Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Purpelia]

tldr 60's-era turboprop fighters y/n

No. Just no. Jet engines are superior to turboprops at that point as far as fighters go. This said, if you do want a propeller driven aircraft for the era you could get away with using them in the strike/light bomber role. Stuff like the Skyraider still flew at that point.

[The Kievan People]

n/n

They would have almost no hope of intercepting supersonic jet aircraft. Which was basically all of them in the 1960s.

[San-Silvacian]

If research and development into propeller-driven aircraft did continue, I doubt the resulting design would be significantly more advanced than the aircraft you mention.

You could probably expect a turboprop engine driving contra-rotating propellers, though a more efficient and powerful development of radial engine like the Wright R-3350 or an inline engine like the Napier Sabre could also be a possibility. You would probably be looking at a maximum speed somewhere between Mach 0.7 and Mach 0.8 at most. To achieve this speed, your propellers will be most likely be travelling faster than the speed of sound and that has some big disadvantages. Namely considerable noise and a continuous sonic boom. Mach 0.6 - 0.7 would be a more practical speed.

The aircraft probably would not look that different from the Sea Fury or Bear Cat, though it could take on the appearance of early jet fighters with the nose inlet replaced with the engine and propellers. Look into the XF-84H to see what I mean. I would not expect gun armament to change much from the designs you mentioned. Four 20 mm cannons located in the wings would be most likely. The aircraft could also be fitted with a couple of short range air to air missiles or unguided rockets. Radar is difficult since the propellers and engine occupy the nose, but you could put the antenna dish in a fairing on the wing. The F6F-5N had such a set up. The range of the aircraft could be possible through wingtip tanks. Even with radar and air to air missiles, the effectiveness of the aircraft against jet fighter designs would decrease significantly. By the late 1960s you would probably have to relegate it to training and ground attack roles.

With that said, many small air forces soldiered on with propeller aircraft after the Second World War ended for quite some time. Some Mustangs remained in service until the 1980s and Burma only received Sea Furies in 1958. Researching and developing an entirely new aircraft might not be worth the cost. Also, I am not an expert in these things so take what I said with a grain of salt.

They would most likely do what most people did and had to work with shitty mid to late WW2 style props.

Alright, from these responses I'm guessing that piston engines reached their maximum possible performance in the Sea Fury and similar. What if I opted to use a turboprop instead, ala the C-130's engine (but optimized for fighter/attack)? I do understand that they're quite similar to jets, but I also know they didn't really become a thing until a little while after WWII (AFAIK, the Tu-95 was the first mass-produced turboprop aircraft and it didn't surface until the 50's), so turboprop research would've likely been overlooked and therefore permitted; thus, unless the cons outweigh the pros of using a turboprop over a piston engine for a propeller-driven aircraft, my nation would readily use turboprop fighters.

tldr 60's-era turboprop fighters y/n

If you have turboprops you have jet technology

save the money, build jets.

[The Akasha Colony]

Alright, from these responses I'm guessing that piston engines reached their maximum possible performance in the Sea Fury and similar. What if I opted to use a turboprop instead, ala the C-130's engine (but optimized for fighter/attack)? I do understand that they're quite similar to jets, but I also know they didn't really become a thing until a little while after WWII (AFAIK, the Tu-95 was the first mass-produced turboprop aircraft and it didn't surface until the 50's), so turboprop research would've likely been overlooked and therefore permitted; thus, unless the cons outweigh the pros of using a turboprop over a piston engine for a propeller-driven aircraft, my nation would readily use turboprop fighters.

tldr 60's-era turboprop fighters y/n

A turboprop is a jet. The only difference is that rather than deriving motive energy from engine thrust, that output happens to go through a propeller instead. It wouldn't have been overlooked because the core technology is identical, as both are gas turbine engines. As are turboshafts, turbofans, etc. If they wanted to stop you from having jets, they would probably just place a ban on turbine engine research entirely.

[Luepola]

Alright, from these responses I'm guessing that piston engines reached their maximum possible performance in the Sea Fury and similar. What if I opted to use a turboprop instead, ala the C-130's engine (but optimized for fighter/attack)? I do understand that they're quite similar to jets, but I also know they didn't really become a thing until a little while after WWII (AFAIK, the Tu-95 was the first mass-produced turboprop aircraft and it didn't surface until the 50's), so turboprop research would've likely been overlooked and therefore permitted; thus, unless the cons outweigh the pros of using a turboprop over a piston engine for a propeller-driven aircraft, my nation would readily use turboprop fighters.

tldr 60's-era turboprop fighters y/n

A turboprop is a jet. The only difference is that rather than deriving motive energy from engine thrust, that output happens to go through a propeller instead. It wouldn't have been overlooked because the core technology is identical, as both are gas turbine engines. As are turboshafts, turbofans, etc. If they wanted to stop you from having jets, they would probably just place a ban on turbine engine research entirely.

Fair enough. I was aware they were similar but didn't properly investigate just how similar they were.

tldr 60's-era turboprop fighters y/n

No. Just no. Jet engines are superior to turboprops at that point as far as fighters go. This said, if you do want a propeller driven aircraft for the era you could get away with using them in the strike/light bomber role. Stuff like the Skyraider still flew at that point.

Just to clarify, my canon basically has me unable to research or procure jets due to foreign limitations, which is why I'm looking for turboprop (well, not anymore based on akasha's reply) or piston aircraft. I'm well aware of the significant disadvantage that I'd be put in (which would mean the limitations are working as intended).

[The Hatikvah of Yisrael]

It seems to me that with tha particular restriction, the turboprop would be a realistic way around the restriction. "These are not jets they are turboprops" is an argument that would be made just like "these are.no tanks they are self propelled recoilless rifles" or "these are not fighters they have two seats, they are armed recon."

You do what you like with your own canon, but if someone made that restriction on me, i would be looking for any advantage i could.

[New Carloso]

So, how about this for an aircraft design?

i am thinking of developing a bomber / attack aircraft based off the Beaufort. However, it would be made of titanium and possess jet engines. The bomb bay would be designed to carry guided bombs or torpedoes and the aircraft would be armed with guided air-to-air missile launchers. It would also possess advanced AESA radar and an electronic suite to counter enemy missiles. Like the Beaufort, it would be equipped with heavy machine guns or maybe autocannons.

How would the aircraft fair in a modern battlefield?

[Walrusko]

61,000 F5U7 "Hawkin Gridge": Type: Jet Role: Jet Fighter Armaments: 4 .50 caliber machine guns, 12 infrared sensitive missiles. Max Speed: 1968 km/h Operational Range: 1400km

61,200 AP3X "Archangel": Type: Jet Role: Ground support Armaments: X37 Voltage 35mm Rotating Cannon (7000 rounds/m), 2 wing mounted rotating A2G gravity missile canisters* (30 GM's per canister). Max Speed: 825 km/h Operational Range: 900km

73,070 GET "Guardian": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Medical evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns Carrying capacity: 6 soldiers +5 crew Max Speed: 473 km/h Operational Range: 1100km

71,475 ARGO "Floatie": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Troop transport/evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns, 1 nose mounted .50 caliber machine gun Carrying capacity: 8 soldiers +3 crew Max Speed 342 km/h Operational Range: 1100 km

35,865 MEUR "Reaper": Type: Attack Helicopter Role: Ground Support Armaments: 1 nose mounted .50 caliber Gatling gun, 2 wing tip 7.62 machine guns, 2 "EXO" Anti Personnel rocket canisters (8 rockets per canister)

This is taken directly from my factbook. This number is not complete, as i am currently downgrading my military (I got a bit god moddy when i first started).
*A gravity missile is not a missile that distorts gravity around it. It is a missile that is lobbed out of the aircraft, and uses its thrusters to gain speed and correct its course to the target. They can only be used on ground targets, as they were never designed to fly straight, they were designed as bunker busters and anti-armor*
(I'm sorta going for a cold war-esque military. Large amounts of vehicles and troops, but in reality, they don't preform as well as they should due to budget cuts or poor training. Please leave suggestions, as i don't want to be known as a god modder)

[Spirit of Hope]

61,000 F5U7 "Hawkin Gridge": Type: Jet Role: Jet Fighter Armaments: 4 .50 caliber machine guns, 12 infrared sensitive missiles. Max Speed: 1968 km/h Operational Range: 1400km

Why .50 caliber machine guns? The best set up for anti air is a rapid firing gun of 20-25mm. Most modern missiles are Radar guided, and also use infrared, why is your restricted?
61,000 is a really high amount of aircraft, what is your air force budget?

61,200 AP3X "Archangel": Type: Jet Role: Ground support Armaments: X37 Voltage 35mm Rotating Cannon (7000 rounds/m), 2 wing mounted rotating A2G gravity missile canisters* (30 GM's per canister). Max Speed: 825 km/h Operational Range: 900km

Again why so many?
Big guns for ground attack don't work so well, they just mean the plane gets shot down by enemy air defense.
How are you fitting 30 missiles large enough to kill a tank onto the wings of a plane? It either has to be very large or the missiles very small. If the missiles are small they probably aren't that effective.

73,070 GET "Guardian": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Medical evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns Carrying capacity: 6 soldiers +5 crew Max Speed: 473 km/h Operational Range: 1100km

Why a crew of 5? Most helicopters have a crew of 2-3.
Also speed your helicopters might be going around ~300 km/hour, and even that is darn fast.

71,475 ARGO "Floatie": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Troop transport/evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns, 1 nose mounted .50 caliber machine gun Carrying capacity: 8 soldiers +3 crew Max Speed 342 km/h Operational Range: 1100 km

Honestly you probably don't need separate helicopters for medical and transport. A medical helicopter is a transport helicopter with a medic and some equipment in the back.

35,865 MEUR "Reaper": Type: Attack Helicopter Role: Ground Support Armaments: 1 nose mounted .50 caliber Gatling gun, 2 wing tip 7.62 machine guns, 2 "EXO" Anti Personnel rocket canisters (8 rockets per canister)

Attack helicopter hould probably have some type of cannon in 20-25 mm instead of the .50 caliber Gatling gun.
It also should have wing mounts where you can put 7.62 machine guns, rocket pods, anti air missiles, or Anti tank missiles. The last is the most important siince attack helicopters are for killing tanks.

[The Kievan People]

So, how about this for an aircraft design?

i am thinking of developing a bomber / attack aircraft based off the Beaufort. However, it would be made of titanium and possess jet engines. The bomb bay would be designed to carry guided bombs or torpedoes and the aircraft would be armed with guided air-to-air missile launchers. It would also possess advanced AESA radar and an electronic suite to counter enemy missiles. Like the Beaufort, it would be equipped with heavy machine guns or maybe autocannons.

How would the aircraft fair in a modern battlefield?

1. Defensive guns are basically useless.
2. Drop the Beaufort part.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So, how about this for an aircraft design?

i am thinking of developing a bomber / attack aircraft based off the Beaufort. However, it would be made of titanium and possess jet engines. The bomb bay would be designed to carry guided bombs or torpedoes and the aircraft would be armed with guided air-to-air missile launchers. It would also possess advanced AESA radar and an electronic suite to counter enemy missiles. Like the Beaufort, it would be equipped with heavy machine guns or maybe autocannons.

How would the aircraft fair in a modern battlefield?

Have you considered where you will put all your stuff in this super-A-10 of yours? The radar cannot go where the 30 mm gun will be and the 30 mm gun can't go on the wing unless you want the worst accuracy ever.

[San-Silvacian]

Su-25 stronk

[Eldslandet]

How well do you think this fighter would have done IRL?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALR_Piranha

[Urran]

Finally made a bit of a roundel:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PSdKZZAQDqs/V ... ura-hi.png

[Walrusko]

61,000 F5U7 "Hawkin Gridge": Type: Jet Role: Jet Fighter Armaments: 4 .50 caliber machine guns, 12 infrared sensitive missiles. Max Speed: 1968 km/h Operational Range: 1400km

Why .50 caliber machine guns? The best set up for anti air is a rapid firing gun of 20-25mm. Most modern missiles are Radar guided, and also use infrared, why is your restricted?
61,000 is a really high amount of aircraft, what is your air force budget?

61,200 AP3X "Archangel": Type: Jet Role: Ground support Armaments: X37 Voltage 35mm Rotating Cannon (7000 rounds/m), 2 wing mounted rotating A2G gravity missile canisters* (30 GM's per canister). Max Speed: 825 km/h Operational Range: 900km

Again why so many?
Big guns for ground attack don't work so well, they just mean the plane gets shot down by enemy air defense.
How are you fitting 30 missiles large enough to kill a tank onto the wings of a plane? It either has to be very large or the missiles very small. If the missiles are small they probably aren't that effective.

73,070 GET "Guardian": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Medical evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns Carrying capacity: 6 soldiers +5 crew Max Speed: 473 km/h Operational Range: 1100km

Why a crew of 5? Most helicopters have a crew of 2-3.
Also speed your helicopters might be going around ~300 km/hour, and even that is darn fast.

71,475 ARGO "Floatie": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Troop transport/evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns, 1 nose mounted .50 caliber machine gun Carrying capacity: 8 soldiers +3 crew Max Speed 342 km/h Operational Range: 1100 km

Honestly you probably don't need separate helicopters for medical and transport. A medical helicopter is a transport helicopter with a medic and some equipment in the back.

35,865 MEUR "Reaper": Type: Attack Helicopter Role: Ground Support Armaments: 1 nose mounted .50 caliber Gatling gun, 2 wing tip 7.62 machine guns, 2 "EXO" Anti Personnel rocket canisters (8 rockets per canister)

Attack helicopter hould probably have some type of cannon in 20-25 mm instead of the .50 caliber Gatling gun.
It also should have wing mounts where you can put 7.62 machine guns, rocket pods, anti air missiles, or Anti tank missiles. The last is the most important siince attack helicopters are for killing tanks.

Thank you, modifying it now into a more realistic military. Still gonna go for that "Quantity is quality" style though.

Here's the new list

31,203 F5U7 "Hawkin Gridge": Type: Jet Role: Jet Fighter Armaments: 2 25mm machine guns, 12 infrared sensitive missiles. Max Speed: 1623 km/h Operational Range: 1400km

21,200 AP3X "Archangel": Type: Jet Role: Ground support Armaments: X37 Voltage 35mm Rotating Cannon (6000 rounds/m), 2 wing mounted rotating A2G gravity missile canisters (10 GM's per canister). Max Speed: 725 km/h Operational Range: 900km

23,070 GET "Guardian": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Medical evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns Carrying capacity: 6 soldiers +3 crew 2 doctors Max Speed: 323 km/h Operational Range: 1100km

21,475 ARGO "Floatie": Type: Armored Transport Helicopter Role: Troop transport/evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns, 1 nose mounted 10mm machine gun Carrying capacity: 6 soldiers +3 crew Max Speed 282 km/h Operational Range: 1100 km

15,865 MEUR "Reaper": Type: Attack Helicopter Role: Ground Support Armaments: 1 nose mounted 25mm cannon, 2 wing tip 10mm machine guns, 4 Wing mounted Exo Anti Armor rocket canisters (8 rockets per canister)

[The Akasha Colony]

It seems to me that with tha particular restriction, the turboprop would be a realistic way around the restriction. "These are not jets they are turboprops" is an argument that would be made just like "these are.no tanks they are self propelled recoilless rifles" or "these are not fighters they have two seats, they are armed recon."

You do what you like with your own canon, but if someone made that restriction on me, i would be looking for any advantage i could.

Doesn't really work that way because you can basically make a tank by armoring any tracked vehicle (e.g. a tractor). So you'd have to ban tractors. It was also little more than a bare-faced farce on the part of the Germans when they gave their tanks innocuous names. The British, French, and Polish knew but simply weren't willing to go to war over it. A few German tanks were not worth repeating the horror of the Great War.

But turbine engine technology is a bit more clear cut. Just ban gas turbine engine research. That stops turbojets, turboprops, turbofans, and turboshafts all dead in their tracks, but doesn't affect existing turbine technologies like steam turbines for ship propulsion or power generation.

[Millorg]

what its biggest gun you can replace the GAU-8/A Avenger with in the a-10 airframe teorical and pratical

[Purpelia]

what its biggest gun you can replace the GAU-8/A Avenger with in the a-10 airframe teorical and pratical

Theoretical, the one it has. The thing was built around it for a reason.
Practical, get rid of it. It serves no purpose any more.

[Stahn]

what its biggest gun you can replace the GAU-8/A Avenger with in the a-10 airframe teorical and pratical

I don't think you can. The A-10 was designed around the GAU-8/A Avenger. It is the most powerful automatic cannon ever mounted on an aircraft.

[The Kievan People]

what its biggest gun you can replace the GAU-8/A Avenger with in the a-10 airframe teorical and pratical

Why do you need a bigger gun?

[Stahn]

what its biggest gun you can replace the GAU-8/A Avenger with in the a-10 airframe teorical and pratical

Why do you need a bigger gun?

I suspect he believes it would make it more effective in a contemporary scenario but I don't believe the reason why the A-10 could be near its obsolescence (if it is) is because its gun is not powerful enough but rather that the plane would be too vulnerable against state of the art anti air units.

I believe it would still be very effective if used against nations or forces that do not have a very strong and advanced anti air capability and in the real world there are still many of those.

I also think that if there ever will be a war between military forces that are both rather advanced and capable that all cards will be off the table and military doctrine will need to be reevaluated as was always the case in the modern past when strong, advanced industrial nations went to open conflict against each other. Something that has not happened since WW2.

[Radicchio]

I have not done this in a while, but I just finished the stat blocks on two of my V/STOL tiltrotors so I thought I would share.

V-280 Skua http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=327219&p=23207640#p23207431
V-22 Osprey http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=327219&p=23207640#p23207490

Now I just need to get the BIG GUY done.
Feel free to criticize.

[Stahn]

Our thoughts on the Osprey and the Panavia Tornado?

Did you give them new stats or do you use the real ones?

The Tornado seems pretty good to me although it is probably starting to show its age. I like the swept wing capable of mounting weapons and it seems generally like a capable ground attack fighter.

The Osprey is a very interesting concept but it seems like a rather expensive alternative to helicopters and conventional aircraft. I can see the adantages so if you consider the extra costs worth it it seems like a fine choice.

[Brotherhood of nod]

Why do you need a bigger gun?

yust what to now teoritical option to GAU-8/A yout for the fun of it

I suspect he believes it would make it more effective in a contemporary scenario but I don't believe the reason why the A-10 could be near its obsolescence (if it is) is because its gun is not powerful enough but rather that the plane would be too vulnerable against state of the art anti air units.

I believe it would still be very effective if used against nations or forces that do not have a very strong and advanced anti air capability and in the real world there are still many of those.

I also think that if there ever will be a war between military forces that are both rather advanced and capable that all cards will be off the table and military doctrine will need to be reevaluated as was always the case in the modern past when strong, advanced industrial nations went to open conflict against each other. Something that has not happened since WW2.

what its biggest gun you can replace the GAU-8/A Avenger with in the a-10 airframe teorical and pratical

Why do you need a bigger gun?

some tink the GAU 8/A Avengers its not powerfull nuff to take down modern MBT like t-90 or m1m2 abrames or hard target.
use in senrario support troops with lose of gps satilite and/or high enemy ECM and sensor jammers, its hard if not inposible to jam the Avengers compare to JDAM

[Radicchio]

Our thoughts on the Osprey and the Panavia Tornado?

Did you give them new stats or do you use the real ones?

The Tornado seems pretty good to me although it is probably starting to show its age. I like the swept wing capable of mounting weapons and it seems generally like a capable ground attack fighter.

The Osprey is a very interesting concept but it seems like a rather expensive alternative to helicopters and conventional aircraft. I can see the adantages so if you consider the extra costs worth it it seems like a fine choice.

The Tornado and the Osprey are done using Wikipedia Stats.

I have a major focus on V/STOL because I am operating an Archipelago Nation.
The idea of building full service airfields on every little island seems absurd to me so I rely on a handful of helicopter carriers and a number of short, wide airstrips.
V/STOL and other carrier capable aircraft fit into my niche well.