Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[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?

Nope, but it depends on the length of the runway, condition of the facilities, fuel storage, etc.

nope it wont work or nope it wont be a problem?

[Vladivoseoul]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhno-Kurilsk_Mendeleyevo_Airport is the airport i am trying to use.

EDIT:

It has a single runway that measures 6955 × 118 ft

[Vladivoseoul]

Ok, According to herethat airport has a length of 6,955 feet, which honestly sounds long enough for most jets.

The question is what are your planes required runway lengths?

MiG-29M: 1,312 feet
MiG-31E: 3,940 feet
Su-24: 5,085 feet
Su-35: 1,084 feet

So all of your aircraft appear to be able to use it to take off and land.

Thank you! I was looking at wikipedia and i couldnt find where it was saying their takeoff requirements.

I will cease the Airport and then I will deliver tanker trucks with jet fuel for refueling and turn baggage handling/claim into a makeshift munitions handling facility!

[Vladivoseoul]

Creepy your here..... So creepy....

I always consult the realism threads when i cant figure something out myself. I met Rad in one of these OCP threads and he recruited me to the region.

[Voltrovia]

Here's a question for all of you: would it be possible to make the YF-23 more agile, while still maintaining its stealth?
I think it would be a little hard, considering that the aircraft features fixed engine nozzles and that the heat from the from the engines are dissipated through heat-ablating tiles similar to the B-2 Spirit's.

Well, the final F-22 that rolled of the production line at Dobbins ARB was far more advanced and developed than the YF-22 from which it had been derived, so I s'pose that with a decade of work on every aspect of the aircraft's design, like the F-22 had, features would have been introduced to improve the YF-23's agility without stealth losses.

That said, I agree with you that the areas for actual improvement without a significant redesign of the mounting of the propulsion system. IIRC the heat-ablating tiles reduced IR dramatically, so they'd have to stay, as would the fixed nozzles because of the tiles and the engine structure.

It's a major design change but foreplanes could possibly be added without significant problems for the stealth profile (visual or otherwise) of the aircraft or its aerodynamics.

[Voltrovia]

Its cut down by the fact they have a shitload of people working on it. The harder part is stitching all the pieces together without any major nasty bugs cropping up.

Probably, still, that's a lot of work for everyone.

The number I heard was nine million lines. Anyway, the project has been behind on the software aspects of its design for some time. I think that the 2014 NDAA had a provision for getting something done about it however.

[Voltrovia]

Royal Vassenor Air Force.

Roundel

Training Fleet

Basic Trainer - Pilatus PC-9
Advanced Fast Jet Trainer - BAE Hawk 65
Multi-Engine Trainer - Beechcraft Super King Air 200
Helicopter Trainer - Eurocopter AS350

Front-Line Aircraft

Fast Jet: General Dynamics F-16A/B Fighting Falcon
Combat Helicopter: Bell AH-1J International
Utility Helicopter: Eurocopter AS550 Fennec
Cargo Helicopter: Boeing CH-47 Chinook

Support Aircraft

Tanker: Airbus A310 MRTT (w/ Boom conversion)
Transporter: Lockheed C-130H Hercules
AEW&C: Boeing 737 AEW&C
Maritime Patrol: CASA/IPTN CN-235

Royal Vassenor Navy

Utility Helicopter: Eurocopter AS550 Fennec
(Heavier cargo lifts provided by RVAF Chinooks as required)

Vassenor Coast Guard:
Long Range Patrol: CASA/IPTN CN-235
SAR / Interdiction Helicopter: Eurocopter AS565 Panther

I would list future aircraft acquisitions as well. The F-16A is getting old, you know.

Nice roundel. I would recommend making a low-visibility one as well though.

[Voltrovia]

Also, why use F-16A/Bs when you could use Block 52s?

[Voltrovia]

Is this good for an Airforce?

Jets in service:
O-35b 'Scavenger'(Multi-Role Fighter, all the works of the current F-35C model except with added speed, agility, weapons and protection.)
O-26c 'Warrior' (Air Interceptor, easy to fly and well armed and extremely agile.)
O-72e 'Poison' (Air Superiority Fighter, agile and superior to most aircraft fielded today. Well built, easy to fly and cheap.)
O-90h 'Midnight' (Night Multi-Role Fighter, agile and can easily detect and attack hostile targets at night. Can also be used during the day.)
C-130 (All variants)
U-60 (Ground Attack Jet, upgraded version of the A-10 with both anti-vehicle (it can take on ships) and anti-infantry weapons)

Bombers:
ISD-53 Strategic Bomber (Well built and fast bomber for long range missions.)
IER-60 Multi-Use Bombers (Fast and Agile bombers that are used alongside O-35bs.)
B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-52 Support Bomber
HYU-22 Heavy Bomber (Modern-ized version of the B-52, basically almost unstoppable).

Helicopters in service:
UH-1X 'Sabre' (An Ontorisan built gunship modeled off of the UH-1Y. Increased agility and aerodynamics while adding on more armour.)
CH-47 'Chinook'
SDD-43 'Clover' (The Ontorisan version of the UH-60 'Blackhawk'. Armed with four MG36s, two in the front door gunners, two in the back and the basic rotors, the SDD-43 can run both transport missions and combat support missions.)
SDD-45 'Fever' (The Ontorisan version of the AH-6/MH-6 'Littlebird'. The Attack version has two 7.62mm Miniguns, 2 JS3 50 calibre machine guns on the front and two 82mm Rocketpods. The Transport version can seat 10 passengers and three pilots; the pilot, co-pilot and coordinator.)
SDD-46 'Faithful' (The Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 7.62mm Minigun, 52 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and 6 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, it is a highly upgraded and well armed and armoured helicopter.)
SDD-47 'Viking' (Another Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 50 calibre JS3 Machine Gun, 48 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 6 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 8 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles. It is extremely manoeuvrable, more than the SDD-46 however offers less protection to compensate for the speed, agility and weapons.)

EDIT:

Also, why use F-16A/Bs when you could use Block 52s?

Because F-16s are an excellent Multi-role fighter and has been proven in combat over and over again while the Block 52s are just a Polish variant.

They're not just a Polish variant. Greece has Block 52 aircraft in addition to Poland and the latest Singaporean and Israeli variants are both directly based on the Block 52 format. Which also makes it the latest NATO variant of the F-16C/D.

Ontorisa, I understand your cost argument though, thanks for answering my question.

[Voltrovia]

Ohhh, I think I missed that and went to another one. I just typed in Block 52 in google and hoped for something that I recognized. I saw Polish Variant so I thought it was talking about it.
But yeah, still, I would keep it to the F-16 and upgrade it on your own.

Never mind. Anyway, it seems a good start for a cost-effective military so best of luck designing it.

[Voltrovia]

OK so before I get to my nations primary fighter I just want to point out that your whole reason behind why FSW being bad is false. First you stated that the aircraft are unstable at high speed. This is true, but most aircraft these days are built unstable on purpose so that's not really a flaw. Plus fly-by-optic doesn't really make this an issue. Third you mentioned that increased stress and the need for a heavier wing. From what I've read most of the stress is isolated to the wing root as the wings tend to twist off at high speeds when poor materials are used. However both of these things can be lessened, not made to vanish, nut fixed enough to make viable. The Russians when they were designing the SU-47 had developed composites that were resistant to the twisting effect. This was in the late 90's early 2000's, technology has advanced much farther. Finally you stated that because of heavier wings you have less payload. This is also not true as payload size is dictated by the PtW ratio, which is a combination of weight and engine. If your engine can handle it you can have any payload you want on a fuselage of any weight. I would also like to address why the X-29 and SU-47 never became combat aircraft. Both these programs never went anywhere, because neither were ever meant to go anywhere. Both were technology test aircraft for things such as fly-by-wire and advanced composites. The truth is FSW has never been used because no nation really has a desire for it, but this doesn't mean its discredit it. Besides FSW provides more than simple maneuverability advantages. Aircraft with FSW also have lower stall speeds, better fuel efficiency, higher RoC, and since the wing root is at the back of the aircraft the pilot has a clear view behind and down making unguided bombing easier.

Now since that is out of the way I give you the:

(Image)

Type: Multirole
Length: 22.6m
Wingspan: 15.16m
Height: 6.7m
Propulsion:
Total Net Thrust: 32,630kgf
Empty Weight: 16,380kgf
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 40,950kg
Minimum Fuel Weight: 10,237kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 14,332kg
Normal Payload: 2,718kg
Maximum Payload: 6,344kg
Normal Combat Weight: 33,430kg
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: .97/1
Combat Range: 1,300km
Ferry Range: 4,750km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 17,000m
Maximum Altitude: 20,000m
Cruising Speed: Mach 0.8
Supercruising Speed: Mach 1.4
Maximum Speed: Mach 2
Rate of Climb: 275ms
Limit per/number of pylon(s): 2 internal 4 missile revolver bays rated at 453kg per launch rack. 2 wing pylons rated at 453kg, under-wing pylons rated at 907kg.
Crew: 1
Price: $160 million
Avionics:
APG-77v1
AN/AAQ-37
AN/ASQ-239
Mira AI

This is the primary fighter of the Finorskian Air Force. The Air Force along with the Navy and Marines also use theUNADS F-29 Warrior, and certain squadrons of the Air Force use theLyran LY910 Shadowhawk.

Note: I actually have a full write up for F-54 and the aircraft was approved by the NS Draftroom and Viranna (maker of the F-29). However do to some complications I have to work something new for the Propulsion.

It's an interesting design but IMO those forward swept-wings will rip off before you get to Mach 2 no matter what the alloys are used in wing root construction. For this kind of design you usually have to choose between speed and agility. An aircraft utilising forward swept-wing geometry simply cannot have both.

Edit: Forward swept wings work by increasing the point (in terms of Mach number) at which drag divergence, the phenomenon of drag increasing dramatically during transonic flight and then decreasing to lower levels once more, occurs, greatly improving the subsonic, transonic and even low supersonic performance of an airframe. This however rules out movement to higher speeds due to the excessive drag generated in attempting to do so (and, IIRC, the formation of a Mach cone at the wing root, but I'd have to check that).

[Voltrovia]

for all I care, you can suck it.

Then leave.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa200b/potential3d/fsw.html

The fact is that FSW Mach 2 is will result in the disintegration of the airframe. If you're unwilling to listen to our explanations of this fact then we simply can't help you.

[Voltrovia]

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.


Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

1) The Su-47 didn't have a lot of maneuverability enhancements that the Su-37 has, such as 3D-thrust vectoring. Point is moot.

2) The F-54 is capable of out matching the F-16, F-35, Rafale, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, (can probably find more) in terms of speed and maneuverability. It matches the Gripen, and Eurofighters in terms of speed and is capable of outmatching them in terms maneuverability.

FSW works fine on my fighter, and nothing you have said has proved otherwise.

Doubtful and likely untrue.
You've just been told that with computer aids, FSW have poor transonic and supersonic stability. You want to take them up to Mach 2 and higher.

It's not untrue. The F-16, F-35, and all the other fighters I have listed have speeds of mach 2 or less.

Second I do wish to take FSW up to those speeds and I will. I have had the design approved by the NS Draftroom so for all I care, you can suck it.

The military realism/aviation threads aren't rubber stamping operations and nor is NSDraftroom. The aircraft cannot achieve those speeds without breaking apart, as our friends at Dryden will tell you from page 18 onwards.

[Voltrovia]

wow stamford and NASA say its a bad idea?

obv they are wrong, two highly respected places of learning and of science will never beat Finorskia's ramblings and near flaming responses.

Y'know, I'm thinking that NSDraft was actually more polite in cases like these.
-That, or the noobies are less likely to shake their heads and plug their ears on NSDraft.

Probably both.
-Plus entire threads (or multiple threads) devoted to single designs, or even modifications.

BTW, I'm thinking about nerfing the F-7's stats for export. IIRC, the biggest issue was with ferry-range and engine-life.

For export, why not remove a few pylons and hardpoints while mandating the use of lower-rated engines manufactured exclusively by you.

(Even with every pylon utilised that ferry range seems quite high though IMO.)

[Voltrovia]

I don't know if someone brought this up, but did any one else see the PAK FA engine fire?

Yep, but Sukhoi and Lyulka PNO Saturn are doing their very best to play it down. They also claim it won't affect the testing schedule as far as I understand it.

[Voltrovia]

I don't care how powerful you want to seem, having many thousands of aircraft is completely infeasible. That is to say nothing of their infeasible designs.

Somehow I feel this is going to be met with a blissfully ignorant 'IDC.'

On the bright side he will run out of fuel quickly if he uses his air-force.

It's only a few hundred million kilos of JP-8 each time.

[Voltrovia]

Its like 10-15 people per aircraft currently, Cold War era numbers were much higher, like 20-25.

Why have they fallen like that? Greater efficiency, less need to have all the aircraft operating at once?

Lower expenditure must come into it somewhere. Far fewer squadrons are at permanent readiness nowadays as well.

[Voltrovia]

What! You skillfully rerailed it by bringing up B-52s. Tell us how close air support or uncoordinated limited strikes would've resulted in a clear US victory in Vietnam.

Rolling Thunder did end Vietnam as far as the US was concerned - the Vietnamese (on both sides) just didn't agree with us. Should it have been restarted, perhaps until every Vietnamese not loyal to Thieu was annihilated?

Rolling Thunder brought the North to the negotiating table, as well as all of the Linebacker and Arc Light missions. The North Vietnamese, left it as soon as those strikes stopped, and it was common knowledge at the time that ships in Haiphong Harbor were supplying NVAF with SA-2s, and the VC with small arms, so you'd theoretically, temporarily stem the flow of SA-2s that were shooting down American Aircraft, the small arms used by the VC, and keep the North Vietnamese at the Paris Peace Talks, hopefully to gain better terms (depending on the level of strikes and SAC's willingness to commit their equipment to this Linebacker III so to speak.)

It shouldn't have just been restarted, it should have been the norm. For fear of even a single Soviet adviser perishing extreme operational restrictions were put in place throughout the course of the war. Instead of sinking a Soviet supply ship in Haiphong harbour, thereby blocking the harbour and destroying the 300 trucks aboard, each truck (or w/e was being delivered) had to be systematically destroyed as it went down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Many SAM sites and airfields were designated protected from attack so that the Soviets on the ground wouldn't die and upset their government - the USSR made significant diplomatic noise about their discontent with American bombing of ports and airfields, so it simply stopped, making a "victory" in Vietnam far more difficult.

The Linebacker operations didn't destroy the North's ability to fight but brought them to their knees - and the negotiating table, as you say - in a matter of weeks.

[Voltrovia]

It shouldn't have just been restarted, it should have been the norm. For fear of even a single Soviet adviser perishing extreme operational restrictions were put in place. Instead of sinking a Soviet supply ship in Haiphong harbour, thereby blocking the harbour and destroying the 300 trucks aboard, each truck (or w/e was being delivered) had to be systematically destroyed as it went down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Many SAM sites and airfields were left untouched so that the Soviets on the ground wouldn't die and upset their government - the USSR made significant diplomatic noise about their discontent with American bombing of ports and airfields, so it simply stopped, making a "victory" in Vietnam far more difficult.

The Linebacker operations didn't destroy the North's ability to fight but brought them to their knees - and the negotiating table, as you say - in a matter of weeks.

Just imagine what a single blocked container ship could do, it would do wonders in terms of the cutting of the Viet Cong's supply chain, a blocked container ship, followed by the continued use of Airpower against the Ho Chi Minh trail, could have destroyed the Viet Cong's ability to continue operations against ARVN, and would allow for the Paris Peace Talks to continue without the increased threat of another Tet Offensive.

What if the US had declared a military exclusion zone around Vietnam's coast leaving any vessel within it liable to attack? Sure, the Soviets might have deployed large fleets on one or two occasions as a show of force but the supply chain would have been severely restricted.

[Voltrovia]

What if the US had declared a military exclusion zone around Vietnam's coast leaving any vessel within it liable to attack? Sure, the Soviets might have deployed large fleets on one or two occasions as a show of force but the supply chain would have been severely restricted.

That could have in theory, ended or severely weakened the North's and the Viet Cong's capability to wage war against ARVN and the US. Sure, the soviets would have gotten upset, but remember, they got upset at everything we did then. The then continued use of tactics like Operation Bolo, to destroy the remainder of the NVAF, would have given the US, the air dominance it had so dreamed of. The end result would be much better than it turned out to be.

That's the point. Of course there would have been an almighty diplomatic fuss and the criticism of US and Western Warmongering and Imperialism^TM but the Soviet diplomatic tactics were purely for the purpose of frustrating the effectiveness of combat operations in Vietnam. They complained, but not out of any actual outrage over American actions but merely because it helped the North immensely.

[Voltrovia]

Personally I always though that the US lost the vietnam war because they were shackled to the great incompetence of the south Vietnamese leader ship its its inability to exploit opportunities created by the US and its insistence on "hold everywhere"

-could be totally wrong tho-

That, and the increasing unpopularity of the war at home, because of Westmoreland's thinking that the war could be won with "more troops". The real shining light of Vietnam War was the eventual perfection of Close Air Support, and coordinated air-ground attack strategy (both of which eventually led to the Coalition's victory in the First Persian Gulf War).

Indeed. But it can be said that no deployment or usage of air power could have "won" the war in Vietnam unless the Washington-installed target restrictions had been lifted. Close Air Support could have worked in Vietnam as you say, but it didn't when the USAF and the USN were pitted against the vast amounts of Sino-Soviet equipment that could only be attacked at the least desirable points (on the Ho Chi Minh trail and elsewhere), if they could be attacked at all.

Note: The Iraqi Armed Forces were not on a par with the North Vietnamese either in terms of command organisation or in terms of equipment, but it is a good point.

[Voltrovia]

This is a very juvenile view. Linebacker was only one reason the North was willing to make concessions. The others included Nixon's entente with the socialist world, most importantly the SALT talks and his visit to China in 1972. Pressure was applied on the North from China and the USSR, and there was fear of international isolation..

Should Nixon have abandoned his broader policy goals to cut off "Viet Cong" supplies?

The view I gave was very simplistically presented and, on its own, could certainly be described as juvenile. In fact, left as is, I'd actually agree with you that it probably wasn't the best outlined concept ever posted in haste on a forum. The rationale behind the possibility, if explained properly, is not necessarily so juvenile however: I was suggesting that had Nixon extended Linebacker for several more months and coupled it with the mining of North Vietnamese harbours to delay or destroy supplies before they arrived the ability of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong to wage war would have been severely diminished. This, along with the increased potency of the threat of American airpower being used to defend Thieu's government later (even if that threat was never carried through), could have resulted in the Paris Peace Accords having been at least partially upheld due to the immediate weakness the North would face and by challenging the Communist view that the US was on the way out and would simply leave Vietnam alone whatever happened subsequently. This could have delayed or even removed the possibility of the North rapidly invading and occupying the South as they did, although it's impossible to claim with any certainty.

If North Vietnam had been temporarily blockaded through minelaying alone as an extension of the doctrine already pursued in Linebacker it would likely have upset the Communist world, but it is hard to see how such a blockade (which would have only realistically delayed shipments of materiel anyway), unsupported by airpower at sea and not extremely difficult to dismantle, would cause the Chinese to halt cooperation and for SALT to be abandoned by the Soviets.

After all, cooperation with the Americans was critical to Mao's interests and something which he was very eager about - although only in order to create an axis against the Soviets and in order to receive American aid and military-economic support. Mao even advocated in earnest the deployment of American nuclear missiles in China at one stage. I doubt the Chinese government would have simply stopped engaging with the Americans if the final offensives of the Vietnam War were extended for several months. Also, it's unlikely it would have undermined the Paris Peace Accords at a later stage if only because the North Vietnamese would have been even weaker at that stage.

In addition, while we can never know what the implications would have been, for the USSR would have to publicly abandon SALT I, which they had already concluded in the Interim Agreement in May 1972, which would be a major step, to say the least. Of course we never will know or be able to legitimately claim what the implications would have been, but it's just an opinion.

Edit: Nixon visited China in early 1972 and the SALT talks were concluded in May, two weeks after Operation Linebacker began in full force. I'm not going to speculate, but I'll happily admit that dragging the Vietnam War on for another few months - whatever the results - wouldn't have been at all popular at home or abroad.

[Voltrovia]

Mining harbors is a bit different than sinking Soviet ships, which is what you advocated originally.

In fact, all North Vietnamese harbors and a good deal of inland waterways were mined extensively in 1972.

What I advocated originally was simplistic and slightly stupid. Especially so because I read up on the issue and found that the Soviets drew up contingency plans to break blockades with the use of force as early as 1967. In terms of mines, I'm talking about extending the minelaying operation into early 1973 as well.

[Voltrovia]

Question to the thread:
At what level do you have SPAAGs in your forces?
Yukonastan's SPAAGs are a separate unit in the Air Force, from which SPAAGs get attached to Army units as needed.

Usually at the brigade level, but I have some attached to a few of my dedicated coastal defence units at a battalion level.

[Voltrovia]

What do you guys think of the Mikoyan Project 1.43? If it were to be retried with modern technology, would it be a good design?

I love how Wikipedia lists the status as "Classified". Never change fanboys.

I don't see any reason why the 1.42 would be preferable to PAK-FA. Both were built with basically the same requirements, but the 1.42 was designed before the USSR had any practical experience with stealth aircraft design and the 1.44 doesn't show any evidence of stealth design. It was more akin to the Super Hornet than the F-22. It was also a lot bigger than the PAK-FA, but for a fighter aircraft this is not necessarily an advantage.

The 1.44 could possibly have been very capable at introduction if it had been designed, produced and brought into service in the '90s/Early 2000s. Except it wasn't. The design would have also likely been technically and technologically inferior to the F-22, largely as a result of the vast research investment that accompanied the YF-22 and F-22 stages of the programme as well as the significant stealth design advantages that the US had at the time and retains today. Other Western fighters, especially those which have received stealth modernisations over the last two decades and some of those which did not (the success of those modernisations is another debate) would probably also surpass the MiG 1.44 too.

But I guess this is speculation: the fact is that something that spends two decades under 'classified development' (the start of said 'classified development' coinciding with the design company running extremely short of money) is either one of the largest secret weapons programmes in history or was abandoned twenty years ago due to lack of funds.