A Guide to an Air Force: F-Series Version
By Vancon with help from Organised States and Padnak
By Vancon with help from Organised States and Padnak
Here I’ll be going over what you need for an air force in modern times that will do you and your nation justice. It’ll be a general thing, and I’ll go over what you need and how that varies from what you want. I won’t really be going into logistics and prices, but I’ll touch on it slightly to elaborate certain points. One thing that I’ll be putting a lot of weight into is the difference between want and need. So without further ado, let’s get started!
For conversation’s sake, let’s say that your nation is America, an American friend or an American puppet state. Now from this we can deduct that you have access to most American aerospace technologies, and in turn we can go all out with your planes. HOWEVER, this does not mean that just because you’re friends with America you can have a metric shit-ton of F-22s. These are both expensive to buy and maintain. Unless you are trying to make a :not:America, you will not be able to afford to keep them running. Herein begins the tale of want and need. You might want a ton of F 22s because they’re effective, but they are not made for fledgling countries. What you need, is a good plane that will be the backbone of your forces. But what kind of plane would this be? A bomber won’t really be able to go out and fend off the adversary! Before you decide what planes too use, I’ll go over the general plane types and how important they are in a military. There is four “classes” of military planes, or at least I’ll be calling them that. In no real order of importance, here they are:
Fighters:
-ASFs (Air Superiority Fighters)
These encompass pretty much everything that a fighter is supposed to be able to do, including the other two sub-classes below. They are the brawlers with a great turning radius and a fair amount of missiles to be able to engage and destroy the opposition. An example of this would be something like a F-22. But for a fledgling nation, a good choice would be either the F-15 and it’s variants, or the F-16 and it’s variants. Both of these fighters have proven themselves in combat time after time, and it could only be better if you had F-22s. They are really expensive though. Herein is the first example of want and need. You might want to field an air force of purely F-22’s, but realistically you will not have the ability to do so, due to budget constraints. But what you need is a flight of reliable planes that will see you through a war. If you asked me which one I’d recommend, I’d say the F-15, but that’s mainly due to the two engines. If one goes out, you can still keep moving forward without turning into a glider. I don’t like gliders. They’re like a roller coaster without tracks. Scary shit I tell you.
-Interceptors
High Speed; Low Drag, that’s the motto of these contraptions. They are to haul ass and quickly get in range of the target, hopefully destroying it before it even gets within range of whatever it's trying to attack. From what I gather, American Interceptor tech has severely slowed since the cold war, and in turn they have only two interceptors, the F-22, which isn’t really an interceptor but can get the job done, and the F-14, which was made as a carrier based interceptor. The F-14 was made with this role in mind, and for a fledgling nation with NATO ties you should be just fine using them, even though they are a bit on the older side. The F-14 does require intensive maintenance though, and that alone should be taken into account when you decide your competition. I would rather suggest more F-22’s, but again, expensive. The F-14 was made a while back, but there are upgrades that can be put on it to be competitive, and missiles that can help it out even more. This would be fine, just don’t go telling me you’re using things older then the F-14. It already had its retirement party in 2006. But, if you really want an older plane, then I can't stop you. Even though the Americans retired them in the eighties, the F-106 Delta Dart exists. It has a top speed of 2455kph, which is is only 30kph slower then the F-14 with it's twin engines. I can't stop you from using the F-106, but I wouldn't. As mentioned in the ASF chapter, I believe that 2 engines is better then one, any day. But hey, these are only recommendations from an ape behind a metal box.
-Multirole Aircraft (Strike-Fighters/Fighter-Bombers)
My baby resides here, so be advised for potential/probable ass-kissing. Regardless, these types of combat aircraft are equal parts badass air-to air dogfighters and ground-pounding bombers, hence the name. But in exchange for being pretty good at both roles, it doesn’t excel at either. But that isn’t really a problem, since you’d have some fighters running escort duty and some real bombers hitting the hard targets. If this was world of tanks, it would be a medium tank. If it was a sport, it would be the mid-fielders, savvy? So, suggestions. The USAF fields a large variety of these, but the ones I’m going to mention now are my baby the F-18,it’s variants, and it’s elder brother the F/A 18 Super Hornet. Both of these planes can be used in any role required, making them very versatile in a combat situation. You need bombs? Then slap some bombs on the hardpoints and call it a day. How about those pesky MiG 21’s that are pushing their luck around your borders? Put on some AA missiles and you’re good to go. The best part about this, you ask? It can carry both and still be effective in both roles. Bonus points are given to the F-18 because it’s a carrier based aircraft-I’ll go over that later, don’t you worry- and ‘cause it’s a sexy beast. I mean damn, look at those curves.
Bombers:
-Ground Attack Planes
They are lean, mean fighting machines that scare all those below them. Yes, this is where planes that utterly rock your opponent’s world reside, such as the American icon of the people and bane of the USAF’s budget, the A-10 Thunderbolt. This plane is expensive, and currently the USAF is trying to get it out of their hangars and into someone else’s. But that doesn’t stop the fact that is has a huge cannon that would tear a hole through almost anything that your enemy can field. So now is the question: Do you need this? Normally, I would say no, because if you really needed something similar, you could put a bunch of bombs and missiles onto the hardpoints of a Multirole (see above), give it a higher caliber cannon and you’re golden. It wouldn't be too hard to pull it off, as long as you have some good science-y people at hand. But one thing is for sure, planes like the A-10 scream freedom, and that has a soft spot in my heart. And before you say that I forgot the F-117, I didn’t. It’s just that it is already been retired and there are things that take it's place.
-Tactical Bombers
Now this topic and the next are very similar, yet still pretty different. For those who don’t know, tactical bombing is a collection of super-precise bombing on certain locations of interest, such as known enemy hideouts and factories. So you want a fast plane that can get in, drop a bomb and get out. Such as a bomber that can get up to Mach 2: the good ol’ B-1 Lancer. It’s a swept wing icon of liberation and general coolness. This would also be expensive, but this is the best you can get nowadays. It will fly either high in the sky and drop some bombs on a sumbitch, or fly super low and drop a present of pain on the OPFOR’s doorstep. But here we go again, need and want. You may want one of these, but how much does your doctrine call for bombing of enemy installations? If you really believe that you need this and the following thing, then be my guest, but they are case specific.
-Strategic Bombers
Strategic bombing is the act of generally lighting up everything, and I mean everything, by liberal use of JDAMS drops, Carpet bombing or even nuclear missiles launched via aircraft. So what plane can do this? Why, the B-2 Spirit can! These behemoths are stealth-capable, but in exchange of this feature the prices of this thing skyrocket even higher than they were to begin with, so much so that the USAF only fields 20 of these in total. As mentioned just recently, unless your nation really calls for large bombing campaigns, don’t use these. One of these costs 737 million USD. You can buy 12 Super Hornet’s in exchange, and they can do a lot more roles. But you gotta do what you gotta do, so it’s up to you to decide.
Support:
-Tankers
These flying fireballs are the life support for any and all long distance combat operations. If this thing goes down, you’re entire force is playing a waiting game until they fall to the ground deep within enemy territory. But this becomes redundant if the plane that you think you will need to refuel isn’t ever going to really go too far away from it’s home base. So here is yet another sample of need and want. As cool as it may be to have your bombers fly across the globe and have a tanker to keep them on their journey, does your international relations require you to do so? And even then, do you need a fully blown tanker craft that you’d need to bring some escorts to protect? What if I told you that there was a work-around to this problem? Most Multirole planes can carry “drop tanks”, which are canisters of fuel that let them refuel their friends mid-flight and can drop them if the OPFOR approaches. Generally it’s a F/A-18 Super Hornet that carries these, but it wouldn't be too hard to put them on another multirole. Nevertheless, I need to give you some examples. Currently the US uses the KC-135 Stratotanker as their main high altitude tanker, and a type of modified C-130 for refueling
helicopters and the like.
-Transport
Getting your troops from point A to point B is a kind of hell. Not only do you need sufficient transports to get your guys halfway across the globe, but you need the fuel to get them there, the payload to load a bunch of soldiers onboard and something large enough to get your tanks to the frontlines. So, in conclusion, you need the best bang for your buck, and using the US arsenal, I would suggest either or both of the following: The C-5 Galaxy for intercontinental transport of large volumes of stuff, or the C-130 Hercules for transporting things from airbases in a relatively close proximity, as far as planes go. The C-5 wound be ideal for getting your stuff from San Francisco to Shanghai, where as you’d want to use the C-130 to drop your paratroopers or get your dudes from London to Paris. Here there is no need or want; just need. These things are vital for your war and you will be severely boned if you don’t have some larger transports. Helicopters can’t move your Abrams’ to the frontline!
-Trainers
Trainers are a fickle thing, and I can’t really give you any suggestions about them, except for the following. You have two options. You can both train your new pilots who’ve either never or rarely flown before in your shiny new plane, and risk it crashing into a mountain or you can have a similar craft made for the purpose of teaching them how to fly. This will matter mostly to your own doctrine, but nevertheless, I would suggest you find out what your fighters will be first, and decide from there whether or not you need them. You’ll need to do some digging to find the appropriate trainer, but I’ll give you one here following my theme of “F-18 and friends”, the CT-155 Hawk. Some real life nations still use these as combat aircraft, but here in Canada they are used only as trainers.
Other:
-EW planes (Electronic Warfare)
So, your nation is strong enough to use the special things then, eh? Well, what say you to something that will really mess up the OPFOR’s day? Regardless of your answer, you should know that EW has been around for a long time, and it is the act of jamming enemy comms, missile locks, avionics, radar and anything else that uses signals. This seems to be something that the US is a big fan of, and seems to make a big fuss over it on all of their next gen fighters, when they were next-gen, such as the EA-6B Prowler for the Navy when the F-14 was the next big thing, the EF-111A Raven with the USAF since they didn’t want the Prowler, and the current EW plane that the Navy uses, the EA-18 G Growler. But they are not alone. There is another plane that has this role, the F-35 Lightning II. Now, which to choose? The Prowler would be too old for you if you are even able to comfortably afford these things. The Raven would also fall under the same category. So now it’s either the Growler or the Lightning II. The Growler is a bit old, but it’s a modified f-18 to begin with, and that plane has proven itself time and time again, where as the F-35 still has a multitude of flaws, but is still pretty new. Take your pick, I won’t judge.
-AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System)
Need to keep tabs on the OPFOR, but they are a bit out of range? No problem! An AWACS bird can fly high in the sky and use its radar to identify enemy forces and relay them back down to your base in milliseconds. These are a double edged sword though, even if one edge is significantly sharper than the other. The ability to see where the enemy is coming from is one thing, but in exchange the enemy can see the AWACS with ease. Therefore, you need to protect this investment dearly. The ability to know where your enemy is remains invaluable to this day because you can plan your attack without them being able to pull any sneaky stuff without you knowing.
-Carrier Based Planes
This part is reserved for the really fancy aquatic nations. You don’t need this if you are either landlocked or a fledgling. Carriers capable aircraft need to have a few things that land based planes do not. These are the requirement of landing in a short space, for obvious reasons, and the ability to take up less space than normal. This is why you can’t have an Air Force of purely F-22s. This is also a main reason as to why the F-14 and F-18 have movable wings, the former moving them back while the latter has them fold. This means that you can have more aircraft on board, and in turn more firepower.
So there you go, a detailed guide as to how to make an Air Force for all those who are more NATO/America sided. I hope this has been helpful, and I’ll have you know that a MiG/Su version is in the pipe and ready to be made. Any questions and or comments would be greatly appreciated
