Go Russian, it's probably your best bet. You're not getting hardware from 1st world countries.

>>8515581
Northrop F-5.

>>8515611
You can buy arms from first world countries, or other countries that operate the type. France will sell to anyone, and for that matter, Douglas and Grumman used to as well.

What sort of missions are you guys expecting?

Op, hard to make a decision without knowing what you are up against?

>>8515630
Really? troubling.

>>8515581
migs and hinds :3

Are you guys really just mercenaries who work for money, or will you have any sorts of allegiances or ideologies?

>>8515581

get tomcats

wear aviators to every game.

Keep a fat wad of American money on your guys if you get shot down and survive.

It's better than food.

Also, how much money do you guys have?

>>8515637
>>8515640

Well, we all have a 'function'.
They are
Air Superiority x2
Multirole x2
Attack/Bomber x1

GM said that we can expect every mission to require one of those types at a minimum.

We haven't decided yet, but I'm leaning towards the multirole or Air Superiority.

BUY A FLEET OF B-17s

Multirole or Air Superiority? Someone's sure to have some surplus F-16s (if not the latest model), and picking up one or two should be doable.

You want a Hind helicopter. They fucking rock.

And to earn some extra cash, you can transport some black-ops dudes in the back, like a proper battlefield taxi.

So there's going to be five of you then?

SU-35 x2
MIG-35 x2
SU-25 x1

>>8515659
The way it was explained to me, was that we are all experienced aviators in our specialty, who for some reason (up to us) were either drummed out or quit our day job. We were hired by a private military company that specializes in Air operations. Think 'Blackwater' but with planes and napalm. We serve as a private air force for whoever can afford us. As to ideologies, we can each have our own, but part of the game the GM said would be the company just looks out for its money, and we'd have to decide how we deal with that.

How much money are we talking about?

I'm surprised nobody's suggested an A-10 yet.

>>8515740
At least. This GM is famous for his 'epic' games, but he's limited the spots in this campaign to 8. He said five are needed for most games, and based on attendance, he'll tailor missions to suit who shows up.

>>8515744
=D

The idea of a mercenary airforce is terrifying to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning

1*seat
2*30mm cannon
2*Missiles
2*large engine
2*wings

what more do you need from an aircraft?

Get F-4s.

gwetting them should pose little to no problem, and tehy have so many variants and upgrade packages that they can do nearly everything.

Or go Russian, and get a couple of MiGs and Sukhois.

If you want to learn about the various planes, use wikipedia.

Some attack choppers. Some quick transport choppers with some armament. That should handle your air to ground support. Missions involving go here, pick up guy type thing.

Fighters are more for against other air. You might want Fighter-Bombers over pure fighters. Planes that can be loaded out for Air to Air and Air to Ground.

Go for reliability and maintenance. Get some good soldiers on the payroll to help staff your base defenses and play gunner on the transport chopper. Landing is going to be the most dangerous time for your transports and having some good shooters with machine guns to cover the guys your picking up would be excellent.

If your expecting to be called on more for air to air combat. You will want some real fighters. 3 really good fighter planes and then a bunch of fighter-bombers for assist may work.

It's hard to say though, not knowing the size of the missions you may be taking on or anything about the organizations you may be hiring out to. You'll want to make your purchases based in part on customer needs.

I know nothing of what planes/choppers fit the bills here. But these are the qualities I'd go after.

Also your Pilots are your most valuable resource. You will need to pay them accordingly. Remember the costs incurred there. Loyalty is worth it!

>>8515698
Planes that are feasibly attained but still more than decent choices performance-wise?

Bomber/Attack: Su-25 Frogfoot
Air Superiority/Multirole: F-16 Falcon (covers both of these well)
Multirole CHEAP: F-5 Tiger (also cheap to maintain)
Bomber/Attack cheap (still good): Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano
Air Superiority: MiG-29 Fulcrum

F-15 x2
F-16 x2
F-18 x1

>>8515772
>>8515689

Based on the price sheet, the most expensive aircraft we can buy is a "Super Hornet" although the notation says surplus.

Most of the suggestions so far I can buy, although I can't find a Mig-35 on this sheet.

Here's a basic rule you MUST heed: buy from one bloc.

By that, I mean if you buy American tech (like the F-5, which is a very solid choice), buy only American. Got a Eurofighter Typhoon? Thank God the EU makes lots of weapons. Personally I would go Russian, since their shit is sturdy as hell and cheap to boot, which means you'll need to buy Russian/Czech/Polish/ETC tech.

Now, the reason for this is parts compatability. If it comes down to it, you can strip bearings out of Plane 1 to fix Plane 2. Really, this part cannot be overemphasized.

Think about recent mercenary outfits. Executive Outcomes employed a Hind D and two Mil Mi-6s in their attack on the RUF, back in the 90s. Aircraft are incredibly expensive to purchase, train crews for, and maintain.

Ground attack aircraft? Nothing beats an A/C-130.

>>8515818
Sorry, I missed one. Rafale is the highest on the list I can afford, although that only leaves me with 2 million for weapons. Eurofighter is out of the price range to start.

>>8515746

Except Blackwater already has an Airforce. A substantial one at that.

SU-30 x2
SU-27 x2
SU-25 x1

Post price sheet?

>>8515782
Why? Air Forces by nature require TONS of money, resources, land, and expert workers.

A mercenary air force would be lucky to have even 20 planes. And even a 3rd rate middle eastern air force could handle that in a straight up fight, no questions asked.

>>8515841
Not as good in a high threat zone though, which based on what this guy is saying so far, is what it looks like they're going into. AAA and SAMs out the wazoo.

Is this Area-88 the rpg? If not it should be.

Rafale x 2
JAS 39 Gripen x 2
F/A-18 x 1

>>8515854
Mostly transports and helicopters. They're not going to be facing off against an actual country in an air war. They'll leave that to the country hiring them, and move in afterward.

>>8515899
Our GM says he was inspired by that show, but (his words) "Will be more awesome planes and shit, less emotional girlfriend bullshit"

Buy a fleet of F-4e Phantom II's. The single most reliable combat aircraft to date. There are dozens of instances where they continued to fly despite taking MASSIVE amounts of damage. There were several instences in which F-4's would land on a carrier so badly damaged they'd simply strip whatever was still working out of them and then push the rest over the side.

You want a multi-purpose fighter that can absorb incredible amounts of damage? F-4e Phantom II.

>>8515896
Pretty much any dedicated ground attack aircraft is going to be having a bad day in those circumstances. If there's a lot of SAMs and AAA in the area, you clear those out beforehand.

>>8515775
Because good fucking luck getting one.

F-15 x2
F-16 x2
A/C-130 x1

>>8515911
Gripen is sweet, but probably overkill

>>8515880
This.

PRICE SHEET OP, /tg/ WILL ASSIST BEST WHEN YOU ASSIST US

Unless you're looking for a troop transport. Then go Hind's. Russian troop helios are the shit.

F-4 x 2
Kfir x 2
SU-25 x 1

Go for Swedish fighters. Saab Drakens and Viggens were both designed to be used at improvised runways, and are capable of being refueled/rearmed in ten minutes by a crew with minimal training. Both models were phased out in nineties / early 2000, so you should be able to find plenty of spare parts for minimal cost.

>>8515920

True true. You know I still find it strange that PMC's even exist. I don't particularly care either way but there's something just... wrong about a company that exists simply to wage war. At least with national forces there the excuse of defense.

If you can't get an A-10, suggest this to your ground attack guy.

Guys I appreciate the lists and stuff of airplanes, but I'm more wondering what I should fly, I talked to our ground attack guy and he said he was going to by an Aardvark or a Tornado, unless I wanted the attack role.

F-4 x 2
F-5 x 2
A-1 Skyraider x 1

>>8515975
To war is human, the desire for money and profit is human.

You do the math.

The F-111 or the Su-24 would make a good attack aircraft, and would give you a huge pile of extra money for either replacements, repairs or ordnance.

>>8515981
>get an A-10
>crash because of the smoke from the gun

>>8515972
This.

Given the expenses you'll have just paying for decent ground crew (and you'll need quite a few people), you want planes that don't require extreme maintenance expertise or expensive/hard to find parts. Short runways are gravy and really give you options. Viggens were also known for being quite decent aircraft.

Did your GM mention how expenses are handled? Like, do you buy shit as a group, or do you 'level' individually with cash doled out to each member seperately? Basically, do you have to worry about cross compatibility like a few posters have fixated on?

Remember, even outdated planes like the F-5, F-4, etc, can be updated. The F-16 just got an upgrade package that turns it into one of the greatest aircraft on the market, behind only the very best stealth and attack planes out there right now

Also, OP, buy a small, light civilian plane like the Bird Dog. Invaluable for spotting for a ground force, and cheap to run. Worked wonders in Vietnam. You can skirt by with a drone too, but that's going to be more expensive

>>8516036
>>I bet you think the gun pushes it backwards and stalls it too

F-104 Starfighter.

Sure, it may not be the newest plane, or the quickest to turn. But almost nothing is going to catch you, and you can climb like a bat on fire.

>>8516000
If he buys an Aardvark, buy an F-5 for cheap multirole, F-16 for expensive multirole, or F-15 for excellent air superiority. If he gets a Tornado, go with some European stuff, mainly British.

BAE Harriers. All pilots take one. No more need for runways. Makes your unit a lot more flexible.

Don't concern yourself with performance or optimizing, OP.

Get something with flash, flair, and uniqueness. Something that makes all the other players jealous because it's just so COOL.

Maybe something like pic related, with black market contacts getting it from the museum and getting the electronics refitted and weapons mounted. Be the most agile motherfucker in the sky.

>>8516092
Ah yes, everyone fly Widow Makers.

>>8516000
The F-16C would make a good multirole fighter, and would save you millions over the F-16E. Depending on how much money you have and how maintenance is being handled, though, it might be better to just get the E up front. Actually, the F-16E Block 60 would be pretty godly against anything short of the best airforces in the world, being extremely good at both air superiority and ground attack (though its weapons would be extremely expensive, so if that's a consideration you should be careful).

Ok guys, I want to be a multi role guy, since I think that'd be cool, and I'm useful in a lot of roles. Suggestions?

>>8516044
Everyone pays for their own ammo/fuel/repairs. Gm suggested that blowing all our money at the beginning on a super plane might be iffy, especially if we get shot down. Point was to 'level' your character and plane over the course of the campaign.

How about a British Buccaneer?

If you're primarily going to be interesting in the role-playing aspects of being a private air force, and going to be dealing with the private/black market frequently for munitions and replacement equipment, going for Russian or French equipment wouldn't be a bad idea.

If you want to wear aviators, play homoerotic volleyball, and sometimes shoot down a few MiG's, you can't go wrong with F-14's.

If you're interested in the combat alone, and want to be in the best planes you can buy, then go for the Super Hornets.

>>8516125
>>8515613
I smell eighty eight.

>>8516119
You guys must be fucking RICH. Planes cost an obscene amount, sure, but weapons and fuel costs are staggering.

>>8516132
Super Hornets vs F-16E... eh, OP's not going to be on a carrier.

>>8516148
Say what?

>>8516149
Judging from what OP has said, his GM is making Area Eighty Eight: The RPG. So I'm guessing they are paid obscenely for risking their lives in fucking hell holes doing dirty missions for nations that want deniability.

Probably 20 mil for a mission. Actually, OP, do you guys have money, or 'credit' with the mercenary group that you are working off.

OP, you are the luckiest man/woman I know. I wish my GM ran shit half as cool as this already sounds.

>>8516179
>>Deniability

Yeah, you're not going to want a plane that can be pointed to as "obviously" belonging to those countries then.

Price list, OP?

Can you post the list of what your options for planes and helicopters are?

Mig-25 Foxbat.

Kill stuff, climb to near earth orbit, accelerate out of theatre at Mach 3.

If you're assuming this is a campaign in the modern setting, you simply will not find western airframes to use. You mentioned black market, this basically limits you to 1980s vintage or perhaps, if you're very very lucky, 90s soviet equipment. If you were purchasing in any kind of significant number, or were a legitimate government, you could in theory get better stuff. This however is doubtful. I mean really, this is crazy talk when you speak of a mercenary air force in today's climate there is no such thing. The logistics are just too intense. The closest you could realistically get to a new aircraft would be a super tucano. Even if you could get old soviet gear, you'd need a team of technicians and engineers to keep the things airworthy and a mountain of spare parts not to mention money. If you'd then want to start talking about adding any sort of avionics remotely close to something modern you can double the number of engineers and techs and then likely increase your required amount of dollars by an order of magnitude.

>>8515746
What's the name of the PMC by the way? If it's Artemis you might as well slap your GM or something.

Also I support either any purchase of Swedish aircraft or an F-15/F-16 mix. Maybe even at least one F-111 for attacker/bomber duty.

>>8516119
F-16E Block 60 should set you back about $30 million, but lets you do damn near anything. Air-to-air engagements, standoff air-to-surface missile engagements, bombing runs, anti-ship missions, etc. You get a substantial fuel tank, allowing you to stay on station for an extremely long time, and one of the best radar suites at that price level.

The downside is the aforementioned cost, since if you ever get shot down it will be a pain in the ass to replace. Repairs and maintenance costs would likely be relatively high, and its most advanced weaponry would be cripplingly expensive. Then again, you can look at that last point as something to look forward to as you 'level up' your plane.

Of course, as other posters here have mentioned, if you're looking for a plane that would be flown by a third-world hellhole, then you probably want something a little more Soviet bloc than the F-16E.

>>8516211
It's on two pieces of paper and I don't have a scanner. GM said any plane is allowed, if it's not on the list he'll add it, which I thought was cool at first, but I kind of wish there was less openness so this decision would be easier.

>>8516179
Our initial account is the 'loan' we are given on signing up. None of us came to the company with a plane, or much personal savings.

>>8516092
>get shot down by faster aircraft

All I have to say OP is go with Cold War era Russian aircraft. They're cheaper than American and twice as sexy.

>>8516246
except you'd never get them due to ITAR, and no state would ever sell you one.
>>8516226
Also, I forgot to take into account costs for weapons systems so add more money. And also techs.

>>8516240
Why the F-15 or 16?

Oh, name is BlackFlag Air Militia.

>>8516300
>Blackflag

Your GM likes his skies crimson I take it...

>>8516106
most definitely; the block 60 will be godly vs any force short of a 1st-tier 1st-world one.
it's multirole too.

BTW, get IRCM systems for any helicopters you buy. it will save your ass vs 80% of MANPADs, and make you almost invulnerable to the antique ones.

>>8516324
IRCM has a small problem in that it can make your aircraft even more of a target against newer systems.

OP, one big suggestion if you're having to buy your gear black-market: DON'T BUY RUSSIAN.

Yeah, Russian gear can be decent. But you aren't getting the gear the Russians make for themselves. You're getting the export models. Probably not even the ones they gave to Warsaw Pact members; we're talking Arab military surplus here.

The planes will be gimped beyond belief, and on top of that you'll have to repair the damage that years of incompetent maintenance will have done to them.

Honestly, I'd recommend American if you can go for it. The US also gimps its export models, but to a much lesser degree, and a lot of the purchasers make their own improvements once they get the airframes (see the Israelis, the Japanese and the South Koreans for examples).

F-14 would actually be a decent choice for multirole, for one reason: the radars. They're incredibly powerful, far more so than what most fighter airframes have; good enough, in fact, that you can probably jury-rig AWACS functionality into the planes if you go for a two-seater version. And you can probably get some off Iran, in exchange for sending performance data back to them; they have a fleet of their own F-14s that they've been trying to keep operational since we cut off parts shipments in 1979, and might be willing to sell you a plane or two if they can get some info back on how their latest improvement regime works in combat.

For air superiority... how about the F-15SE "Silent Eagle"? It's new, but it's not much more expensive than a standard F-15E, and it's the closest you're going to be able to get to anything stealthy on your budget.

I'd say if you're looking for a mixture of performance and actually being able to get your hands on them, F-15E's for the multirole and and F-16C's for the air superiority wouldn't be a bad bet.

hey, OP

buy an F-15E

it will outperform every other option at every role. Period.
If it doesn't, your gm is doinitrong

Op, if you want a good multirole aircraft, get an F-5. You can spend some cash to upgrade the avionics and fire control. It's a small aircraft, but very agile, and with a surprising payload capability.

Air to Air role you have twin Sidewinders (short range) and four Sparrows (Medium Range) or four AMRAAMs (more expensive, but superior to the Sparrow)

In the ground attack role, you can carry, I think, twin sidewinders, as well as 9 500lb Iron bombs, easily upgrade with GPS or IR seekers. For AGM I think you can mount two or three AGM-84 SLAM/ER missiles, or four AGM-65s.

It's a great all rounder, and probably cheap too.

>>8516343
only the indirect versions

>>8516379
SU-33 would like a word with you.

>>8516300
Both are good multi-role aircraft as people have mentioned before.
In the case of the F-15 you first have the F-15C Eagle that serves as an air superiority aircraft but at the same time works as a strike aircraft especially if you pick a couple of F-15E Strike Eagle's to work alongside the C's. Not to mention that the Eagle is a proven aircraft with several air combat kills under its belt.

Heck if you wanna splurge a little you can invest in some F-15SE Silent Eagles that incorporate 5th Gen tech.

And >>8516246 goes over the pluses of the F-16 pretty well so I don't have to do that.

>>8516443

Too bad there's probably less than 40 of them actually produced.

Mig-21.

OP, you are going to lose your plane. May as well have ridiculous bang for buck. Slap some new missiles on this old frame, and you have a mildly competent aircraft. Bonus, if you are shot down, replacing it is a snap.

The question OP, is this:

Do you
A) get a shit-tier plane and load that bitch up with god-tier weapons and tech
or
B) get a god-tier plane and rely on skill and SEATOFYOURPANTS flying

which do you choose anon?

If you're going for the gritty third-world type of game where you're "leveling up" your skills over time, and the GM's going to make damn sure some of you are shot down, you might want to start off in some older, cheaper planes and then save up for the better planes later on.

F4's actually sound pretty cool.

>>8516506
If it was me, I'd go the cautious route and buy a shitty plane and strap AMRAAMS and a new APG-65 or some such radar into it.

>>8516514
As the guy who suggested the Mig-21, I agree with the F-4 as well. Especially the upgraded ones the Germans and Israelis flew/fly.

>>8516506
I'd go for C) Get a decent plane that does the job and let pilot skill and training to the rest and ensure that you will be able to fly the next day.

>>8516506
I'd say god-tier plane. You can upgrade the equipment afterward, but if the basic airframe is shit there's not much you can do about it.

get milsurp soviet stuff. far easier to get spares for than US or western european stuff.

exceptions to that. A-37Dragonfly. durable ground attack, a lot of them were in laos/cambodia/vietnam. spares are'nt too common now though.
ground atack, you cannot go wrong with Mi-Mil-24 Hind-H or Hind-D's with south african upgrade packages, soviet "spiral" missiles, and a 24mm cannon. also one of the fastest around, and carries a squad of grunts....

other than that, either Mig-29's off the Syrians, or Sukhoi SU-30's from india, vietnam, or the chinese would do the job - or direct from russia if you're well-off. . if its near-future, you could look at PAK-FA's off the indians.

And for air superiority, sadly, the only way you're going to get a pair of SU-37 terminators is by stealing them from the russians.... :/

>>8516506
I choose god-tier plane.

All I need is chaff and loots of boolits.

>>8516537
Disagree. It's too much risk, putting all your eggs in one basket.

Buy South African and French gear.

Get an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.

>>8516547

I think the problem is that the OP's going to starting off with the stats of a starting character, and isn't going to be some Top-Gun fighter jock just yet.

I like the idea of Mirage F1's.

OP here, I have to run out for two hours, thanks for the advice so far. I'll check out the thread when i get back.

Ultimate mercenary aircraft.

>>8516626
I always liked the proportions on that plane.

What about a Saab 39 Gripen? It seems to be a decent enough fighter, and it was designed to land on public roads and be refueled and rearmed within 10 minutes by a five-man ground crew in a truck. That would be a good thing if you're operating out of some crappy landing strip hewn from the Laotian jungle.

>>8516562
helicopters are awesome for ground support (they loiter so much better for than detail work), but get a Ka-50 instead. single seater with ejection; and coaxial rotors.

HAY OP

what about this sexy bitch?
I see all these whippersnapper top gun MAVERICK JOE McCOOLBADASS suggestions to get these hot-headed hotrods of the sky and go tear shit up.

What I don't see is something sensible. you've got a 5 man squad, throw in an A-6 with a full sensor/radar jamming suite and troll the fuck out of superior enemy numbers. Which you should be facing given that there are, you know . . . . 5 of you.
Would fit the multirole nicely, would give you a unique plane and would make you a VITAL part of every single mission.

It's probably pretty cheap compared to all the top fightan hotrod jets too

You could always go Chinese. The J-10 seems to be a reasonably decent aircraft, it's not too expensive, and you aren't too far from the factories if you need a new aircraft later.

I wonder if they could get hold of a B-52.

It would make for some interesting escort-style missions, and the amount of ordinance it could carry would be staggering.

>>8516681
So an EA-6B Prowler then?

Upgrade to the EA-18G Growler later, once you've got the cash and skills to hack it.

Personally, I don't see why two players don't go in together for a two-seater.

It would allow them to pool their money, specialize their characters more, and allow a lot of RP opportunities.

>>8516751
Not really viable if they're operating out of a third-world shithole jungle airfield and likely to be facing heavy enemy AAA.

>>8516846

It sounds like it would be better as an NPC to escort by letting the players punch through the anti-air.

i'll bet OP could find some old F-8s crusaders or S-7 Corsairs. fuck your missiles, real men use guns

>>8516836
it would work better in a helicopter (pilot and gunner) than in an aircraft (pilot/navigator & ECM)

>>8516833
exactly

it's just that OP mentioned f-18's were super expensive, so I figured that would be at least a few sessions later.

>>8516836
see
>>8516681

What system is OP using again?

>>8516913
One fun thing with the Prowler: according to TOW there was actually a program to upgrade their handling and their EW capacities. It got canceled because of budget cuts, but all of the actual work was done, and there were three test aircraft with the upgrades installed.

Now those specific aircraft are going to be unavailable. But the mysterious mercenary company might be able to pick up the actual schematics for the upgrade suite, and rebuild an EA-6B for the OP accordingly.

>>8517018
oh, nice. Didn't know that.

Still I would assume the gm would have this mercenary company doing modifications that aren't exactly standard anyway.
This could just be an example of that. I'm always fond of the idea of picking something and sticking with it through multiple modifications and personalizations rather than just swapping out for a "better" airplane.

>>8516681
>>8516833
>>8517018

I highly second this plan. You'll be a massive force multiplier for your teammates, and still able to bomb, strafe, and do limited air-to-air work yourself too.

every time I see this thread I go "fufufufu"

>>8517104
Given the description of the environment OP is operating in, he's going to be packing HARMS.

So he doesn't strafe or bomb the enemy troops. He blows apart their ground radars and then trollfaces as the enemy air defense network disintegrates right before his buddies show up.

>>8517178
The A-6 is a versatile frame. He can customize his loadout to meet the mission; if needed, he's more than able to carry conventional bombs.

And the gun is always an option even if it's not the go-to.

The A-6 Intruder

/tg/ approved

>>8517303
>Area 88 RPG
This tripfag also approves. Will there be MOBIUS ONE shenanigans or is this a more realistic sort of game? Pic related, this is one bad mother fucker in a plane.

>>8517241
Well, the issue is that it looks like the EA-6B no longer has a gun mount. Probably because of the needs of the heavily enhanced radar and EW/ELINT suite.

It just has hardpoints for missiles, jamming pods and so forth.

Of course, some sort of gun pod could probably be kitbashed together by the mercenary company.

5th/6th/whatever-ing the Prowler.

>>8517539
Gun pods aren't that hard to find, nor to attach. You could get a nice small one for emergency dogfighting if your GM likes that sort of surprise, or a bigger one for a ground-attack cannon with real penetrating power.

>>8517760
I'm not the OP, but I'd figure that using a Prowler for ground attack against anything that isn't some form of radar is what would be called "doing it wrong".

Figure weapons-wise, he would want to go with a load of HARMs, a gun pod just in case enemy aircraft actually close with him, and jamming pods/chaff. If he wants something on the ground turned into burning wreckage, he uses the Prowler's sensor suite to feed information to his buddies.

The other possible issue is that the Prowler normally flies with a four-man crew. I have no idea if there's any way to drop that down to a three-man or two-man crew without sacrificing capability.

>>8517382
That would be something from Ace Combat?

You know sometimes you have to go with a classic. Updated of course for modern times but these suckers were built to last.

>>8517914
Easy solution there. Have NPC EO buddies in the backstory, or just don't mentio the crew requirements to the GM.

>>8516940
Somebody ANSWER THIS MAN! I'm very interested in finding out the system.

>>8518018
As am I.

Would also like OP to type in prices for the most commonly suggested planes in this thread, even if he's not going to scan the sheets in. Give us an idea of what numbers the GM is using.

>>8517998
I was thinking that he could actually play the entire crew as a single character.

It'd be like the Ice Climbers in Brawl, except less "NANA YOU WHORE STOP DYING" and more "WE ARE THE IRON AIRCREW OF PROWLER STADIUM"

>>8517998
That makes it kinda Ace Combat-y. And sure, the game the OP will play probably will be arcadey, but if it's an RPG of sorts then it'd be best to make the crew into actual people. Even if they are people that hang out together and talk about flying an A-6 or something.

>>8518061
That's a good idea.

>>8518061
Problem with that is the fact that most people are not linked to a hive mind.

>>8518121
The character is the crew that was flying for an extended period of time together. In combat, they more or less do function as one unit.

Out of combat, they still function as one unit, except that this unit has multiple personality disorder and isn't always in the same place. If the GM calls shenanigans, the player just states which member of the crew he's directly controlling each time they split up.

>>8518121
Again, you could just have the crew as NPC buddies or hired assistance.

Really though, a player should easily be able to RP a Prowler crew. Just have a dominant individual and have them do most all of the talking to other aircraft/controllers.

>>8518162
>>8518168
Mm. You two are correct, I believe.

/tg/, I love how when you finally come up with the win, it's true win.

Hoping OP likes it as much as we do.

>>8518234
Not just TRUE win, anon.

INTRUDER win.

>>8518246
ba-dum-tsh!.jpg

>>8518121
>most

>>8518318
WE ARE BROODAX!
WE ARE BORN IN FLESH!

>>8516092

Have fun getting fuel, spares, and ground crew to wherever you landed it on short notice.

Have OP use the Prowler's pilot as his main PC, with the 3 EW techs coming in only when the pilot is unavailable.

Make the awesomeness of the techs a running gag. Nobody ever sees them on-screen, but one of them is a world-famous author, one of them has Casanova, Bond and Don Jorge Antino Martin Velasco-Cabrales giving him simultaneous thumbs-up for the trail of sighing, satisfied women he leaves behind him, and one of them is the best pilot in the company but doesn't want to be bothered with the effort.

And none of this should come up unless either the PCs actively investigate or one of the crew dies and is replaced by a similarly faceless dude.

OP should be back soon. Until then, let's keep the dream alive!

>>8518509
And the facelessness of the techs a gag too.

The reason they're all such tight buds? Their names are almost exactly the same. There's Bryan, and Ryans, and Lyon, and... "Cryin'" Hawkes. Makes it really easy to switch them out if needed.

As an intel guy, I have a few problems with a Prowler (not an intruder)

The jamming package takes up hardpoints. Your offensive capability is VERY limited, if any at all. While you will be integral to the team, you will not participate very much. The Intruder though, is not a multirole aircraft like the OP wanted. It is a ground attack plane. Intruder would be less than useless in a dogfight/air to air situation.

>>8518919
Let's see.

How about Joseph, Josephus, Josephine, and Jolyne?

Or Robert, Roberto, Robert(pronounced Roh-bear), and Roberta?

Op here, lots of info to go over.

I got this email from the GM as well, might help you guys
>Hey, yeah, don't worry about not knowing a ton about planes, I'm not out to kill you guys or anything. Just pick some mid range jet initially, and upgrade it as we go along. You can get improved Avionics for most older jets, an engine package to up your performance, stuff like that. I'm not too worried about weapon compatibility, it's obviouosly cheaper to mount western weaps on a western plane, but if you want an AMRAAM equipped Mig I'm not going to stop you. I'd suggest a plane from the late 80s, maybe the early nineties. It gives the best balance of performance and price. Don't worry about acquisition, your company has hands in many pies, they can usually get your wishlist, if you can pay. Hope that helps.

I also found out that the two guys doing Air Superiority have picked an F-4 Phantom II with Israeli electronics, and the other guy is flying a Flanker, which is Soviet I think.

I haven't heard back from the other two yet.

>>8518975
Just a friendly reminder about OPSEC as this thread continues. (Not saying anything about your post being a problem.)

>>8518975
He gets to play mission control, pretty much.

Plus doing SEAD work, assuming that nobody else on the team is taking up the Wild Weasel role.

Or he could go with an F-16 and do the Wild Weasel thing more directly.

>>8518975
Can't you attach some of the newer Sidewinders on at least?

This is a nice thought exercise, but to be honest, we're not going to come up with good, serious answers without seeing not just the price list, but the ruleset being used. After all, if the rules the GM is using dictate that a F-16E has a 50% chance of winning vs. a Mig-23, on the basis that both carry IR and both carry RH missiles, then our advice will be totally different. The rules regarding EM warfare will be critical--they determine who gets to see and shoot at whom under what conditions.

Frankly, it would be easier to run with a Crimson Skies/WWII-type setting, where EM is (mostly) not an issue and most fighters are within 100mph of each other.

IRL, if you're looking at a merc force that somehow fields combat aircraft, it's pretty much going to be limited to stuff like Super Tucano on the top end... fastmovers (and their maintenance) are just too expensive for RL merc work. Hence, the GM is fudging with reality, and we need to know *how* in order to provide the best answers.

My personal faves (short of F-22s), FWIW, would be F-15SE or (depending on price) F-16 Block 60.

>>8519190
Ask your slavshit Flanker buddy why he isn't a man flying the RHino.

>>8519190
F-16. When I think "upgradable mid-range" I think of that.
But then, I'm American, so...

Someone made a good point about an overly expensive plane with mid/low-tier munitions being a big fat target for a GM wanting to down a pilot now and again. What they didn't think about was what the GM is giving players as a chance for surviving a crash/ejection. You might get outright killed if you're in a crappy plane, even if it frees up money for good missiles and a potential replacement plane.

>>8519222
Some sort of gun pod would be better.

If your Prowler is having to engage enemy aircraft at ranges where Sidewinders are useful, your air superiority guys have fucked up.

I would assume that a Prowler is probably the closest that this merc unit could get to having an actual AWACS plane in the air.

>>8519190
>>Air Superiority guys
>>other guy
so presumably the guy's also multirole
>>Flanker

What. He picks a plane better at Air Superiority than the guys who are taking the role? And he is DEFINITELY putting all his eggs in one basket money-wise, that plane isn't going to be cheap.

>>8519330
>>Some sort of gun pod would be better.
>>If your Prowler is having to engage enemy aircraft at ranges where Sidewinders are useful, your air superiority guys have fucked up.
Welcome to gaming combat. Your buddies fuck up, and the GM likes to throw curveballs. The newer Sidewinders have a nice range on them though, better than guns at least.

>>I would assume that a Prowler is probably the closest that this merc unit could get to having an actual AWACS plane in the air.
Ideally, he'd let a Prowler player assign bonuses or negatives to friends and foes based on jamming or guidance. Besides SEAD, of course.

>>8519354
He might not be buying a modern upgrade, though. I would assume that a Soviet-era Su-27S would be fairly cheap nowadays, and an export model even more so.

OP, again I iterate the need for you to give us some info on system/rules/prices if we're to give you the best advice.

Plus, I think this is damn cool and would like to know so that I might have a base for something to run for my own players.

OP again, some more details that I think you guys wanted to know

We are not the only people in the force, there are other NPCs that help out sometimes. Steve said that the rules will be mildly realistic, but will emphasize fun primarily. Initially we'll be fighting barely third world stuff, drug lords etc, but as time goes on we'll be facing more modern forces.
He's really good as a GM, so I doubt he'll kill us if we take a hit, unless we do something royally stupid.

I haven't looked these up yet, but apparently the Merc Force 'support' planes for big missions are a Midas, two Candids, an Antonov Twelve, 3 hercs, and a Tu 9-5.

I'm interested in the A-6, F-5, those seem to fit what Steve told me would be good, but the F-16 looks really cool, and people here have said lots of good stuff about it.

>>8519354
Reread: >>8519190


The Flanker belongs to an Air Superiority player

>>8519464
See about refitting one of those Hercs into an AC-130.

Your customers will thank you for it.

>>8519464
The A-6 will be for ground attack and electronic support.
The F-16 will be for I CAN FILL THAT ROLE missions, 'cause you can equip that baby however you want.

>>8519460
I'll ask Steve if he can put it on Google docs or something for you guys. He probably will, he's like major fucking organize everything.

Also, yeah, my grammar is bad.
Air Super
Phantom
Flanker
Mutlirole
ME
DUnno
Strike
Tornado or Aardvark

>>8519469
Ah, the absence of the word "one" threw me off. I assumed the two Air Superiority players were going for matching Phantom IIs. Which would be cool, hence me not thinking about it more critically.

>>8519504
If he has a ruleset, that'd be sweet too. If we had a link before the thread died that'd be even better.

>>8517105
Why?

>>8519401
The problem is the limited number of hardpoints the Prowler would have available for missiles. At best, you've got four, and that's assuming you didn't have to take any HARMs on this trip.

I also just don't see the Prowler as needing to engage enemy aircraft beyond gun range. You're only carrying anti-air weaponry in case something goes badly wrong, and IIRC guns are still the weapons of choice for military aircraft if something has gone badly wrong.

>>8519576
There's text accompanying the OP picture that says
THIS IS MY FURSONA

FUFUFUFUFU

>>8519500
If nobody else is doing it, kit out the F-16 for Wild Weasel work, maybe in tandem with the EA-6B.

And don't be afraid to go Israeli on your electronics. They make some very good stuff.

>>8519583
If you are ever considering using guns, it's because either
A) Infantry are not worth a missile shot
B) The eject system failed.

>>8519464
A-6: Ground attack and electronic warfare. I'm sure you've read all the Prowler stuff--being able to direct the battlefield and (if your GM's cool with it) assign bonuses to your allies for that guidance, and penalties to your enemies for jamming and other electronic warfare could be cool and valuable. Should fall expense-wise between F-5 and F-16.

F-5: General purpose. Cheap, easily acquired, and easy to maintain are the best aspects. It's not horrible by any means, but the F-16 completely outclasses it.

F-16: General purpose. Depending on the model, can range from decent to almost best tier. That will also change its price and maintenance requirements. Can be outfitting to do ALL SORTS of things, from Air Superiority to ground attack to anti-air defense to some electronic warfare.

This many posts in and no one has suggested the Flogger?

Even as a westerner, I can appreciate how goddamn good this plane is for multirole ops, especially when price is an issue.

>>8518162

Plus this way you get to go all "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL" every time you switch characters.

>>8519642
Ok, first, the A6 is not a Prowler, it's an intruder (pic related) secondly, to do EW it needs those pods on the hardpoints. The fuel tanks can be dropped, but you're losing range if you do it, and more range if you put anything on the hardpoints.

As to the F-16 vs F-5 debate, while the F-16 is very good, the F-5 is the better choice, provided it gets an updated electronics suite. Why? The F-16 has one engine, the F-5 has two. When it comes to multirole, that extra engine is the difference between coming home, or riding a silk curtain to the ground.

>>8519632
Except that if he's in an electronic warfare bird, he shouldn't be having to shoot things at all outside of SEAD missions.

If he DOES have to, he's going to want to have more than two or three shots.

>>8519576
The Viggen still deserves some consideration.

>>8519776
What about a Tornado ECR?

>>8519785
Hell yes, the Viggen would be a nice ride for OP.

Of a Thud, although I'm not sure how it does in the Air to Air role. Be right back, consulting Janes.

OP could you post the rule system for us sometime? This intrigues me.

>>8519776
>>As to the F-16 vs F-5 debate, while the F-16 is very good, the F-5 is the better choice, provided it gets an updated electronics suite. Why? The F-16 has one engine, the F-5 has two. When it comes to multirole, that extra engine is the difference between coming home, or riding a silk curtain to the ground.

I know all about the 1 vs 2 engine debate, but an updated F-16 completely outclasses an updated F-5 at this point. Better electronics, better airframe.

Shit, the F-35's a one engine bird and that doesn't look like it's going to stop it from outperforming almost everything with two engines in pretty much every aspect but raw speed.

>>8519776
That's a lovely little plane.

>>8519744
If he goes this route, OP must name his EA-6B "Harbinger".

What's scary is that it works even without the ME2 reference.

>>8515581
MiG-21?

>>8519812
Or if you have the money, go for an EA-18G Growler

>>8519782
In real life, I don't doubt your statement's validity. In a game, he's probably fine with a Sidewinder or 2.

>>8519744
He also gets to do it every time one of the air superiority guys fires off a missile that's using the EA-6B's radar to home on the target.

Since no one else is doing it OP, here are the options we have for you so far in the multirole area.

Older but capable:
Viggen
F-5
F-4
Tornado (Most modern on this list)
Mig-23
A-4 (Although I don't think this should be here)
A-6 (Or this, Air to Air is kind of iffy)

Modern:
F-16
F-15 Strike Eagle (or some other Eagle)
F/A-18 (Basic Hornet, not the Super)
X-29 (If your GM says yes he can have my sister)

>>8519830
The one vs two debate isn't about performance. It's about survivability.

>>8519898
F-35's got that, brah. Or at least all signs point to "yes."

F-16's got a very nice survivability track record of its own.

>>8519873
Don't forget the Gripen under the "modern" category.

>>8519898
How much difference does it actually make?

I mean, I'm not military by any means, but I would think that most hits sufficient to destroy an engine on a two-engine fighter would also shred the wing it was attached to.

I mean, we're not talking bombers here in terms of size or durability.

>>8519923
It's never been in a high threat environment.

>>8519945
Most air to air missiles carry very little explosive, and they explode near the target, not on impact. They are designed to wreck systems, to achieve a mission kill. Hit a fuel line, take out a compressor blade, destroy a hydraulic line, that sort of stuff. The F-14 was designed with those very wide engines for that reason, as was the YF-23. Grumman was a big believer in survivability. Sadly, the new gen never thinks their wonder planes will take a hit, and therefor, we get the F-18, with engines spaced closely together, so that if one fails catastrophically, it'll probably take out the other one. Admittedly, the F-5 puts its engines close, but ask any pilot, they'd rather have an engine failure put them at 50% available power rather than 0%.

>>8519955
The F-16 has though.

>>8519873
I don't think A-4s can keep up on the later stages of their game, as for A-6 for Multirole? It won't fill it that well if it goes A2A, it will probably be full of holes by the time it manages to get behind an interceptor

>>8520008
No, it hasn't. The last high threat environment was Vietnam. The US has not engaged in an air war with serious Air Defence since that war.

>>8520019
The US is far from the only F-16 user.

>>8520005
>>YF-23

;_;

Op again, here's the stuff I cannot afford right now.

Gripen
Rafale
Eurofighter 2000
F-22
PAK-50
SU-33/35/37/47
Mig 1.44
F/A-18 Ssuper Hornet
F-35 JSF (A/B/C)

Sure is /k/ in here.

...Carry on.

>>8520005
Perhaps an eventual upgrade might be a YF-23, then?

Say, somebody wants to make a point about the qualities of the respective aircraft, and arranges for a YF-23 to get some testing in combat?

>>8518168
>>8518162
>>8518061
>>8517998

Coming in late. I think this idea is great. Of interest is if that plane gets shot down there are a possible 4 crewman survivors. Different players take control of each one with OP taking the "lead" guy. Proceed to do a mini-session of them trying to get the F out.

>>8515972
this.

also DAT CAMO.

>>8515981

THIS

I cannot fucking believe I missed this thread.

>>8516871

>i'll bet OP could find some old F-8s crusaders or S-7 Corsairs. fuck your missiles, real men use guns

>>8520157
SUGGEST THIS TO YOUR GM, OP

BECAUSE THIS IS A FANTASTIC IDEA

Note, there are actually 2 YF-23's.

I'm tempted to archive this thread. Anyone else think it deserves it?

>>8520262

Sure. How often does /tg/ talk planes?

>>8520209
Pshaw.

If he's going with WWII surplus, a real man would fly a P-51.

>>8515581
Alright, you're gonna want 4 Hawker Hunter jetfighters, they have a full loadout of 4 AIM-9 missiles, aka Sidewinders, and a gunpod of 4 30mm Aden gunpods, as well as either 4 18-rocket 68mm rocketpods or 24 80mm rockets.

Godspeed, Ace Wrecking company.

I love the wingman books, shit, if you need more ideas, I'll crack one open for you.

>>8520262
yes.

>>8520298

>>8520298

There WAS such a thing, actually. "Cavalier" mustangs, used for CAS missions.

But seriously, that plane there is the best for ground strikes. I'd suggest that OP buy one of these babies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10_Bronco

Light recon and ground attack, can carry some troops, short field landing/take off capacity, and it can be the Forward Air Controller to mark targets for the Sandies.

>>8520346

>>8520278
Not nearly often enough.

>>8520262
Definitely archive material

>>8520209
Not hard to miss it. Good threads get buried under shit all the time here. 40k shit for the most part, and tau quest.

Custom design an air superiority aircraft meant to kill its opponents via Fox Five.

Aerial ramming.

>>8520366

Oh, also, I guess that since you need a bomber, go for 3 Hawker Hunters, they'll handle air superiority and multirole, and grab an F-105, 5 hardpoints and 14,000 pounds of ordinance, the hardpoints are Sidewinder-compatible, and, the bombbay is nuclear-capable, in case you ever need to fuck someone's day over.

>>8520366
Do you have the full size ones? Because if yes, image spam away!

>>8515981
What plane is that?

I'm guessing Hellcat, but I'm honestly not sure.

>>8520387
.
.
>>8520402

I think these ARE the full-size ones. Biggest I ever found, at any rate.

All you suggesting props, keep in mind that he's not going to want to keep his fast mover buddies waiting.

>>8520391
Imagine, 12 30mm cannons firing in unison as the thunderchief drops the big on on your lone enemy and you fucking haul ass while firing off all 72 of your 80mm rockets just to spite them

>>8520391

>thunderchief

>>8520445

It's either props, or a FAC aircraft.

Try picking out ground targets while you're moving at Mach 2 sometime.

>>8520391
No way, man.

Go for a version of the G4M "Betty" with upgrades the original Japanese design didn't have.

Like self-sealing fuel tanks, and armor that's worth a shit.

Your opponents will be so surprised when you don't instantly burst into flame that you'll be able to bomb them into oblivion before they get over their shock.

>>8520465
Based on previous stuff in the thread, I'm guessing NPCs are handling all the intel.

Assisting with the image dump.

>>8520416
Looks to me to be an A-10 Skyraider. Not positive, though.

>>8520481
A-1 Skyraider, the A-10 predecessor.

>>8520433
>>8520366
More, mine aren't as big, post em all.

OP, your current thoughts?

Also, please be sure to keep us updated, this campaign is WIN.

Get this archived, nao

>>8520518
Put all those in an RAR and mediafire that shit quick son!

>>8520479
The betty isn't nuclear capable without a LOT of modifications, it's slower, can't carry missiles, and doesn't have a name as cool as thunderchief.

>>8520546

I'll have every one I have posted in just a minute :3

>>8520560
Nor does it have sweet inlets, or an affectionate name like "Thud"

This is called the "victory gal" series btw, you can probably find it on Google.

This one makes a bitching desktop.

>>8520609
http://www.gangus.net/artwork.html

Link to make it easy for you, /tg/.

I was sorry to find that the artist died and we won't get any more. Plus he left behind an autistic son.

>>8520560
On the other hand, you're flying in something whose enemies nicknamed it "The Flying Zippo" and whose OWN PILOTS called "The Cigar".

That would take serious balls.

>>8520638

I heard about him dying. A goddamn tragedy. He was very talented. :<

>>8515581
Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano

All you need. Can drop bombs, shoot rockets/missiles, cannons etc.

Plus low maintenance costs compared to jets, and it looks badass

>>8520660
I am buying all his paintings now, since they are going to be set up in my living room. And holy hell, did he know how to make those planes AWESOME.

Is OP still around for suggestions, or are we switching to a general aircraft discussion and pic dump thread?

>>8520674

It looks vaguely like a Piper Archer with serious Roid Rage.

AWESOME.

Fielding your own air vehicles is unlikely.

More plausible would be a nation that got the planes in a sweet-heart deal between one nation-state to another (probably something dealing with the Cold War) hiring mercenary pilots to fly the damn things because it is much cheaper than setting up a facility to train pilots of their own (training takes time and money, whereas there are always trained pilots that could use the work).

Of course this all may be bullshit, but why would that anime lie to me?

>>8520298
this.

jet engines are for pussies.

real men use Merlins.

>>8520532
I will keep you updated.

Currently, I am liking the older planes, since it leaves me lots of cash left over.

The Flogger looks really cool, as does the Phantom and the Viggen. I am thinking I will choose one of these three, can you tell me more about them? Reading wiki doesn't give a great idea of their ability.

This one is both aircraft, and directly /tg/ related.

>>8520697

sorry, I just got highspeed internet for the first time in my life (at home) and I'm loving the power.

If you are worried about Air defence, take this. The only plane to have ever penetrated the Russian Air Defence net at low level and survived.

>>8520721
Go Viggen. It's built for the sort of godawful landing strips you're going to be using.

>>8520721

The F-4 Phantom is built around your typical American design philosophy- if you put enough thrust behind a brick, it will fly. (See pic.) In fact, it will break world speed records.

The F-4 Phantom is an excellent multi-role aircraft; it slings enough ordinance to be a strike craft in it's own right, and the enormous engine power gives it plenty of options in dogfights (turning is for noobs.)

You might not have one updated with modern avionics, however.

>>8520720
Get out of here STALKER.

Go F-14s, because they're the only fighter jets that can be piloted by Tyrannosaurs.

>>8520727

>>8520721
Try going to Jane's and reading about them there.

>>8520775

I just read up on the Viggen, and the short-field runway performance (thrust reversal, etc) in an airframe with that capacity is... impressive. You could operate that bastard out of anywhere.

On the other hand, the F-4 has superior range and is probably better in the Wild Weasel role (faster ingress and egress.)

I love how these fucking wiki articles never give you the most basic performace data, like wing loading, power/weight ratio, and roll rate. Especially roll rate. God damn it, they don't even put that in those "planes of the world" books, and I don't think this fucker is classified anymore, you know?

>>8520721
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter
For your personal plane, I'd go with a hawker hunter, that Aden pod packs 4 30mm cannons which should be useful for light tanks, seeing as, while the aden is compact and shit, you'll have a possible rate of fire of 6800 rounds per minute in 30mm rounds, plus, you can load out with sidewinders and mavericks and like 24 80mm rockets OR, an alternate choice is 4 pods of 18 68mm rockets instead of the 80mms.
I'm just saying, you can dogfight, you can pull AT duty with mavericks and the Aden, dogfight with the aden and the sidewinders
You could probably adapt it to fighter-bomber and grab some dumbfire bombs.

F-104, for the engine sound alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIRwMhRVRY&feature=related

>>8520973

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter_Tower_Bridge_incident

AWESOME

>>8521004

>f-104

>gunther rall quit the Luftwaffe in protest of it being a dangerous plane

>it was

>>8521006
That fucker could have fucking levelled the parliament building with all the shit that's on a hawker, that should be enough proof for OP to want one.

The F-4, because as old as it is, it still kicks major ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOh7SGSIQQ

Mind you, the Mig 23 is sexy as hell with burners lit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR8MxWS-U7c

>>8521088
Also, if shit hits the fan and you get attacked at your base, and Aden gun pod is actually the gun AND the ammunition in one pack, so to reload, you just pop in a new gunpod and you're ready to go fast as shit.

OP again.

While the Viggen is cool, I think the Phantom or the Flogger are what I'm narrowing it down to. Probably the Phantom.

What sort of weapons can they carry by default?

OP, if you do go phantom, get the 2000 upgrade the Israelis made for it. Makes it a 3.5 gen fighter.

>>8521179

>weapons?

Better question is, what CAN'T it carry. When it was made it could carry both radar-guided and heat-seekers. If you score the Israeli year 2000 upgrade, you should most certainly have the radar and avionics to use AMRAAMS (or the poorly-named ASRAAM.) Not that it matters that much, since you'll only be able to afford a few of those bastards, if you can even get them. But there's always the AMRAAMSKI, the russkie copy.

Bombs- anything you can hang on the hardpoints.

You'll probably be getting F-4Js or later, which means they'll have an internal gun.

>>8521179
* Up to 18,650 lb (8,480 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints, including general purpose bombs, cluster bombs, TV- and laser-guided bombs, rocket pods (UK Phantoms 4 × Matra rocket pods with 18 × SNEB 68 mm rockets each), air-to-ground missiles, anti-runway weapons, anti-ship missiles, targeting pods, reconnaissance pods, and nuclear weapons. Baggage pods and external fuel tanks may also be carried.
* 4× AIM-7 Sparrow in fuselage recesses plus 4 × AIM-9 Sidewinders on wing pylons; upgraded Hellenic F-4E and German F-4F ICE carry AIM-120 AMRAAM, Japanese F-4EJ Kai carry AAM-3, Hellenic F-4E will carry IRIS-T in future. Iranian F-4s could potentially carry Russian and Chinese missiles. UK Phantoms carry Skyflash missiles[111]
* 1× M61 Vulcan 20 mm (.79 in) gatling cannon, 640 rounds
* 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder, Python-3 (F-4 Kurnass 2000), IRIS-T (F-4E AUP Hellenic Air Force)
* 4× AIM-7 Sparrow, AAM-3(F-4EJ Kai)
* 4× AIM-120 AMRAAM for F-4F ICE, F-4E AUP (Hellenic Air Force)
* 6× AGM-65 Maverick
* 4× AGM-62 Walleye
* 4× AGM-45 Shrike, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-78 Standard ARM
* 4× GBU-15
* 18× Mk.82, GBU-12
* 5× Mk.84, GBU-10, GBU-14
* 18× CBU-87, CBU-89, CBU-58
* SUU-23/A 20 mm (.79 in) gun pod

This is for the phantom, take note, this isn't EVERYTHING it carries at once, just what it CAN carry.
Also, if you're TOTALLY set on the F-4, try to see if you can get one of the israeli Terminator 2020 F-4's, modernized all to hell.

If your DM is ok with fudging stats around by paying more, get a "Superphantom" that exceeds mach 1 and is fairly modernized.

>>8521179
I don't know anything about the updated Israeli version, but the original US plane lacks a gun unless you take a gun pod, but other than that it can carry almost anything. It's literally engines with wings, and plenty of thrust left over for payload

>>8521269
Also, if you REALLY get into building customized planes, Delta wing an F-4 phantom and SCAMP dat bitch as well as an internal gunpod
at least 15 hardpoints and that mother can haul ass

>>8521277

I don't think any of the early gun-less models are still on the market.

His team is still going to want SOMEBODY doing ELINT and ECW, though.

Maybe everyone pools some spare cash to get an EA-6B and crew for the company?

>>8521269
All phantoms were Mach 1 or more capable...

My suggestion is the Israeli 2000 upgrade package, a modern Jam pack instead of a centreline fuel tank, and maybe even an upgraded radar and FCS (beyond the 2000 upgrade)
Also, consider the Israeli air to air weapons, their Python makes the sidewinder look like a piece of shit.

>>8521338
ELINT should be done by a Mainstay, Hawkeye, Sentry, or some other bird in that category.

>>8521351
Sorry, meant to clarify, Superphantom as in capable of speeds exceeding mach 1 without afterburners, and cruising at it.

OP again, I think I'm going to take the Phantom, it seems to fit all the right spots. The GM sent out an email saying that our first mission will be in the mail soon (intelligence docket) and that we will then be able to buy our loadout.

>>8521409
PHANTOM WINS!

>>8521409
Make sure you get one with a gun or include a gunpod in your loadout.

>>8521409
And also make sure to look at some cheap bombs, you can do miniature carpet bombing with that motherfucker.

>>8521386
Ideally yes.

But they're operating out of a jungle airstrip in Laos, which isn't a good place to run a Mainstay or Sentry out of.

>>8521489
It's probably paved, and the Mainstay can operate from grass/dirt strips no problem. Russian paranoia mean all their aircraft were rough field capable. Even their fucking Concorde.

Ok, thread has saged. OP one last time today, thanks guys for the help and suggestions. I'll pop a thread up tomorrow if I have time.

>>8521547
Why does that pic make me think of Domino Ralley?

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/8515581

A F4 with a modern ECM package could definitely be an option for the OP.

It is a two-seater, so if OP's flying, he could have his PC/NPC navigator operating it, adding a whole other element to the game.

If it's another PC, it would allow them to specialize their character and also up money to eventually graduate to a more expensive and dedicated ECM plane.