Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[The Predator Federation]

Im thinking of a stealth eurocanard but I don't want to end up with a J-20.

[Iltica]

Before the design goes any further, is it a waste of time to try and make an STOL fighter without thrust vectoring? I don't know of anything that really fits that description except maybe the Su-33 but that's with catapult assistance and arresting wires. What sort of distances should it shoot for with 3 surfaces and probably some sort of thrust reversing?

[Organized States]

Im thinking of a stealth eurocanard but I don't want to end up with a J-20.

Canards and Stealth don't go together, really.

[Tulacia]

Before the design goes any further, is it a waste of time to try and make an STOL fighter without thrust vectoring? I don't know of anything that really fits that description except maybe the Su-33 but that's with catapult assistance and arresting wires. What sort of distances should it shoot for with 3 surfaces and probably some sort of thrust reversing?

I'm pretty sure the Harrier could function as a STOL aircraft as well as a VTOL aircraft. I don't know if it uses thrust vectoring, though.

Also, I have a question myself. Could a :not:F-14 still work as a reserve aircraft. I know it could easily work as a trainer, it isn't a ridiculously old airframe.

[Fothergilland]

Before the design goes any further, is it a waste of time to try and make an STOL fighter without thrust vectoring? I don't know of anything that really fits that description except maybe the Su-33 but that's with catapult assistance and arresting wires. What sort of distances should it shoot for with 3 surfaces and probably some sort of thrust reversing?

I'm pretty sure the Harrier could function as a STOL aircraft as well as a VTOL aircraft. I don't know if it uses thrust vectoring, though.

Also, I have a question myself. Could a :not:F-14 still work as a reserve aircraft. I know it could easily work as a trainer, it isn't a ridiculously old airframe.

Yeah I guess it could

[Crookfur]

Before the design goes any further, is it a waste of time to try and make an STOL fighter without thrust vectoring? I don't know of anything that really fits that description except maybe the Su-33 but that's with catapult assistance and arresting wires. What sort of distances should it shoot for with 3 surfaces and probably some sort of thrust reversing?

I'm pretty sure the Harrier could function as a STOL aircraft as well as a VTOL aircraft. I don't know if it uses thrust vectoring, though.

Also, I have a question myself. Could a :not:F-14 still work as a reserve aircraft. I know it could easily work as a trainer, it isn't a ridiculously old airframe.

A high end combat aircraft especially a heavy and complex one similar to an f-14 really isn't suited to training unless it's for operational conversion to that type. Such aircraft are expensive to fly have a whole systems trainers don't need and often have a lot foibles that require a pilot to already know how to fly a fast combat aircraft to be able to handle. Honestly the best thing to do with aircraft that been retired is to convert them for remote operation and use them as targets and training agressors see the qf-4 and qf-16 programs.

[Iltica]

Before the design goes any further, is it a waste of time to try and make an STOL fighter without thrust vectoring? I don't know of anything that really fits that description except maybe the Su-33 but that's with catapult assistance and arresting wires. What sort of distances should it shoot for with 3 surfaces and probably some sort of thrust reversing?

I'm pretty sure the Harrier could function as a STOL aircraft as well as a VTOL aircraft. I don't know if it uses thrust vectoring, though.

It does use thrust vectoring, of complexity far beyond what I was talking about.

That's not really an applicable example, anything designed for VTOL by definition can use short runways but will suffer greatly in an air-to-air role from the extra weight.
I meant nozzles along the lines of the newer Sukhois and MiGs.

I'd like to avoid using either if possible. This thing's supposed to be sort of an air-to-air 'mudfighter', a capable but rugged fighter that can operate from crappy little runways with minimal facilities.
Is 3 surface the way to go you think or maybe something else?

[The Ukrainian Navy and Sea Guard]

How useful is skip bombing in the modern era, against smaller vessels (think minesweepers\patrol boats on down, with less sophisticated AA)?

[Auroya]

How useful is skip bombing in the modern era, against smaller vessels (think minesweepers\patrol boats on down, with less sophisticated AA)?

I'd think AShMs make it unnecessary.

[The Ukrainian Navy and Sea Guard]

Yes, but theoretically I mean. Ukraine is rather short on AShMs, and I'm also looking into utilizing AN-26's as Maritime Patrol Aircraft to supplement my Be-12s.

[Connori Pilgrims]

How useful is skip bombing in the modern era, against smaller vessels (think minesweepers\patrol boats on down, with less sophisticated AA)?

Very useful. For such targets skip bombing (or any other bombing approach) would offer a very cost-effective way of destroying them... particularly if they have no to little appreciable AA. Even large but undefended targets such as cargo, passenger and other commercial ships would be better dealt with with dumb bombs.

Using AShMs for every little floating target no matter how insignificant is stupid and is one of the heights of NS' moronic thinking.

[Vitaphone Racing]

How useful is skip bombing in the modern era, against smaller vessels (think minesweepers\patrol boats on down, with less sophisticated AA)?

Very useful. For such targets skip bombing (or any other bombing approach) would offer a very cost-effective way of destroying them... particularly if they have no to little appreciable AA. Even large but undefended targets such as cargo, passenger and other commercial ships would be better dealt with with dumb bombs.

Using AShMs for every little floating target no matter how insignificant is stupid and is one of the heights of NS' moronic thinking.

What's more moronic is assuming that being cost-effective is a simple as comparing the prices of two pieces of equipment and trying hard not to think about the other factors at play.

[Fothergilland]

2 sqns C130J Super Hercules
4 sqns Sea Harrier FAS2 - Stationed on carrier
2 sqns EH101 - Stationed on carrier
6 sqns Eurofighter Typhoon
11 sqns AH-64 Apache
4 sqns C-17
32 sqns SU-35E (1 is a display team)
2 sqns CH-47
4 sqns Grob Tutor
1 sqn Hawk T2 (+ a display team)
1 sqn Squirrel Trainer
1 sqn B-52
1 sqn TU-95
1 sqn P8 Poseidon
1 sqn 767 (AWACS and Tanker)

There are also 1x EH101 on every frigate and destroyer in the navy.

I will be updating my forces soon

[Velkanika]

Very useful. For such targets skip bombing (or any other bombing approach) would offer a very cost-effective way of destroying them... particularly if they have no to little appreciable AA. Even large but undefended targets such as cargo, passenger and other commercial ships would be better dealt with with dumb bombs.

Using AShMs for every little floating target no matter how insignificant is stupid and is one of the heights of NS' moronic thinking.

What's more moronic is assuming that being cost-effective is a simple as comparing the prices of two pieces of equipment and trying hard not to think about the other factors at play.

Seriously. I doubt many naval officers give a flying fuck about the cost of their weapons so long as the enemy is engaged and destroyed as quickly as possible. If I was a naval officer, I'd gladly expend a $4.5 million RIM-174 or five on a small fishing boat with one of those containerized Sizzler launchers welded to the deck.

[Crookfur]

2 sqns C130J Super Hercules
4 sqns GR9 Sea Harrier - Stationed on carrier
2 sqns EH101 - Stationed on carrier
6 sqns Eurofighter Typhoon
11 sqns AH-64 Apache
4 sqns C-17
32 sqns SU-35E (1 is a display team)
2 sqns CH-47
4 sqns Grob Tutor
1 sqn Hawk T2 (+ a display team)
1 sqn Squirrel Trainer
1 sqn B-52
1 sqn TU-95
1 sqn P8 Poseidon
1 sqn 767 (AWACS and Tanker)

There are also 1x EH101 on every frigate and destroyer in the navy.

I will be updating my forces soon

It is a bit odd in regard to the mix of countries of origin.

Gr.9s (no 9a?) are not sea harriers. SHARs were all based on the original harrier design rather than the slower but larger Harrier II (Gr.5 through 9a and AV-8B) evolution. If you wanted to sea harrier them you would need to upgrade them to actual fighter capability, either cramming in Blue Vixen or the APG-65 ala the AV-8B plus.

Having both typhoon and SU-35 seems awefully redundant unless you are in some sort of position where you have to buy both to appease both east and west.

Trainer wise you are short roughly you want a third as many fast jet trainer squadrons (hawks) as you do front line fighter/attack squadrons and for every two to three Hawk squadrons you proabably want a tucano, T-6 or PC-7/9/21 squadron. If you go for PC-21s you could reduce your number of hawk squadrons by 2 or so and repalce them with additional PC-21 squadrons.

Tutor squadrons could be upped or reduced depeneding on how much actual elementary flyign training you do in house and how much you farm out to the likes of University Air squadrons.

You'll also likely want 1 or two squadrosn of king airs for multi engine and navigator/systems crew training.

[New Chilokver]

Anyone have a good balance for a nation with 23 million people?

[Crookfur]

Anyone have a good balance for a nation with 23 million people?

If you are a developed western antion have a look at austrailia or taiwan.

of coruse neither will be a perfect fit as they both have thier own special strategic requirements. The aussies are probably the more relevant of the two (unless you have a very large existential threat sitting across a very narrow channel from your nation).

[Fothergilland]

2 sqns C130J Super Hercules
4 sqns GR9 Sea Harrier - Stationed on carrier
2 sqns EH101 - Stationed on carrier
6 sqns Eurofighter Typhoon
11 sqns AH-64 Apache
4 sqns C-17
32 sqns SU-35E (1 is a display team)
2 sqns CH-47
4 sqns Grob Tutor
1 sqn Hawk T2 (+ a display team)
1 sqn Squirrel Trainer
1 sqn B-52
1 sqn TU-95
1 sqn P8 Poseidon
1 sqn 767 (AWACS and Tanker)

There are also 1x EH101 on every frigate and destroyer in the navy.

I will be updating my forces soon

It is a bit odd in regard to the mix of countries of origin.

Gr.9s (no 9a?) are not sea harriers. SHARs were all based on the original harrier design rather than the slower but larger Harrier II (Gr.5 through 9a and AV-8B) evolution. If you wanted to sea harrier them you would need to upgrade them to actual fighter capability, either cramming in Blue Vixen or the APG-65 ala the AV-8B plus.

Having both typhoon and SU-35 seems awefully redundant unless you are in some sort of position where you have to buy both to appease both east and west.

Trainer wise you are short roughly you want a third as many fast jet trainer squadrons (hawks) as you do front line fighter/attack squadrons and for every two to three Hawk squadrons you proabably want a tucano, T-6 or PC-7/9/21 squadron. If you go for PC-21s you could reduce your number of hawk squadrons by 2 or so and repalce them with additional PC-21 squadrons.

Tutor squadrons could be upped or reduced depeneding on how much actual elementary flyign training you do in house and how much you farm out to the likes of University Air squadrons.

You'll also likely want 1 or two squadrosn of king airs for multi engine and navigator/systems crew training.

Thank you for the reply. Fothergilland is in the sort of position where it appeases both east and west. I thoroughly agree on the hawk comment . A lot of elementary flying goes on. In regards to the sea harrier that was an error on my part.

[Connori Pilgrims]

What's more moronic is assuming that being cost-effective is a simple as comparing the prices of two pieces of equipment and trying hard not to think about the other factors at play.

K...

The guy who asked specifically mentioned he didn't have enough missiles (ergo scarcity and raising the effective cost using them), and implied he had the airpower to do said task. Sure one could then ask if the said tiny boats were protected by air cover (raising the potential cost of an airstrike vis a vis just using missiles), or whether its actually worth his while to destroy said small boats in the first place, though I figure that the asker thought that far ahead.

Seriously. I doubt many naval officers give a flying fuck about the cost of their weapons so long as the enemy is engaged and destroyed as quickly as possible. If I was a naval officer, I'd gladly expend a $4.5 million RIM-174 or five on a small fishing boat with one of those containerized Sizzler launchers welded to the deck.

A reasonable position to take, though the guy who asked doesn't have such luxuries.

[Free Asian Ports]

FAAF:
8 sqns F-14 (Super Tomcat 21 variation, Air Superiority)
15 sqns F-15SE Strike Eagle (multirole strike fighter)
25 sqns F-16I Sufa (multirole, but mainly used as a strike aircraft)
10 sqns A-10 Thunderbolt II (because Brrrrrrrt)
4 sqns B-52H Stratofortress (long-range strategic bomber)
2 sqns English Electric Canberra (tactical bomber)
3 sqns EA-6B Prowler (electronic warfare)
3 sqns EA-18G Growler (as above, replacing the Prowler)
2 sqns E-3 Sentry (AWACS)
2 sqns E-2C Hawkeye (AWACS)
1 sqn KC-10 Extender (aerial refueling)
5 sqns C-130J Hercules (tactical transport)
5 sqns Kawasaki C-2 (heavy transport)
3 sqns CV-22 Osprey (tactical transport)
4 sqns HH-6G Black Hawk (para rescue)
17 sqns Kawasaki T-4 (advanced trainer/light attack)
15 sqns T-6 Texan II (basic trainer)
3 sqns Beechcraft King Air (multi-engine trainer)

Aircraft per squadron: 12
Total aircraft: 1,524

FANAF (Naval Aviation):
4 sqns Su-33 Flanker (Air Superiority)
4 sqns F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (Multirole Strike fighter)
4 sqns A-4KU Skyhawk (tactical strike/CAS/fleet defense)
1 sqn TA-4KU Skyhawk (FAC/CAS/carrier trainer)
2 sqns E-2C Hawkeye (AWACS)
2 sqns C-2 Greyhound (COD/Spec Ops)
1 sqn C-130 Hercules (general logistics)
4 sqns MV-22 Osprey (Spec Ops/cargo transport)
15 sqns P-3 Orion (maritime patrol)
1 sqn A-29 Super Tucano (Trainer/COIN/Spec Ops)
1 sqn Beechcraft King Air (multi-engine trainer)
3 sqns HH-60H (pilot rescue)
3 sqns MH-60S (multi-use)
10 sqns SH-60F (ASW, used on most warships)

Total aircraft: 660

FAMC (Marine Aviation):
4 sqns AV-8B Harrier II (multirole strike aircraft)
8 sqns UH-1Y Venom (combat transport/utility)
4 sqns AH-1Z Viper (attack helicopter)
2 sqns OH-1 Cayuse (recon/spec ops transport)
2 sqns MV-22 Osprey (heavy transport/tactical airlifter)
2 sqns Ka-52 (Recon/Attack helicopter/spec ops)

Total aircraft: 264

The Army operates it's own fleet of helicopters, numbering about 2,000. Unlike the other services, which form their aircraft into squadrons, the Army attaches it's aircraft directly to the units they serve with (ex. the 7th Airborne Division (airmobile/aircav composite) operates 240 Black Hawk helicopters). The only units that operate helicopters on their own are the Attack Helicopter squadrons (flying AH-64D Apaches) and Heavy Transport squadrons (flying CH-53 Stallions).

[Gallia-]

What's more moronic is assuming that being cost-effective is a simple as comparing the prices of two pieces of equipment and trying hard not to think about the other factors at play.

Seriously. I doubt many naval officers give a flying fuck about the cost of their weapons so long as the enemy is engaged and destroyed as quickly as possible. If I was a naval officer, I'd gladly expend a $4.5 million RIM-174 or five on a small fishing boat with one of those containerized Sizzler launchers welded to the deck.

lol

[The Kievan People]

Yes, but theoretically I mean. Ukraine is rather short on AShMs, and I'm also looking into utilizing AN-26's as Maritime Patrol Aircraft to supplement my Be-12s.

http://catalog.use.kiev.ua/index.php?pa ... uct&id=191

[Padnak]

That feel when Padnak operates more helicopters then the Japanese air force

eternal glory to the Padnaki Army Aviation Corps

Speaking of which, I have one army aviation regiment, the combat arm of which is mostly comprised of Mi-8s and Mi-17s, and I was wondering if it would make sense to split the combat arms into two battalions of Mi-8/17 equipped forces and one battalion of Mi-6 or similar equipped forces. The idea being that the more mobile Mi-8/17 equipped forces (supported by Mi-24s and other attack helicopters attached to the unit) would be used in the initial assault and to secure a landing area while the less mobile Mi-6 transported forces would land afterwords to move in heavier equipment and larger numbers of troops to reinforce

[Radicchio]

How useful is skip bombing in the modern era, against smaller vessels (think minesweepers\patrol boats on down, with less sophisticated AA)?

Denel Dynamics UMBANI Guided Bomb Kit

Got 250lb Firecracker NATO Bombs? The South Africans sell a guidance, glide and seeker kit for them that is under $50,000 USD.

If you can get an aircraft or a boat to paint those boats with a laser than you can hit them accurately from altitude at a VERY low cost and I dont think they make a small boat that 250lb of NATO explosive cant sink, and if they do then move up to the 1000lb NATO bombs and buy the kit for that with the same seeker.

[Velkanika]

The guy who asked specifically mentioned he didn't have enough missiles (ergo scarcity and raising the effective cost using them), and implied he had the airpower to do said task. Sure one could then ask if the said tiny boats were protected by air cover (raising the potential cost of an airstrike vis a vis just using missiles), or whether its actually worth his while to destroy said small boats in the first place, though I figure that the asker thought that far ahead.

Oh. In that case cluster, iron bombs, and ground attack rockets work on ships just fine. During Operation Praying Mantis Rockeyes were dropped on two formations of boghammers on their way back from striking merchant traffic in the Gulf with good effects. Later on, an Iranian frigate was crippled with a 1,000-pound bomb than an A-6 dropped down her stack. IIRC, the Intruder dropped on the Frigate while taking AAA and SAM fire.