Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Vitaphone Racing]

Been toying with the notion of making my fighter exceptionally small to compensate for the lack of engine technology available. Are engines like the GE F404 or Klimov RD-33 any easier to produce than the F110 or AL-31?

Let's take this back a bit.

What are you trying to do and what are you trying to do it with?

[Vitaphone Racing]

If they let you.

There are an infinite number of countries on NS.

Why wouldn't they?

I don't know man, I thought we were talking realism which precludes infinite countries and a complete disregard for international relations.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This is the new 5th gen fighter for the Empire of Gibratar, it is part of of the Modern AiRCraft program. They are however very expensive but will serve well on the Gibraltarian Fleets as a STOVL (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing) vehicles. Serving on the the Juan Class Carriers which are smaller nuclear carriers with more armament then a normal carrier.
Type: ARC-Cougar
Length: 55 ft
Wingspan: 37 ft
Height: 15 ft
Propulsion: GTD-135 Bumblebee Turbofan Powerplant and GTD-275 Hurricane Lift Fan
Vertical Thrust: 41,345 Lbf
Forward Thrust: 55,565 Lbf
Empty Weight: 31,000 Lbs
Maximum Take-Off Weight:77,500 Lbs
Minimum Fuel Weight: 19,375 Lbs
Maximum Fuel Weight: 27,125 Lbs
Limit Per/Number of Pylon(s): 1,250 Lbs / 6 Pylons
Normal Payload: 5,000 Lbs
Maximum Payload:15,000 Lbs
Normal Combat Weight: 63,125 Lbs
Vertical Thrust-to Weight Ratio: 1.5
Forward Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.9
Combat Range: 1,350 Miles
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 40,000
Maximum Altitude: 55,000
Cruising Speed: Mach 1.4
Supercruising Speed: Mach 2.05
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.4
Crew (List): Air Superiority (ARC-CougarA) One Crew, Ground Strike (ARC-CougarB) Two Crew
Price: 165 Million per Unit

How did you arrive at these figures?

[Vitaphone Racing]

So, I found these interesting concepts today.

Do they seem remotely practical?

You know enough about how aircraft fly to know the answer.

believe in urself.

[Vitaphone Racing]

So I'd like to design a strategic bomber based on the airframe of the XB-70 valkyrie updated with faceted surfaces, chines, and a lower overall RCS (sort of a hyrbid XB-70, SR-71, and F-22 if you will). Would it be wise to keep it as a high altitude bomber or would it be more advantageous to use it as a standoff low altitude penetrator armed with long range cruise missiles?

For engines I was thinking six adaptive cycle turbofans with RTA (revolutionary turbine accelerator) and hyperburner technology that would allow a top speed of around mach 4. Main armament would likely be either JDAMs or AGM-129 ACM or AGM-158B JASSM-ER type missiles. I was also thinking MHD generators paced aft of the exhaust, boosted with alkali metals seeded in the fuel, would be used to power either plasma actuators for control or perhaps power a high-energy laser for either ground attack or anti-missile use.

Update: What avionics would makes sense? I was thinking an AESA radar not unlike that fitted to the F-22 or F-35 with passive radar warning modules, ground scanning UHF synthetic aperture radar, and an electro-optical IR missile warning system

I don't think your idea makes much sense. Like, you've seemingly made a list of cool technologies and developments which you'd like to use and then decided the best place to illustrate your understanding and knowledge of them all would be on a hypersonic bomber, arguably the most romanticized of all the dream aircraft which NS has held over the years. However, you haven't actually figured out what you're going to do with this bomber once you've created it. In other words, you're designing it backwards.

On top of that, you need to think a little harder about what it is you're doing. For example, you've got "lower RCS" and then you've got "Mach 4". Or possibly "hypersonic" and "low altitude penetrator". Or "high altitude bomber" and "ground scanning radar". Obviously, these aren't going to co-exist on the same aircraft.

If you want a strictly, ultimately realistic approach, you wouldn't even be thinking about hypersonic bombers because hypersonic missiles are a more efficient use of resources in the long run.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There's no point posting anything on NSD anyway. All the main contributors post in this thread, and virtually all of them have replied to you.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Somehow I have even less respect for him now. I'm not giving him any help on general principle.

You should see him try to push his stuff on NSD, then. Especially his tank. Doesn't listen to anyone at all.

A sadly typical mentality where the desire for respect is stronger than the desire to produce good work.

[Vitaphone Racing]

*no*

Well mostly except the PGM. We're already have 1 m CEP now and it does not need M-10 bomber.

and there will still be a radar reflection.. Plus large IR Signature that you'd better scrap any plan for RCS reduction instead rely on "speed is armor" principle

I thought pretty much the same. Currently in a RP, a player is mostly just writing "Flying by at Mach 10 without even a single radar ping, ten SF-1 jets drop full payloads of Humming Bird Missiles that strike with unprecedented accuracy"
I was a bit puzzled.

You just ignore people like that if you're not interested in playing the +1 game.

[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.

[Vitaphone Racing]

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.

No, no no. If you're going to stand on your moral soap box and preach the gospel about the idiocy on the forum then you'd better make sure that what you're saying is 100%, unambiguously correct otherwise you're no better than the people you're calling out and likely to be called out yourself. And in this case, you're not 100% correct. It's not always cost effective nor practical to use unguided bombs on unimportant targets if it means ordering, storing and deploying those munitions purely on the off chance that they may be used in this sort of scenario. Alternatively, if you didn't add the dig at the forum at the end of your post with it's faulty logic, I wouldn't have had to correct you for the benefit of everybody else and we wouldn't have had to make additional posts.

[Vitaphone Racing]

And yet, there's many a time aircraft on patrol or maritime strike will carry anti-shipping missiles and not conventional bombs for flexibility. Are they doing it wrong?

My statement was not a "bombs are worthless" or "nobody uses bombs". If you read it like that then you read it wrong.

The point being made is ironically independent of the military and of missiles or bombs. We could be talking about cake tins or screw driver sets. I was addressing a statement which implied a certain hierarchy in targets, that some were only deserving of unguided bombs and that only a select few were deserving of AShMs, any deviation from this being a waste of resources. Regardless of whether we are talking about this in a military or a civilian environment, it should come as no surprise that the most cost-effective way of using equipment is quite often to use what you have immediately available to you and not what's the cheapest. This should be common knowledge to most people who have ever been in charge of a budget, household or otherwise. To denigrate people for taking this approach is wrong, even if the people being denigrated have no idea of what they're doing.

[Vitaphone Racing]

If you set up the scenario so the Typhoon and the F-22 first see each other with 50 kilometres between them and at equal altitude then yeah, the Typhoon should win every time, that's a no-brainer. It's a much better dogfighter. Expand the scenario to set up multiple different starting positions for both aircraft and you'll expect things to swing in favor of the F-22.

The Typhoon is a better aircraft for the UK than the F-22. The F-22 is a better aircraft for the US than the Typhoon. That's about all that needs to be known.

[Vladivoseoul]

Just a Thought, put your intakes and engines on top instead of protruding from the rear, do it like the B-2.

---

Also, United RussoAsia I love your flag.

[Vladivoseoul]

I made my own but i do not like how the red of my yin-yang blends with the red of my flag. I may have t red it some time.

[Vladivoseoul]

Just a Thought, put your intakes and engines on top instead of protruding from the rear, do it like the B-2.

---

Also, United RussoAsia I love your flag.

Hmm, I've noted your suggestion. It shall be highly considered for coolness points.

coolness factor aside, it also hides the IR of those engines well

[Vladivoseoul]

I imagine when he says VTOL he means a tilt rotor like the osprey, otherwise he would have just said helicopter.

[Vladivoseoul]

A Nation in my region that is quite militarist just announced that they will be building the Sukhoi PAK FA as their primary Air superiority fighter.
It is possible that in the future i will be forced to either fend off an invasion by this nation or re-invade a territory that they have taken.

So, i need a way to reliably shoot down these fighters or force them into such high atmospheric sorties that it limit them to engaging my allies fighters (i do not have an airforce myself but am a member of a defense pact where i have a large submarine fleet and a decent ground force for my own defense.)

What is out there that can shoot down the T-50?

EDIT: Also their current fighter is the Su-34 which i am likely to encounter.

[Vladivoseoul]

Pak FAs are nothing to be scared of. They are about as stealthy as an advanced super hornet, and aren't close to F-35, let alone F-22 performance. And they are only stealthy from the front. Buy F-35s, F-22s if you feel like you need them. You could also design your own aircraft. Mainly focus on pilot training though. Make it clear that your is the greatest pilot corps in the region, as skill trumps technology every time. Doesn't mean you shouldn't give your pilots good stuff, but it is better to invest in training than to just invest in tech. History has shown that to be the case more often than not. Don't worry about the platypuses either. They are over glorified bombers, capable of defending themselves, but not of being air superiority fighters.

Edit: I just read your stuff and noticed you are a commie. If you want to use com bloc stuff, then get your own Pak FAs or Chinese stealth jets. Neither are at the level of Western stuff, but they are a match for each other. Also, get a cheaper aircraft to supplement the "stealth" fighters. For Commies, that means Mig-29/35s.

I will see about filling up an airforce with Mig-29/35s and maybe some of those chinese stealth hunter drones. I will RP a bunch of pilot training stuff and maybe have an airshow to show off our abilities. Thanks.

EDIT 2: For air defense sensors etc, Saab has some pretty good options. And cost effective as always. http://saab.com/air/

EDIT 3: i can find you on your regional map, but what is the number of the country you feel threatened by?

I will look at Saab, thanks.

#305 is the nation i am concerned about. He is trying to form a fascist alliance to oppose our Communist nations and he is on a military buildup..

[Vladivoseoul]

I have a force of air independent diesel electric submarines (to deter another threat which has a large surface fleet) but i have no surface fleet to speak of other than some amphibious assault ships...
I would prefer not to get into the naval arms race that is going on in my region.

It sounds like a well trained and effective land based air force and layered missile defense are my best options.

[Vladivoseoul]

It sounds like a well trained and effective land based air force and layered missile defense are my best options.

Eh, that's pretty much the way most of the EU has gone IIRC. Small navies, but impressive land defenses and forces.

So atleast it isnt unheard of.
There are several nations in my region with big navies.
I have avoided an airforce so far but it sounds like i kinda have to build one.

[Vladivoseoul]

I would prefer not to get into the naval arms race that is going on in my region.

It sounds like a well trained and effective land based air force and layered missile defense are my best options.

If everyone else is in an arms race, it would behoove you to get involved too. Don't try to get to the top, just add some stuff to counter the other people's navy. if you have amphibs, you need surface ships to protect them. Focus on anti-shipping, as it sounds like you will be fighting defensively. Frigates, small boats, more subs, etc. No more amphibs or carriers. Too expensive to try and maintain an edge in an arms race unless you are America. The Soviets couldn't even keep up in that department. Frigates - http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/air ... gate-14019 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Ship Fast attack - http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-fast-attack Maybe Destroyers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

Or check out China's stuff. Might be more in character.

I dont want carriers and my "amphibious ships" are landing ships not heli carriers so i probably dont need to build up the surface fleet to support them, basically they are to get me back on to beaches in my own nation that may be occupied. I have a lot of coastline so i thought it would be a good idea to be able to assault a coastline.
I plan on building more subs and probably a small boat patrol fleet or coast guard. Mostly more diesel subs but it sounds like an airforce is in my near future.

[Vladivoseoul]

This is my first ever attempt at building an airforce so be gentle.

Vladivoseoul Unified Air Command

Let me know if i need to change the numbers mostly.

[Vladivoseoul]

This is my first ever attempt at building an airforce so be gentle.

Vladivoseoul Unified Air Command

Let me know if i need to change the numbers mostly.

More Tankers, More Airlifters, You don't need both the L-39 and the Yak-130 (both are Advanced Trainers), and you'll also need a primary trainer.

But other than that, you're good.

I decided to keep both the L-39 and the Yak-130 because i like them both and it cant hurt to have a surplus of trainers that can double duty as ground attack/light fighters. I added the Antonov_An-2 as a Basic/introductory trainer aircraft and KAI KT-1 Woongbi as my Primary trainer aircraft.

I tripled the number of tankers in the inventory and added An-24 Transport Aircraft and Y-20 Heavy Transport Aircraft.

I also added the (not so glorious) Kiowa Helicopter because i wanted something small for training/scout missions and that seemed like as good a choice as any.
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=vladivoseoul/detail=factbook/id=433951

Thanks for taking a look everyone and I am still open to suggestions here. Remember, I am not trying to be the baddest guy in the region, just have a reasonable deterrent to the guys with their arms races going on.

The next thing I am doing is working on my layered air defense, suggestions are welcome there (preferably russian, chinese, korean or in a pinch french or german.)
Should I put Air Command in charge of National Air Defense or should i give that to the army?

[Vladivoseoul]

I also added the (not so glorious) Kiowa Helicopter because i wanted something small for training/scout missions and that seemed like as good a choice as any.
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=vladivoseoul/detail=factbook/id=433951

Z-11 Now you can be fully glorious.

You rock bro.

[Vladivoseoul]

Is there any reason why I can not be launching/fueling Mig-29, Mig-31, SU-24 and SU-35 aircraft from civilian airfields and airports?
I may have gotten myself into a little pickle and I need to be able to get these aircraft closer to the action. The only way I can do that is amphibious assault on the Kurile Islands and take over the civilian airports there.

Should/could this work?