Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[The Akasha Colony]

Take any ASF and strap a targeting pod to it and maybe do some software wizardry to give to give its radar a SAR mode. Boom, ground attack aircraft. And because it's an ASF it doesn't require escort, it's a win-win.

The only purpose built ground attack worth having is called a strategic bomber.

Next ASF is going to be a 5th gen

So, 5th-gen ASF that can switch from ground attack to air superiority mode just by flicking on SAR mode and attaching/detaching targeting pod when needed? Can I start saying goodbye to my Flankers the moment my 5th gen ASF starts rolling off the production lanes?

If you expect it to engage in ground attack missions, why are you designing it to use targeting pods? Just integrate the sensors directly and do away with the pods, as in F-35.

And no, you can't really retire the Flankers immediately because introducing a totally new fighter will require years for those new squadrons to reach full operational efficiency as pilots and support staff become accustomed to their new planes and the new maintenance and support procedures are finally tested in a large scale and evaluated to improve efficiency. And this presumes no flaws or other problems are discovered that might suddenly delay further production.

Only once you know the fifth gen program is well in hand, the kinks are worked out, and the squadrons fully up to par and ready for combat should you start retiring your existing planes, since in the interim, they are the ones still bearing the burden of your air defense. You might start transitioning squadrons from one aircraft to the other and putting the old aircraft in storage, but they wouldn't be dumped immediately and it would be a slow process as the air force transitions crews over. Crew training is actually one of the biggest bottlenecks in introducing new aircraft, and it's one of the USAF's biggest hurdles in regards to the F-35.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Your "fifth gen" aircraft will also probably never completely replace all of your fourth gen fighter aircraft. If you asked the USAF brass in the late 90's they probably would of thought by now all of our teen series fighters would be retired. Look how that turned out. Currently the F-15C (and probably the F-14E) is supposned so serve past 2040 (!!!!!), the super hornet likely that long as well, at which point they will probably be replaced with 6th gen jets.

[Gallia-]

Strike Eagle will be used until the extinction of technological civilization. Maybe another century and a half.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

At this rate we're going to have F-15s duking it out with Scrin stormriders over temple prime. And the reaper invasion of earth will be repelled by B-52Hs held together by the undead spirit of Curtis Lemay.

[Prosorusiya]

Does anybody know what kind of special communications equipment is in the tail of Tupolev Tu-134AKs?

[Gallia-]

At this rate we're going to have F-15s duking it out with Scrin stormriders over temple prime. And the reaper invasion of earth will be repelled by B-52Hs held together by the undead spirit of Curtis Lemay.

More like hikkikomori take over the Earth.

[Glitter Gulch]

I'm going to use some for training purposes and some for support purposes.

I envision I'll be able to maintain air superiority, so I was thinking bombers would be really nice for taking out certain ground targets.

Using the f-22 as a trainer will be stupidly expensive in terms of dollars per flight hours, trainee pilots killed and airframes lieing wrecked in the desert.
Top line fighter aircraft are not something you get to touch until you have already proved yourself in all aspects of fast jet handling.

As the others have said the F-35 does all your air to ground work perfectly well but maybe you still have some F-15Es kicking around to provide a bit more heft a little bit further( or possibly claim to have a fully developed FB-22). A true "bomber" is only needed if you need intercontinental reach in which case just wank up some B-1s or B-2s

That's actually a very fair point. That wasn't my complete intention, but now I feel I should mention it. Have any suggestions for a good beginner aircraft?

[Palmyrion]

So much for 5th gens.

How about an all-4.5Gen combat aircraft fleet?

[Yurantsk]

Not many but just enough to rain fire on our enemies.

Mil Mi-8 General transport and spec-ops use.

Mil Mi-24 "Hind" Close air support use as well as scavenging,scouting and infiltration.

Sukhoi Su-25 Grach "Frogfoot" Multi purpose. Usually strategic bombing,non-strategic bombing,scouting.

[Prosorusiya]

Using the Forgfoot for Strategic Bombing is a bad idea, like using a butter knife to do brain surgery. Strategy Bombing nowadays usually involves aircraft like the B-52, Tu-95, and H-6, big heavy bombers carrying nukes. That kind of strategy is best left to the super powers. The Forefoots long ferry range makes them good for forward deployment though. I used them to bomb Mosul this last summer, by forward basing them.

I'd say replace that mission with the counter air\ SEAD task. The Su-25 isn't ideal for that task, mind you, but it is more useful than nothing. Combat experience has shown that the way to win a war is to destroy the enemy before he can fight, and destroying the enemy air force on the ground can help achieve air parity for a small nation, increasing it's odds of surviving an assault by a larger nation. This is why I use MiG-23BNs as fighter-bombers and focus on striking Russian Airfields early in the game in order to achieve parity, which I believe is the best I an hope for. Otherwise, seems good. Might consider some larger transport planes, An-26, An-32, An-72, or An-12 spring to mind.

[Crookfur]

Using the f-22 as a trainer will be stupidly expensive in terms of dollars per flight hours, trainee pilots killed and airframes lieing wrecked in the desert.
Top line fighter aircraft are not something you get to touch until you have already proved yourself in all aspects of fast jet handling.

As the others have said the F-35 does all your air to ground work perfectly well but maybe you still have some F-15Es kicking around to provide a bit more heft a little bit further( or possibly claim to have a fully developed FB-22). A true "bomber" is only needed if you need intercontinental reach in which case just wank up some B-1s or B-2s

That's actually a very fair point. That wasn't my complete intention, but now I feel I should mention it. Have any suggestions for a good beginner aircraft?

Training for USAF pilots going for combat aircraft currently goes:DA20 for initial (pilots license) training, T-6 texan II for basic and intermediate stages and the T-38 talon for advanced/ lead in fighter training stages.

The T-38 is currently up for replacement with options being the Hawk, T-50 and the M346.

[Connori Pilgrims]

So much for 5th gens.

How about an all-4.5Gen combat aircraft fleet?

That would be fine for a completely current-time non-super power state.

[Organized States]

The T-38 is currently up for replacement with options being the Hawk, T-50 and the M346.

It's doubtful that any of those will actually be selected. I suspect the USAF will give the contract to Boeing in order to keep their Space and Defense lines going long enough to bid on the F-X and F/A-XX program(s) or produce other aircraft parts under license in case of a major contingency, however far off those two may be.

[IceBuddha]

So much for 5th gens.

How about an all-4.5Gen combat aircraft fleet?

That's fine, just make sure to invest in EW and SEAD if your Air Force is more offensively minded and plans on fighting somewhat worthy adversaries. That is probably not necessary if you just do air policing and some occasional COIN/third world adventure operations like lots of the smaller NATO air forces.

[Crookfur]

The T-38 is currently up for replacement with options being the Hawk, T-50 and the M346.

It's doubtful that any of those will actually be selected. I suspect the USAF will give the contract to Boeing in order to keep their Space and Defense lines going long enough to bid on the F-X and F/A-XX program(s) or produce other aircraft parts under license in case of a major contingency, however far off those two may be.

My bad it's been a while since I had really looked at t-x so had missed boeing and NG going with brand new designs.

[New Chilokver]

Is Taiwan's F-CK 1 a 4th generation fighter? I understand that it's roughly comparable with say the F-16, but has inadequate engines which make it underpowered.

[Minroz]

Would it be okay to equip Jet aircraft with Napalm bombs in the modern settings? Can it be standard-issue?

Though I was under impression using Napalm in MT is a big No-no, due to unfortunate implications. That and costs of maintenance. :x

[Purpelia]

Should be fine. It's not like you signed any treaties against it so just go forth and burn.

[Crookfur]

Would it be okay to equip Jet aircraft with Napalm bombs in the modern settings? Can it be standard-issue?

Though I was under impression using Napalm in MT is a big No-no, due to unfortunate implications. That and costs of maintenance. :x

The Americans still use M-77 fire bombs. Technically they aren't napalm filled but they do the same thing.

Incendiary bombs are never going to be your principle bomb of choice for most situations but you would use them when you expect to need thier capabilities.

Any "implications" are simply going to be the wailing of press and special interest groups already opposed to your government so it's not something to worry about unless your nation is already ruled by military hating "liberals" looking for an excuse to kick the military where it hurts.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is Taiwan's F-CK 1 a 4th generation fighter? I understand that it's roughly comparable with say the F-16, but has inadequate engines which make it underpowered.

Engine power does not define what generation a fighter falls into.

Would it be okay to equip Jet aircraft with Napalm bombs in the modern settings? Can it be standard-issue?

Though I was under impression using Napalm in MT is a big No-no, due to unfortunate implications. That and costs of maintenance. :x

Yes, but actual napalm has been generally replaced with better modern compounds (which are usually called napalm anyway) that are safer and more reliable.

But it's only useful against specific types of targets, which is why conventional explosive bombs are far more common and are referred to as "general purpose" bombs.

Using incendiary munitions in and of itself is not a huge problem, the issue is targeting and the concern that fires started by incendiary weapons may spread out unpredictably and out of control, causing significant collateral damage. General purpose bombs dropped on civilian targets will cause just as many problems and just as much backlash.

[Novayastrana]

Generic Post-Soviet Russian Air Force, probably. I'm still working out the kinks of this nation but I figure a good first stopping point is the various mil-threads.

I'm thinking there's an almost Ace Combat level of logistics mix in this nation in regards to eastern and western airframes, and I figure the reason for this is actually kind of starkly reasonable (correct me if wrong) that it's actually cheaper for this notRussia to buy a few western planes over trying to drag their ragged ex-Soviet airframes into the 21st century.

Thoughts?

This is a puppet by the way, I am rather experienced on this site.

[The Akasha Colony]

Generic Post-Soviet Russian Air Force, probably. I'm still working out the kinks of this nation but I figure a good first stopping point is the various mil-threads.

I'm thinking there's an almost Ace Combat level of logistics mix in this nation in regards to eastern and western airframes, and I figure the reason for this is actually kind of starkly reasonable (correct me if wrong) that it's actually cheaper for this notRussia to buy a few western planes over trying to drag their ragged ex-Soviet airframes into the 21st century.

Thoughts?

This is a puppet by the way, I am rather experienced on this site.

It depends on a lot of factors. Russia's obviously got lots of old planes but it also has a domestic aircraft industry it wants to support, so importing planes from the West is simply not a viable political choice. Instead, it just develops new planes and modernizes old ones using that domestic industry, even though it may be more expensive than just buying planes abroad. So if you're in a similar position, this is likely the route you'd take. You don't have to buy new Western planes, you can buy new Russian ones too.

If you've already got some Western planes and have no compunctions about possibly buying more, it depends on the cost of buying more foreign planes, which will depend on political relations with the exporting countries. Those planes may well end up more expensive than domestic options.

And lastly it depends on your desired capability level. Basic upgrades to old airframes will keep them flying for reasonably low cost, but it won't make them competitive with top-tier modern fighters. If the former is all you want, then you don't need new planes and can settle for limited upgrades. If the latter is what you want, then see above.

[Novayastrana]

Generic Post-Soviet Russian Air Force, probably. I'm still working out the kinks of this nation but I figure a good first stopping point is the various mil-threads.

I'm thinking there's an almost Ace Combat level of logistics mix in this nation in regards to eastern and western airframes, and I figure the reason for this is actually kind of starkly reasonable (correct me if wrong) that it's actually cheaper for this notRussia to buy a few western planes over trying to drag their ragged ex-Soviet airframes into the 21st century.

Thoughts?

This is a puppet by the way, I am rather experienced on this site.

It depends on a lot of factors. Russia's obviously got lots of old planes but it also has a domestic aircraft industry it wants to support, so importing planes from the West is simply not a viable political choice. Instead, it just develops new planes and modernizes old ones using that domestic industry, even though it may be more expensive than just buying planes abroad. So if you're in a similar position, this is likely the route you'd take. You don't have to buy new Western planes, you can buy new Russian ones too.

If you've already got some Western planes and have no compunctions about possibly buying more, it depends on the cost of buying more foreign planes, which will depend on political relations with the exporting countries. Those planes may well end up more expensive than domestic options.

And lastly it depends on your desired capability level. Basic upgrades to old airframes will keep them flying for reasonably low cost, but it won't make them competitive with top-tier modern fighters. If the former is all you want, then you don't need new planes and can settle for limited upgrades. If the latter is what you want, then see above.

Thank you.

[Prosorusiya]

Should I retire my An-2s to commercial service, and buy more An-26s for my mixed Aviation Squadron? Currently I have one flight of four An-26s and one flight of four An-2s... and although I got a great bargain on the An-2s it occurs to me I have not once used them, where as I have used both the An-12 and An-26s that populate the squadrons fixed-wing operations.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Is there any reason you couldn't put two IRSTs on either side of the nose of a fighter and get parallax rangefinding capability? AFAIK no current fighter with IRST employs this setup, I know the YF-12 had two IRSTs on either side of the nose (where I got the idea from) but I can't find anything suggestion they were used for parallax rangefinding.