Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[Karagin]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Part of the problem has always been WinSMPBTs end date is in the future.

So we're constantly looking at what's planned then later what's actually implemented.

Have the end date set in the future show be a good thing since it allows things to change, as we are talking about with the fighters and who is buying what etc...to me if one branch is no longer using X for something then to me that should be reflected in the OOBs. Now with USMC, sure they could still call on Navy F18s but that might not be doctrine and that is where we seem to gloss over or so to me it seems, country X stops using a doctrine and that means certain vehicles, fighters, weapons are no longer used in the same manner, so IMO, the stop date is a reflection of that. Can a LAWs rocket stop a current front-line MBT? Sure, engine hit or track/road wheels taken out or that lucky hit that just happens. Is it standard practice to use a LAWs rocket to take on a T80 or M1? No, however, it can be done, but no one is using that weapon system anymore to do it, with the very few exceptions of terrorist or low-end rebels.

Might not be the best example but the point is if doctrines change then certain things won't be available to a country after a certain date.

[DRG]

There is reality and "game reality" and in this case, the game reality is USMC has access to USN air assets because, in reality, they do. It has been that way from the beginning and is not going to change. Without the USN assets, the game USMC would be missing potential air assets which in reality they would not be. USMC doesn't have its own naval support either. It relies on the USN for that.

[Karagin]

Originally Posted by DRG

There is reality and "game reality" and in this case, the game reality is USMC has access to USN air assets because, in reality, they do. It has been that way from the beginning and is not going to change. Without the USN assets, the game USMC would be missing potential air assets which in reality they would not be. USMC doesn't have its own naval support either. It relies on the USN for that.

I get that, however, if doctrine changes then they won't be calling on F18s for CAS, which is what changed, they would be calling on the F35s for CAS. Just like they don't have battleship-sized guns post 2000 to call on for naval gunfire either, and the game doesn't offer Tomahawk support to them which is something they would have access to as well.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

There is reality and "game reality" and in this case, the game reality is USMC has access to USN air assets because, in reality, they do. It has been that way from the beginning and is not going to change. Without the USN assets, the game USMC would be missing potential air assets which in reality they would not be. USMC doesn't have its own naval support either. It relies on the USN for that.

Another "minor" asset many OOBs (not just the USMC) have access to is naval gunfire.

Originally Posted by Karagin

I get that, however, if doctrine changes then they won't be calling on F18s for CAS, which is what changed, they would be calling on the F35s for CAS. Just like they don't have battleship-sized guns post 2000 to call on for naval gunfire either, and the game doesn't offer Tomahawk support to them which is something they would have access to as well.

If US forces are in range they have access to each other's air assets.

It was "common knowledge" (i.e. maybe true, maybe not) that during Vietnam (and reportedly Afghanistan) the US Army preferred USN and particularly USMC air support because they got down in the weeds and hit their target rather then passing 20,000 feet overhead and dropping their load somewhere in the vicinity of the target.
( In all fairness USAF A-10 pilots are a much loved exception to this. )

WinSPMBT represents assets (and formations) available during a time frame. Those available for a specific scenario are up to the scenario designer. If you're playing vs the AI then you get what's in the piclists, and that can be almost anything available during the time frame.

Originally Posted by Karagin

Can a LAWs rocket stop a current front-line MBT? Sure, engine hit or track/road wheels taken out or that lucky hit that just happens. Is it standard practice to use a LAWs rocket to take on a T80 or M1? No, however, it can be done, but no one is using that weapon system anymore to do it, with the very few exceptions of terrorist or low-end rebels.

An AT-4 or RPG can't take out most front line MBTs head on either by-the-way.

It's not a matter of what's "good" or "useful", it's one of what's available. The USMC is currently getting rid of most (if not all) of it's M1's. EVERYONE (but the USMC top brass) knows this is a mistake, but it's being done anyway.

[WilliamB]

Key.Aero reports that the U.S.A.F. accepted their first F-15EX at Boeings St. Louis facility on March 10th.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The reports are true, started tracking in Early/Mid 2020...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ombat-aircraft
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...139799.article
https://theaviationist.com/2021/02/1...-first-flight/
(From Para 8 from above"...173rd Fighter Wing of the Oregon ANG, stationed at Kingsley Field, will become the first F-15EX Formal Training Unit (FTU) in 2022, and the 142nd Fighter Wing of the Oregon ANG, stationed in Portland, will become the first F-15EX operational unit in 2023.")
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...-15ex-for-usaf
https://theaviationist.com/2021/02/2...-and-markings/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-the-air-force

Foreign Potential Sales:

India
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...ry-plans_15168

Indonesia
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...curement-plans

Abstract
A couple of points and issues for the following based on some other data I have...
1) I believe the author is under estimating the detection range versus the F-35A. I would agree with those numbers based on the original S-400 fielded but not with the current upgraded versions since fielded by the Russians.

2) The calculus will change later this year (Early next year.) when Russia fields the S-500, which they hope will be able to deal with the F-22 (However as I've already reported and "as we speak", the F-22's are getting new "skin treatments" and advanced EW systems.)

3) The F-15EX will still be the worlds heaviest weapons platform in it's class.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/f-15ex-vs-f-35a/
https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Maga...rtical.v30.pdf

Regards,
Pat

[blazejos]

Poland plan to buy 32 F-35A in years 2024-2026 pilots oficially starts training in USA.

https://translate.google.com/transla...ja-sie-na-f-35

[MarkSheppard]

Egypt OBAT (01) seems to be missing Mirage 5, which was decently large type in the Egyptian air force

[DRG]

And would it be significantly different in the game than the multiple Mirage 2000 that are already there?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

One of my "older" projected issues I've mentioned in the forum were projects going back to 2014/2015 mine concerned the same jets but a different country-BRAZIL. And I'll leave that there.

But concerning EYGPT and the MIRAGE 5SDE (Specifically.) and the MIRAGE 2000EM (Specifically), I'll try to make Marks case for him differently that maybe he might not be aware of himself , there exists at least a ten year gap between the two aircraft in their respective delivery dates to EYGPT, that in of itself should be enough reason I would think to get the MIRAGE 5SDE entered.

The next is from of course, SIPRI which I consider the "great arbitrator" for such issues as these.
20 Mirage-2000 FGA aircraft (1983) 1986-1988 (Delivered-Mine) (20) $1 b deal (incl production of components in Egypt); Mirage-2000EM version; incl 4 Mirage-2000BM trainer version

38 Mirage-5 FGA aircraft 1973 1973-1975 (Delivered-Mine) (38) Financed by Saudi Arabia; Mirage-5SDE version; incl 6 Mirage-5SB trainer version

EYGPT would order 34 total more MIRAGE-5 aircraft...
14 Mirage-5 FGA aircraft 1975 1977 14 Financed by Saudi Arabia; Mirage-5SDE version

14 Mirage-5 FGA aircraft 1977 1980 14 Financed by Saudi Arabia; Mirage-5SDE version; incl 6 Mirage-5SDR reconnaissance version

16 Mirage-5 FGA aircraft 1980 1983 (16) Mirage-5E2 version (I believe if memory serves, these are the more advanced French Air Force versions.)

And finally, just to wrap up all the Jet Fighters bought from France by EYGPT...
24 Rafale FGA aircraft 2015 2015-2019 24 Part of $5.2-6 b deal; incl 8 Rafale-EM and 16 Rafale-DM version

My search criteria Supplier France/Recipient Egypt/Aircraft/1970-2020.

Make no mistake there are differences between these types. I hate "cookie cutters" especially when it comes to tanks and combat aircraft.

Oh!, because I can F-35 FOC by 2023? Don't hold your breath, I really wish that we would make this right in the game since we do it with the tanks etc. which is our "main purpose" I believe.

Anyway...I only hope those that read the next, will read it as carefully as I have. Israel is the ONLY country to declare their F-35 jets at FOC and they're also already modifying them to suit their needs. Of course as I've already posted.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/...-for-the-f-35/

Regards,
Pat