Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Gallia-]

(Image)

These are cool as shit.

Scale?

The same one mat uses for his tanks

1 px 1.5 cm

The full graph: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... /AIM-7.png

If I can find images, I will draw the mysterious Robot 73D which is a highly advanced Skyflash derivative with an air-breathing ramjet motor and wings proposed prior to the development of MBDA Meteor.

[Seno Zhou Varada]

We use planes that drop stun bombs on our enemies for short.

[Pharthan]

I saw this and for a few seconds I intensely wanted to design a tank-jet.

[Imperializt Russia]

(Image)
I saw this and for a few seconds I intensely wanted to design a tank-jet.

Hail Germans.

[Oaledonia]

(Image)
I saw this and for a few seconds I intensely wanted to design a tank-jet.

Hail Germans.

I'm making a anti-pirate plane-mobile. Assuming that it`s a bit bigger then the B-25, could I mount a modestly powerful 105mm?

[Imperializt Russia]

Hail Germans.

I'm making a anti-pirate plane-mobile. Assuming that it`s a bit bigger then the B-25, could I mount a modestly powerful 105mm?

If you fit strengthening bars and an autoloader, I suppose you probably could.
C-130 mounts one laterally, after all.

I remember, many years ago, I had the idea of futur AC-130s which featured enormous 40mm rotary guns in the lateral mounts, and a pair of ten inch howitzers in disappearing gun mounts in the belly.
Clearly playing with TARDISes.

[New Emphillon]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately and I want someone's opinion on this. A while ago, I read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor and at one point, the United States uses two RAH-66 Comanche helicopters to sneak into Tokyo (as the main antagonists of the book are Japanese businessmen plotting a coup of the Japanese government) and take out HVTs with their Hellfire missiles. One even managed to hit and destroy one of Japan's four E-767 AWACS aircraft with an AIM-92 Stinger missile. In the end, the aircraft managed to make it out of the city unchallenged before being refueled and heading back to the States.
While I don't necessarily believe such a feat could be done (despite Clancy's intensive research into military equipment for every book he wrote), I do think that the RAH-66 could have been a success, even without its intended stealth capabilities. As a regular recon helicopter, I think it definitely could have replaced the OH-58 Kiowa, had the US military not decided to abandon the project to seek an upgrade for its fleet of Kiowas. But that is just me.

So what do you guys think? Could the Comanche have been a success had the program not been cancelled?

[The Corparation]

Started work on a new carrier because the other day San posted his and I was bored. Anyways on my previous carriers I used mostly V/STOLs, for my new one I'm using not-F-18s (Both C/Ds and E/Fs) since I'm using not-F-18s I am of course going with not-Growler as an EW aircraft. The Growler got me wondering however if it would be possible to make an ASW warfare variant of the Super Hornet, an SA-18. The EA-18 two person crew compared to the EA-6's 4 leads me to believe that I could get by doing a similar crew reduction from the 4 man Viking to an ASW hornet. I'm mostly curious as to the practicality of modifying the aircraft for the role. Sp Y/N regarding this idea?

[Gallia-]

Hail Germans.

I'm making a anti-pirate plane-mobile. Assuming that it`s a bit bigger then the B-25, could I mount a modestly powerful 105mm?

76mm would be enough.

[Alduinium]

So, what's the minimum amount of Tu-22M backfires needed to wipe out a Carrier Strike Group?

[Transnapastain]

I...would think that would depend on the size of the strike group. Task group composition tends to vary between nations and missions. I do not believe there is such a thing as a "standard carrier strike group" format.

[San-Silvacian]

So, what's the minimum amount of Tu-22M backfires needed to wipe out a Carrier Strike Group?

Really depends.

By the time a Tu-22M would get into the limits of its weapon systems to engage a carrier strike group, fighters should be pouncing it.

[Virana]

So, what's the minimum amount of Tu-22M backfires needed to wipe out a Carrier Strike Group?

As you can probably see from what San Silvacian said, the number and strength of the bombers' escorts is way more important than the number of Backfires. A proper carrier strike group will have a lot of fighters intercepting your aerial assault, so you will need to have a significant anti-air component; just a squadron of Tu-22Ms, no matter how large, will get slaughtered without escorts by the task force's air defense.

[Alduinium]

So, what's the minimum amount of Tu-22M backfires needed to wipe out a Carrier Strike Group?

As you can probably see from what San Silvacian said, the number and strength of the bombers' escorts is way more important than the number of Backfires. A proper carrier strike group will have a lot of fighters intercepting your aerial assault, so you will need to have a significant anti-air component; just a squadron of Tu-22Ms, no matter how large, will get slaughtered without escorts by the task force's air defense.

So, two or three fighter escorts for every single Backfire?

[The Akasha Colony]

As you can probably see from what San Silvacian said, the number and strength of the bombers' escorts is way more important than the number of Backfires. A proper carrier strike group will have a lot of fighters intercepting your aerial assault, so you will need to have a significant anti-air component; just a squadron of Tu-22Ms, no matter how large, will get slaughtered without escorts by the task force's air defense.

So, two or three fighter escorts for every single Backfire?

The number you need is relative to the number of enemy fighters, not the number of bombers.

[New Vihenia]

So, what's the minimum amount of Tu-22M backfires needed to wipe out a Carrier Strike Group?

This relate to how many missiles needed to saturate the fleet's air defense network, which depend on how many missile a ship can engage at a time.

However odds are a regiment sized air assault is needed. One soviet formation i recalled involves 12-24 Tu-22M Firing no less than 24 Kh-22 missiles, supported by heavy jamming from Tu-16 and other Tu-16 firing ECM Drone in shape of old KS-10 missile. The firing take place at very long range of 500 Km far beyond the usual CAP of carrier group (at that time) Or more to ensure survivability of the bomber regiment.

and above is just complement of missile strike from other platform such as submarine. Missile counts may reach well over 160.

So it's clear you can't really send Tu-22M's and escorts alone for this task.

[Virana]

As you can probably see from what San Silvacian said, the number and strength of the bombers' escorts is way more important than the number of Backfires. A proper carrier strike group will have a lot of fighters intercepting your aerial assault, so you will need to have a significant anti-air component; just a squadron of Tu-22Ms, no matter how large, will get slaughtered without escorts by the task force's air defense.

So, two or three fighter escorts for every single Backfire?

Well, that'd rely on how many Backfires you send. The number of escorts is going to have to be something capable of fighting the task force's air defense; that includes both fighters and shipborne defense systems (anti-air missiles, mostly). It also depends on the size and composition of your adversary's carrier air wing. US carrier air wings typically have four whole strike fighter squadrons, a squadron of electronic warfare support craft, and some other support planes, totaling around 100 or so aircraft. France's Charles de Gaulle is way smaller than US carriers, and only holds around 40 or so aircraft of different types.

It goes back to the size and composition of your adversary's air defenses. Keep in mind that the strength of your escorts is not merely dependent on air-to-air capability and the number of planes. Modern aerial warfare is very focused around electronic warfare, and that aspect of the conflict will be just as important (if not more). Also, because you're likely dealing with anti-air missiles launched from ships, you may end up bringing along multirole fighters armed with weapons that can take on SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) roles as well.

Overall, this won't be just a Tu-22M strike on a carrier group. In order to have any chance at success, it's a complex, multifaceted, all-encompassing aerial assault. And depending on the strength of your enemy's task force, you may be required to send support in the form of ships. It's unlikely that air power alone can defeat a carrier task force.

[Gallia-]

If a Tu-22 squadron runs into a fighter screen, it dies immediately. Doesn't matter how many escorts you have.

Tu-22 regiments operated with Tu-95 reconnaissance planes. They had no escorts. They launched, and if they did most things right they take the CVBG by surprise and kill it. A more effective carrier killer is a submarine, and those are essentially looking for an needle in a haystack, but they're about a billion times harder to find and kill.

An even better method is using submarines and bombers to hunt carriers, but they're hard to find, really fast, and super annoying. There's no "easy" way to kill a carrier, and giving a Backfire flight escorts will not improve your chances.

[Alduinium]

So, two or three fighter escorts for every single Backfire?

Well, that'd rely on how many Backfires you send. The number of escorts is going to have to be something capable of fighting the task force's air defense; that includes both fighters and shipborne defense systems (anti-air missiles, mostly). It also depends on the size and composition of your adversary's carrier air wing. US carrier air wings typically have four whole strike fighter squadrons, a squadron of electronic warfare support craft, and some other support planes, totaling around 100 or so aircraft. France's Charles de Gaulle is way smaller than US carriers, and only holds around 40 or so aircraft of different types.

It goes back to the size and composition of your adversary's air defenses. Keep in mind that the strength of your escorts is not merely dependent on air-to-air capability and the number of planes. Modern aerial warfare is very focused around electronic warfare, and that aspect of the conflict will be just as important (if not more). Also, because you're likely dealing with anti-air missiles launched from ships, you may end up bringing along multirole fighters armed with weapons that can take on SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) roles as well.

Overall, this won't be just a Tu-22M strike on a carrier group. In order to have any chance at success, it's a complex, multifaceted, all-encompassing aerial assault. And depending on the strength of your enemy's task force, you may be required to send support in the form of ships. It's unlikely that air power alone can defeat a carrier task force.

Thanks for the information, from the looks of it, sinking a carrier group is a lot tougher than I thought it would be.

If a Tu-22 squadron runs into a fighter screen, it dies immediately. Doesn't matter how many escorts you have.

Tu-22 regiments operated with Tu-95 reconnaissance planes. They had no escorts. They launched, and if they did most things right they take the CVBG by surprise and kill it. A more effective carrier killer is a submarine, and those are essentially looking for an needle in a haystack, but they're about a billion times harder to find and kill.

An even better method is using submarines and bombers to hunt carriers, but they're hard to find, really fast, and super annoying. There's no "easy" way to kill a carrier, and giving a Backfire flight escorts will not improve your chances.

So, a combined Submarine and bomber assault on a carrier group should wipe out at least the carrier, assuming I could actually find it?

[The Akasha Colony]

So, a combined Submarine and bomber assault on a carrier group should wipe out at least the carrier, assuming I could actually find it?

An assault of almost anything in sufficient numbers will kill a carrier, but being combined arms doesn't mean it will automatically succeed, and coordinating between submarines and just about anything else is difficult due to communications difficulties at depth.

[Gallia-]

Well, that'd rely on how many Backfires you send. The number of escorts is going to have to be something capable of fighting the task force's air defense; that includes both fighters and shipborne defense systems (anti-air missiles, mostly). It also depends on the size and composition of your adversary's carrier air wing. US carrier air wings typically have four whole strike fighter squadrons, a squadron of electronic warfare support craft, and some other support planes, totaling around 100 or so aircraft. France's Charles de Gaulle is way smaller than US carriers, and only holds around 40 or so aircraft of different types.

It goes back to the size and composition of your adversary's air defenses. Keep in mind that the strength of your escorts is not merely dependent on air-to-air capability and the number of planes. Modern aerial warfare is very focused around electronic warfare, and that aspect of the conflict will be just as important (if not more). Also, because you're likely dealing with anti-air missiles launched from ships, you may end up bringing along multirole fighters armed with weapons that can take on SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) roles as well.

Overall, this won't be just a Tu-22M strike on a carrier group. In order to have any chance at success, it's a complex, multifaceted, all-encompassing aerial assault. And depending on the strength of your enemy's task force, you may be required to send support in the form of ships. It's unlikely that air power alone can defeat a carrier task force.

Thanks for the information, from the looks of it, sinking a carrier group is a lot tougher than I thought it would be.

If a Tu-22 squadron runs into a fighter screen, it dies immediately. Doesn't matter how many escorts you have.

Tu-22 regiments operated with Tu-95 reconnaissance planes. They had no escorts. They launched, and if they did most things right they take the CVBG by surprise and kill it. A more effective carrier killer is a submarine, and those are essentially looking for an needle in a haystack, but they're about a billion times harder to find and kill.

An even better method is using submarines and bombers to hunt carriers, but they're hard to find, really fast, and super annoying. There's no "easy" way to kill a carrier, and giving a Backfire flight escorts will not improve your chances.

So, a combined Submarine and bomber assault on a carrier group should wipe out at least the carrier, assuming I could actually find it?

One or the other would work.

The combined bomber/submarine thing is just to find the thing. Once it's found, it's fairly easy to kill, provided it doesn't find you first in which case you're probably picking yourself up out of radioactive rubble.

So, a combined Submarine and bomber assault on a carrier group should wipe out at least the carrier, assuming I could actually find it?

An assault of almost anything in sufficient numbers will kill a carrier, but being combined arms doesn't mean it will automatically succeed, and coordinating between submarines and just about anything else is difficult due to communications difficulties at depth.

Because submarines can't take initiative and sink the carrier themselves or anything if it stumbles across them unknowingly.

The problem is submarines can search a very small amount of sea space at a time, and carriers can cover a lot of sea space in a short span. You can't saturate an area with submarines like you can with aircraft or surface ships, either.

[The Akasha Colony]

Because submarines can't take initiative and sink the carrier themselves or anything if it stumbles across them unknowingly.

I never said they couldn't. Simply that a coordinated assault using both air and submarine assets is going to be complicated to organize given the communications difficulties.

[Gallia-]

Because submarines can't take initiative and sink the carrier themselves or anything if it stumbles across them unknowingly.

I never said they couldn't. Simply that a coordinated assault using both air and submarine assets is going to be complicated to organize given the communications difficulties.

That's not what I proposed.

[Great Franco-Prussia]

Fighters:
25 English Electric Lighting
30 F-86D Sabre

Trainers:
55 Jet Provost's (Basic)
25 Vampire's (Advanced)

Bombers:
20 B-50's
30 Lincoln's

Transport:
60 C-47 Dakota's
5 Gulfstream I (Executive Transports)
30 Li-14

[Oaledonia]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately and I want someone's opinion on this. A while ago, I read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor and at one point, the United States uses two RAH-66 Comanche helicopters to sneak into Tokyo (as the main antagonists of the book are Japanese businessmen plotting a coup of the Japanese government) and take out HVTs with their Hellfire missiles. One even managed to hit and destroy one of Japan's four E-767 AWACS aircraft with an AIM-92 Stinger missile. In the end, the aircraft managed to make it out of the city unchallenged before being refueled and heading back to the States.
While I don't necessarily believe such a feat could be done (despite Clancy's intensive research into military equipment for every book he wrote), I do think that the RAH-66 could have been a success, even without its intended stealth capabilities. As a regular recon helicopter, I think it definitely could have replaced the OH-58 Kiowa, had the US military not decided to abandon the project to seek an upgrade for its fleet of Kiowas. But that is just me.

So what do you guys think? Could the Comanche have been a success had the program not been cancelled?

Rotor wings means that it could be easily detected, even if you make the helicopter stealthy.