16A/B , $14.6 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars); F-16C/D,$18.8 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)
Crew: F-16C, one; F-16D, one or two
Date Deployed: January 1979
Inventory: Active force, F-16C/D, 738; Reserve, F-16C/D, 69; and Air National Guard, F-16C/D, 473

the f-15a has a thrust of 29000

but which plane is smaller

Er...the statistics you cited disprove your point. Note that the thrust on each F-15 engine is about 24000 pounds. Since the F-15 has two engines, and the F-16 has just one...


Also, from globalsecurity.org:

"It was the first U.S. operational aircraft whose engines' thrust exceeded the plane's loaded weight, permitting it to accelerate even while in a vertical climb."

i

You?

Honestly, the combat in this game isnt meant for carriers, the game mechanics just dont make sense for it.

For Carriers to become viable, two things need to happen:

Firstly, range and speed need to change, large ships being slow, and small ships being faster, but balancing out with large ships having a huge range, and fighters being very limited. Basicly showing the relationship between size and resource capacity in ships. Carriers would then server the purpose of transporting smaller ships to far distances.

Secondly, combat needs to change to recognize the differences in ship size and how that affects its performance. Basicly tactical combat that utilizes a ships size to determine how quickly it can move and how hard it is to hit. Making Capital ships incredibly easy to hit, and smaller craft more difficult. Carriers then have the purpose of using small hard to hit bombers to take out other large craft, while also using small fighters to defend itself against enemy fighters.

Without those two things, carriers really serve no meaningful purpose. They'd be no more then a gimmick.

OK, my two cents though it may or may not of have been posted before.

If there was to be a carrier of sorts, it would work like this. It would use modules that would be large enough so you only could put one on a large hull or possibly two on a huge one, these things have a set purpose in mind and that isn't direct combat. The effect is it would allow a set amount of tiny and possibly small hull designs to travel with the fleet and the speed and range of the lowest non-carried ship. So, if your carrier has four Hyperwarp III engines and a range of 4 sectors, the fighters that have Impulse III and no life support grouped with it would have the same speed and range of the carrier. Logistics wouldn't be affected by this, seeing that these additional ships still need attending to.

The F-15's a marvel of engineering, really. It's actually classified as an Air Superiority Fighter. It is durable (two engines means you can lose an engine and still make it back home on the other), maneuverable, and packs a punch against air and ground targets.

The F-14's a very similar craft, only designed and built for the US Navy to be deployed from carriers. A major difference is that the F-14 was designed to come with the Phoenix missile- a very deadly and effective missile. If it's launched, a kill is practically guaranteed. The only problem with the Phoenix is its cost- which is why I don't think the Navy uses as many anymore. But for a one-shot-one-kill guarantee, I'd say it'd be worth the price. How much are those enemy planes worth? Because if you can kill them with a $500,000 (rounding up) missile, and most planes cost millions... I'd definitely say it's worth it.

To sit down and write a good reason to add Carriers = 15 mins

To reply and add a suggestion = 5 mins

To read a single Carrier Thread from start to finish = 45 mins

To read every single thread created about Carriers = 10 hours

To watch Marcathonas blow a fuse about Carrier Threads = Timeless

Hihihi, good one. It isn't MasterCard, it's MasterCarrier