Hey /k/ what's your favorite air force and why mine russia because they build there planes like fucking tanks
>>30354203
Thats not something to be proud of.
>>30354203
The Liechtenstein Air Force. Because it can't bomb me
>>30354216
>Implying it isn't
>>30354203
>Breaks down half the time
>Engines, electrics, weapons of poor quality
Yep. Just like Russian tanks.
I think French army because the Rafale is sexy.
No idea if it's a good plane though.
>>30354338
Yet somehow they have killed more Isis targets than any other air force in fighting in syria
>>30354353
>"""ISIS""" targets
>>30354358
>>30354203
>they
>implying you are not a poorly disguised vatnik
>>30354370
I never said they weren't bombing people.
>>30354203
Mines China cause I like countries that copies others countries shit
>>30354370
>Implying they're attacking Daesh when they're literally only involved to protect Assad
>>30354382
>'''''''''People''''''''''
>>30354391
No matter what they are destroying the fuck out of someone
>>30354353
>>30354370
>>30354405
>Better Air Force
Not whether or not they are being used to bomb Muslim retards. We all agree that bombing Islamic fundamentalists is great OK.
Now, I think the US has the most impressive force. As an Ausfag though, I have to mention that New Zealand is the shittest
>>30354351
The raptor pilots I talked to in the dessert respected them. They still fucking slaughtered them in training, but they said they were good. Apparently they don't bleed energy as bad as the typhoon in a turn and their radius is better.
>>30356158
>Apparently they don't bleed energy as bad as the typhoon in a turn and their radius is better.
Not from any sort of aerodynamic standpoint. They can't maintain energy even as good as an F-15, let alone a Typhoon and certainly not a fucking Raptor. Unlike those three, it doesn't have a positive thrust/weight with its normal combat loads, which is always an indicator about how much an aircraft can punch that energy again and power through without losing as much.
Rafale has a sharper horizontal turn at low speeds. But thats from having drawn back canards and an airframe designed for low speed carrier landings. But making those low speed sharp turns is like making a vacuum of energy on your aircraft. Thats how Raptors and F-15s curb stomped Su-30s that tried the same thing. they relied on those slow speed sharp turns, but all it does is make you fall out of the sky while planes with the acceleration punch like F-22, F-15 and Typhoon simply pick up energy again by heading up, if they even need to go higher, which if the turn radius was tight enough they likely won't need to.
Low speed light turns are a nearly obselete concept compared to higher speed energy maneuovering, it's why pretty much every single A2A focused fighter does it these days. Thats why the Rafale has a degree of that in its design, that low speed tightness is just a side effect of its carrier landing.
The only exception is aggressive nose pointing with higher angle of attack, something the Super Hornet does very very well and the F-35 does even better with (owing to its more advanced HOBS capability). But you need fucking brutal angle of attack levels for that, something the Rafale doesn't have owing to its design.
>>30354203
The proposed independent Scottish Air Force.
Sure, it was a useless joke, but Scotland's a key point in the GIUK gap, so relative to Iceland and Ireland it was good.
The idea of Typhoons with saltire roundels appeals to me, even if they only fly part time. A Scottish air force to the north would be cute.
>>30354370
>Attacking "rebel targets" with unguided munitions from high flying bomber aircraft
>Actually affecting ISIS
wew
>>30354203
French Air Force.
>>30356778
They wouldn't have been able to afford Typhoons with the budget the SNP has assigned to it.
They said they'd get them because they believed that they would be owed everything for free, which is a load of nonsense, forgetting all the infrastructure, training, parts and new contracts because they'd no longer be part of the consortium and would have lost Selex ES to the UK.
They'd have gotten a few Sea Kings, that's about it.
>>30354358
>"Moderate" "rebels"
Piss off, towelhead shill.
>>30356782
>Russia had conducted over 9,000 airstrikes over the course of five and a half months, while helping the Syrian army capture 400 towns and acquire 10,000 square kilometers of territory
Whew, lad.
>>30356759
Look man i'm not a driver. The guys I talked to said the 2000 performed better. Maybe it was doctrine I don't know. Raptors kicked the shit out of everything that wasn't handed the win and the pilots I talked to said the F2000 was good four 4th gen. Also the 2000's we're air to air so there's that.
>>30356825
>They wouldn't have been able to afford Typhoons with the budget the SNP has assigned to it.
Interested in a source. [I'm not disagreeing, the finances just aren't an area I pay much attention to, not being Scottish.]
>which is a load of nonsense
I dunno. The "you'll get nothing :^) " case has never seemed particularly strong to me. That said, "you won't get our shiny new typhoons" is quite plausible. [I don't deny the other issues, but the idea that pragmatically we'd leave them with nothing even if we could do so practically doesn't seem plausible.]
Politically speaking, I could see a case for giving Scotland older Tornados instead. It would allow the SNP to go "We've got fast jets!" without costing the UK as much, given the type is if memory serves facing retirement before 2020. Or, pushing it, maybe some Hawks. Hawks would make for a very cute Scottish air force indeed.
Maybe they'd have nothing, though. Perhaps the SNP wouldn't care once a yes vote was over with. If they could be given nothing and use it as an excuse to bounce NATO membership, I don't think Alex Salmond would lose any sleep over it, given how the party was anti-NATO until they realized in a referendum it would open an attack avenue on defence.
>>30356863
Syrian "Rebels" =/= ISIS.
Also nice sause there. But sure all those heavy bomber strikes ala Vietnam will absolutly not make more civilians mad to the point that they join these rebel groups.
The US has bombed one hospital and apologized for that. The RuAF has destroyed 13 so far.
Precision munitions > FAB 500s.
>Forth largest air force in the 60s, and that was with modern aircraft and a very modern air defence system
>Fucking networked radarsystems in the 80s.
When we switched over to Link 16 with the Gripen C/Ds the data transmission capability/networked warfare was reduced drastically.
>>30354203
French
>>30356993
>Syrian "Rebels" =/= ISIS.
Lol. Piss off, towelhead shill.
>>30357033
>we
>>30356940
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/11/9348/10
Details what they hoped to get, it's beyond amusing.
Their budget was for £2.5b. So you can patently see why it wasn't even close to being enough.
>The "you'll get nothing :^) " case has never seemed particularly strong to me.
They'd certainly have gotten something.
The issue is that there wasn't anything to give them, the UK couldn't spare what they wanted to have, and if they did have to give, it'd either be stuff just about to be replaced or heavily stripped of all UK sensitive technologies that a new foreign country wouldn't have access to or the UK would have been in breach of contract.
Thats why it was unworkable, it wasn't because of the UK just flat out denying, but because the situation as it was left there quite literally no other choice even for the UK itself, and Scotland didn't have the infrastructure to support half of it on its own anyway.
>>30357204
Just remembered what got me thinking how cute a SAF would be in the first place: They are very insistent on calling it a defence force throughout. Almost as though they've been on a trip to Japan.
>So you can patently see why it wasn't even close to being enough.
I'm curious, are you allocating this just for upkeep, or also for what they're going to take on? They estimate a population share of assets at 7.8bn. For what they've listed, 2.5bn all-in to obtain it would be plainly ludicrous, but I don't know enough about unit costs or upkeep to say whether it's unreasonable maintenance for an armed force that won't do anything ever. [Austria was apparently 2.4bn Euro in 2012, but then Austria doesn't have to support a navy even if it does have 3 extra Typhoons.]
>Scotland didn't have the infrastructure to support half of it on its own anyway.
In practical terms, surely it would all be handled by international agreement? Vaguely along the lines of this:
>Scotland will remain part of NATO's integrated Air Command and Control (AC2) system, initially through agreement with allies to maintain the current arrangements while Scotland establishes and develops our own AC2 personnel and facility within Scotland within five years of independence
I'm reading "agreement with allies" as "Basically we'll leave things as they are now until we can do it ourselves."
I'm not really sure how to end this post, since I'm not defending the white-paper, so there's no real conclusion I add.
