Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

What about scenarios were both players have air support?

Often "fighter" types take-off with a mixed load of air-to-air and air-to-ground, if they need to enguage in aerial combat they jettison the air-to-ground stuff and any auxilery fuel tanks.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Often "fighter" types take-off with a mixed load of air-to-air and air-to-ground, if they need to enguage in aerial combat they jettison the air-to-ground stuff and any auxilery fuel tanks.

Still, if a fighter-bomber does that it's bomber role is over, at least until it returns to base to rearm...

[Imp]

Okay I agree there are cases where a fighter would carry a couple of bombs or rockets but realisticly who would buy them?
Only thing they might get used for is to bleed off AAA as they would be relativly cheaper with the reduced weapon loadout.
Scenario designers can adjust the weapon load accordingly if its needed.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well my research is about finished and really didn't take that long, but after taking a look at a sampling of NATO countries I might take the same tack. What I've found in general terms for NATO without giving away the "big picture" that I'm working on...

1. The B-52 should appear six years earlier then it does, I could've missed something, but. the earliest date I saw in the USA/USMC OOB's was 1960. The B-52A became operational in 1954 followed in 1955 by the B-52B. people forget how old this bomber really is, further the life cycle has been extended out to 2044. The last B-52H was delivered to the USAF in the Fall of 1962 as follows...
"The B-52A first flew in 1954, and the B model entered service in 1955. A total of 744 B-52s were built with the last, a B-52H, delivered in October 1962."
http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...et.asp?fsID=83

2. The F-105 THUNDERCHIEF ("THUD" to those that flew, maintained it and where just glad to see from the ground in NAM.) is sorely under represented in the game. Don't worry not going to go nuts here but I believe there were only two or three units represented. Considering this plane flew over 75% of all ground attack missions in the first half of the Vietnam War, SEAD version not seen either which was also a primary mission and was specialized I believe with the F-105F/G, and was very important to the USAF ground attack capability in Europe in the 60's it's worth a second look to maybe add at least three or four more UNITS. I've seen these planes up close in a couple of air museums but, in the course of my research have found through numerous refs that this plane carried more ordnance then a B-17/24 bomber that also I've seen many times before. If you've seen them you wouldn't believe it. But it'll help to know the "THUD" also had an internal bomb bay. It could/did carry eight 750lb. "Iron Bombs" with auxiliary fuel tanks
http://www.burrusspta.org/thud.html!
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...ircraft_id=160
http://www.aviationspectator.com/res...rcraft-profile
"Meanwhile, the USAF was gradually changing the anticipated F-105 mission from nuclear interdiction to conventional bombing. The Look Alike upgrades increased the aircraft's capacity from four to 16 conventional 750 pound (340 kg) bombs on underwing and fuselage centerline hardpoints and added the equipment to launch AGM-12 Bullpup air-to-ground missiles. In June 1961, an F-105D delivered 7 tons (15,430 lb) of conventional bombs during a USAF test — at the time a record for a single-engine airplane and a payload three times heavier than World War II's four-engined heavy bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-24 Liberator, though aerial refueling would be required for long missions. In fact, one of the F-105Ds was named Memphis Belle II after the famed World War II B-17."

3. Turkey OOB for FYI and will be submitted formally later UNITS 558 shows a flying "Armored Car F-100F" and 569 a USAF F-100D. The following pic is of a Turkish F-100D, Could not find a Turkish "F" on BING or Google. Difference between the two visually not noticeable, recommend pic for both.



Regards,
Pat