Variety of Carriers?

[Spectral]

You don't really "PLAY" on the carrier as it is just a spawn point that is an uncap. People usually just spawn there and wait for a vehicle to pick them up and do most of the battle on the main land. As mentioned before it is a cool idea but when the hours out weigh the benefit, it's is likely not to be done.

[SamEEE]

The F-18 was a piece of **** next to the far more capable and epic F-14 until the massive upgrade and redesign, and personally I think that if they spent the same amount to redesign the F-14, they'd have yet another superior aircraft.

A bit off topic - but still interesting

Saw your post and thought this might interest you.

In the 1980s the Royal New Zealand Air Force had the option of buying F18 fighters. They chose not to and instead retrofitted the A-4 Skyhawk fleet (20 aircraft) with F16 avionics for a cost of just under the cost of 2 new F-18s at the time

YouTube - A-4K Skyhawk - Project Kahu Begins (1987)

YouTube - A-4K Skyhawk: Project Kahu (1 of 2) (198

[ytman]

Most PR:V maps will be small skirmish like fights at this point. With little optics, rough and dense terrain, and so on and so forth large 4km maps will probably never exist in PR:V for quite some time if at all, so having a carrier is pointless .

[AfterDune]

Small skirmish like fights? Why would that be?

[Smiddey723]

I think this would be awesome, especially if they were drivable.

Yea that awsome that all of the trolls would completely abuse this and beach it everytime...

Like bf1942

[lucky.BOY]

Hi,
the cargoship that was mentioned above is much more detailed model that we need. If you compare hours of work required to make it to hours of work required tom re-make vBF2 carrier, the cargo ship would take much more.

So what about making a just little bit more detailed model then current vBF2 carrier has, i mean a model of a ship fitting this era, because since it would be just a main base it dont need multiple decks, elevators and stuff .

If that is done, it could act just as vBF carrier works now, just as an uncappable main base, for some decent amphibious assault maps

Just my 2 pennys

-lucky

[ewdennis]

sounds good to me but a bit complacated

[Hitman.2.5]

I dont know if i'd say that..the F-14 was designed mainly for air-air but still had some air-ground capabilities while the F-18 was very capable to own in both but wasn't really as legendary.

yeah, i mean You know an aircraft is awesome if it had a weapon built specifically for it, AIM-54 Phoenix

[Tirak]

I dont know if i'd say that..the F-14 was designed mainly for air-air but still had some air-ground capabilities while the F-18 was very capable to own in both but wasn't really as legendary.

Some ground to ground? There's a reason why one of the nicknames was the Bomb Cat, it did it all and it did it well.

The F-18 prior to the overhaul was an underpowered, under teched farce with limited combat capability. It was a complete joke compared to the far more capable F-14, why the Navy used it I can only assume was down to size. Then, a couple million/billion dollars later, a complete redesign which may as well make it a new aircraft (increasing the wing area by 33% is by no means a trifling change) and a circus through congress later, the Super Hornet came along. And even that is inferior to aircraft like the F-35 and F-22. The Hornet needs to be ditched and ditched hard, it was a mistake then, and it's a mistake now.

[Drunkenup]

yeah, i mean You know an aircraft is awesome if it had a weapon built specifically for it, AIM-54 Phoenix

Which never made a confirmed kill.... Even the horrid AIM-7 made its name among the Tomcat's very small number of kills.

USN retired it because of the cost to operate them and the need for a replacement. While upgraded F-14s might get the job done today, the interim, and cheaper (at least on paper) replacement was the Legacy Hornet based, Super Hornet. Its a lose lose situation, the USN looses its only "big" fighter (something every air wing needs, the USAF has the F-15/F-22, the Russian's the Su-27 and variants), and the Super Hornet simply doesn't meet expectations and cannot fill the void the Tomcat leaves.

Now back to topic, if there are aircraft carriers, we should be flying F-4 Phantoms and A-4s, the tomcat didn't make Vietnam until after US withdrawal.

[mangeface]

Some ground to ground? There's a reason why one of the nicknames was the Bomb Cat, it did it all and it did it well.

The F-18 prior to the overhaul was an underpowered, under teched farce with limited combat capability. It was a complete joke compared to the far more capable F-14, why the Navy used it I can only assume was down to size. Then, a couple million/billion dollars later, a complete redesign which may as well make it a new aircraft (increasing the wing area by 33% is by no means a trifling change) and a circus through congress later, the Super Hornet came along. And even that is inferior to aircraft like the F-35 and F-22. The Hornet needs to be ditched and ditched hard, it was a mistake then, and it's a mistake now.

It won't be too long before we're saying that the F-35 and the F-22 are inferior compared to the aircraft that are being designed to replace them. And if I can recall, the F-14 had major problems with it's engines in the beginning. Trial and error. I have a soft spot for the F-14s in my heart, but the F/A-18E/Fs are a more proven aircraft following their intended role. The Tomcat never really lived up the the hype of being a long range interceptor or fleet defense aircraft. Of course, I could also put that in terms to their existence that no one really wanted to put the F-14 to the test to see how they could hold in their intended role.

While upgraded F-14s might get the job done today.

There are no more F-14s in service anymore. All were to be retired by 2007 and sent to the Davis-Monthan AFB aircraft boneyard in Tucson, AZ to be shredded to prevent the Iranians from getting parts to get their aircraft air worthy again.

[Tirak]

It won't be too long before we're saying that the F-35 and the F-22 are inferior compared to the aircraft that are being designed to replace them. And if I can recall, the F-14 had major problems with it's engines in the beginning. Trial and error. I have a soft spot for the F-14s in my heart, but the F/A-18E/Fs are a more proven aircraft following their intended role. The Tomcat never really lived up the the hype of being a long range interceptor or fleet defense aircraft. Of course, I could also put that in terms to their existence that no one really wanted to put the F-14 to the test to see how they could hold in their intended role.



There are no more F-14s in service anymore. All were to be retired by 2007 and sent to the Davis-Monthan AFB aircraft boneyard in Tucson, AZ to be shredded to prevent the Iranians from getting parts to get their aircraft air worthy again.

A problem which was fixed in subsequent models, the F-14D being the definitive version. Fixed so well in fact, you'd be hard pressed to pit an F-15 against it with the improved power to weight ratio. It more than lived up to the hype of the long range interceptor combining state of the art electronics, engineering, weaponry and durability and not to mention raw speed. The F/A-18 was a joke next to it designed to be a cheap one manned fighter that could operate in an offensive role, but was vastly inferior when compared to the Tomcat. Only after a complete redesign which may as well have been building a whole new airframe did it gain a level of competency, and even then with the massive redesign it is still obsolete to current aircraft.

[Drunkenup]

It won't be too long before we're saying that the F-35 and the F-22 are inferior compared to the aircraft that are being designed to replace them. And if I can recall, the F-14 had major problems with it's engines in the beginning. Trial and error. I have a soft spot for the F-14s in my heart, but the F/A-18E/Fs are a more proven aircraft following their intended role. The Tomcat never really lived up the the hype of being a long range interceptor or fleet defense aircraft. Of course, I could also put that in terms to their existence that no one really wanted to put the F-14 to the test to see how they could hold in their intended role.

Well the difference is, the SH is a redesigned legacy Hornet, there are some walls that limit it from taking over the Tomcat's role completely. The Tomcat had far more fuel and range, and the program was a result of the failed F-111B program, in which the Tomcat derived the engines from, the TF-30s, which were were unreliable in both the F-14 and the Sea Ardvark. It was never a fighter engine, and funding didn't allow those engines to be changed with the F110s until the B model in the mid 80s.

Long story short, the Super Hornet is what the A-D Hornet was supposed to be.

[Saobh]

** Looks at thread title **
** Looks at discussion **

Locking thread for going nicely off-topic.