Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Yukonastan]

What's the main reason that you suggested the joint strike failure as a frontline fighter? The thing's slow, overweight, half-blind, and can't carry any significant weight for any significant time or range. And I blame the USMC for having made it that way.

But now the main question... Can anyone clarify why everyone here likes the F35s?

[Yukonastan]

Are F-16s having to patrol over vast inhospitable wastelands where the nearest airfield to head for in the event of an engine failure can be several hundred miles away and the nearest rescue helicopter even further than that?

Seriously, you make this sound like it's a one in three chance that the engine will fail or something.

The Air Force defines a Class A Mishap as $1mn of damage, a fatality (or total disability) or total loss of an airframe. (page 119)
The rate of Class A per 100 thousand flight hours (EFH) has been falling consistently since the mid-sixties. (page 2)
http://www.system-safety.org/Documents/ ... -HNDBK.pdf
The rate per 100k EFH since 1987 (to ~2013) is 1.12, for the GE-100 engine on the F-16 - one Class A accident per hundred thousand flight hours.
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 20-040.pdf

"Some people's" love of double engines can only be expressed as a feeling of trust in redundancy. IF that engine fails and IF you're over the high Arctic, you still have the other engine to get you somewhere. If however you run a single engine, such as the JSFailure (In my opinion, it is a failure), if that engine burns out over the high Arctic, you can punch out or punch out. (Or die.) I'd rather have the feeling of reassurance that the second engine provides.

[Yukonastan]

For an air force: Does the following seem reasonable in terms of equipment? I'm not starting with numbers just yet.

Primary transport: C-17 GM3 with ruggedized landing gear
Primary fighter: F/A-18E Super Hornet with carrier hook
Primary CAS aircraft: A-10 TB2
Primary ATA Refueling A/C: C-17 GM3 with ATA equipm't pallet, wing plumbing, and drogue. Alternatively, a rear ramp plug with a boom on it.

What else am I missing? (Small A/F, not a lot of equipm't.)

[Yukonastan]

Too many reasons.

Suffice it to say that the F-15E is designed for a far different mission than A-10, and throwing it at a tank battalion is nothing more than a complete waste of its capabilities.

So what's an F-15E meant to go and bomb, and what makes the A-10 actually better for engaging tank battalions?

F-15's quite a lot faster than the A-10 and only has 20mm cannon. Paveways against tanks.
A-10 goes slower, is armored against small-arms fire, and has 30mm cannon against lighter armored vehicles, Hellfires (do A-10s carry hellfires or is it just attack helicopters and drones?) or Paveways against tanks. A-10 allows for more time on target. Also, fart from hell.

[Yukonastan]

9K22 doesn't stop Milan.



F22

Just a quick question, why would you say the F22 is better than the F35? I thought that they were roughly on the same level, with the F35 a tad more advanced due stealth tech (but flwaed for other reaosns), but I am probably less knowledgeable than most on this thread.

Raptor is proven and in service, and is completely certified. It has proven itself numerous times, has the reliability of two engines, and is still stealthy enough for the modern day.

Lightning 2 is still in development, massively delayed and massively over budget (after extending the deadline and increasing the budget), has only one engine, a short range, until recently wasn't even certified to fly in moderately cloudy or night environments, let alone overcast (despite being an all-weather fighter), has a relatively small weapons payload, and for the pilot no ability to look back. Which makes it a lot easier to get jumped from behind.

[Yukonastan]

F35 isn't an air supremacy fighter.

but isn't it multi-role? and is basically a platform which can be used for air supremacy?

It's outrun and out-turned by what China and Russia are developing, and you have no way to look behind you. Which means it's very vulnerable in a dog fight. If it gets to guns, the F-35 is at a distinct disadvantage. If it's missiles, the stealth may help, but there's missiles that can see through the clutter.

About the only good part is the sensor fit, making it good for battlefield reconnaissance.

A true case of swiss-army knifed.

[Yukonastan]

It's called M247, and it's a hollow charge, 70mm, unguided rocket.

Which the F-15 could almost certainly carry, and even the AH-64 could almost certainly carry with appropriate pods.
So, what's the F-15E meant to do that precludes its use as CAS?

F-15E's supposed to be an air superiority fighter. It's specialized for that role.
AH-64 usually carries Hydra70 or Hellfire missiles.
Hydra70 pods are flat-front and don't have streamlining, making them ill-suited for jet fighters that go fast. The A-10 on the other hand doesn't fly fast enough that that becomes a significant factor.
A-10 is specialized for ground attack. It was designed with the armored cockpit to stop small-arms fire, the massive wings and redundancy to keep flying with 1/3'd of its wing area shot off, the twin tails for reliability, and the high-mounted engines to stop FOD from quickly-prepared airstrips from getting into the engine. The 30mm cannon was seen as a good idea at the time. Yeah, it's overhyped against tanks, but it's very effective against lighter armored vehicles. The same cannon was also fitted into a pod mounted on an F-16 prototype, on which it wasn't rigid enough, making it inaccurate, meaning that pilots treated the shots similar to cluster munitions. The A-10, being designed to mount the cannon, is accurate with it.

As for the person that called my criticism of the F-35 bullshit, please clarify. How is it bullshit?

Edit: Reiterating my point of Swiss-army-knife-syndrome.
The F-35's three variants share a common fuselage. The Marine Corps insisted on having their jumpjet, which means that the fuselage had to be designed to accommodate a lift fan. This influenced the fuselage design, making it less than optimal. While the Air Force variant has larger internal weapons bays and more fuel storage, it still is blinded from behind. Same with the Navy variant.

It's a multirole fighter, with conflicting requirements for each role.
It's supposed to perform ground attack missions, but it's fast and has (almost) no armor. It's vulnerable to ground fire, yet is too fast to be able to accurately put a sufficient cannon burst on the dirt if need be.
It's supposed to perform air defense missions. It's fast, but you can't look back, and it doesn't have the best turning ability. Other fighters for the air defense and superiority role are faster, turn better, and are generally also two-man ships. This gives you a dedicated radar officer, reducing the pilot workload, allowing him to focus on flying.
It's supposed to perform reconnaissance missions. At least it has a very good sensor package, but again, it can be jumped easily from behind, and is vulnerable to ground fire. All the sensors also make the plane heavier.
It's supposed to be stealthy. At least it can be stealthy. But this reduces the materials you can use for the fighter to composites and RAM, and also limits you as far as design goes. That limits armor for the ground attack and reconnaissance roles, and also means a suboptimal fuselage to actually fly the thing. Especially with that large fan in it in the USMC version. That makes a massive widening in the fuselage where the fan is. When that fan is open to hover, bye bye stealth. You have the fan which is an amazing radar reflector, open hatches, et cetera.
Which brings me to hovering. The exhaust from the jet engine is very hot. It has been known to damage the ground or deck on which it's blowing. The original reason to make the F-35 hover was to allow it to operate from unprepared surfaces. Which it melts or burns.

[Yukonastan]

I already posted this question in the realism consultation thread but this may be a better place to post it. How should one go about a pre-emptive or alpha strike against an enemy nation? I was thinking of using supersonic missile carriers like the Tu-160 in order to zip in, fire some missiles at some airbases and SAM emplacments, and zip out, with my multi-role fighters fighting for air superiority and carrying out interdiction and logistics strikes after that. The army would begin mobilizing before the planes even take off and the first soldiers should cross the border almost immediately after the missiles hit. My overall goal is to temporarily cripple the enemy's ability to wage an air war, after which my military takes advantage of the disorder to gain as much ground and cause as much damage to existing enemy formations before their military can mobilize.

Also is there any way to avoid radar detection or engagement by SAM sites besides stealth? Would flying particularly high or low help? If so what altitude?

Basically what you describe. Also target infrastructure like roads and military bases, railways, power plants, et cetera.

As for the best altitude to fly such a mission at, twenty feet. As ludicrously low as possible.

[Yukonastan]

Barbarossa only got so far thanks to the Red Army's incompetence.

Once Zhukov arrived it changed quite drastically.

And Stalin's purges...

The purges didn't do good for the Red Army.

[Yukonastan]

The purges didn't do good for the Red Army.

Or the Red Air Forces and the OKBs...

Wasn't it the Red ARMY Air Force during the GPW?

[Yukonastan]

The radar operators assumed those aircraft was American.

A flight of Mitchells or something from the continental US, or definitely some kinds of bombers.

[Yukonastan]

Airships.. Unmanned sure you can do it.

Why using airships, nobody uses them in the military anymore if you got a damn reason.

Airship, dirigible, aerostat, there IS a difference. One uses a solid frame and was obsolete after the Hindenburg disaster, one is seen over sports stadiums, and one was used over London in WWII.

[Yukonastan]

Airship, dirigible, aerostat, there IS a difference. One uses a solid frame and was obsolete after the Hindenburg disaster, one is seen over sports stadiums, and one was used over London in WWII.

those are helium, pumped airships, there easily vulnerable, I was concern about who uses them in the military, most of them are plastic balloons and in civilian uses, and the ones that did use them in the military is ancient history, this is the 21st Century, TECHNOLOGY ROCKS!!!!

Alright, fly airships. Be aware that I arm my SPAAGs with either fuzed fragmentation shells or HEI shells. Also be aware that my older SPAAGs have M163 VADS on 'em, and will fuck most anything up, whether it's an airship or not.

[Yukonastan]

Alright, fly airships. Be aware that I arm my SPAAGs with either fuzed fragmentation shells or HEI shells. Also be aware that my older SPAAGs have M163 VADS on 'em, and will fuck most anything up, whether it's an airship or not.

I don't use airships, hell no, I use UCAVS a lot in my Air Force, n fact I use a lot of drones in my military and I still need to update all of them.

Alright, SPAAGs will still fuck up your drones, and cost less than missiles while doing it. (Reason that SPAAGs are good against drones: Drones are slow.)

[Yukonastan]

Alright, SPAAGs will still fuck up your drones, and cost less than missiles while doing it. (Reason that SPAAGs are good against drones: Drones are slow.)

Do you even have a image of your SPAAGs, and actually, my drones were remodifided fourth generation aircrafts with their original specifications, but unmanned with better drone technology, which means, their as fast as their predecessors, by mean predecessors. I mean the fourth generation aircrafts.

This is the M163 VADS. A variation of this was used in Yukonastan.


This is the Gepard 1A2. A near-identical concept, but on a stretched SPz Puma hull, is the current Yukoni SPAAG. It also mounts a quad FIM92/AIM92 package.

[Yukonastan]

Ok, then my drones can handle them, just not predators and Reapers because their used mostly for targeting a and smaller scale missions.

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

[Yukonastan]

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

If you got a better aim, bullets will be flying differently after the shots fired.

Your faired-over Tomcats won't fare well when they get either
A) A Stinger missile up the tailpipe
B) 30mm autocannon ammunition through the engine/other vital regions
C) Blinded by shrapnel from fragmenting 30mm shells ruining your expensive camera turret
D) Outright shot down from pursuing non-faired-over Hornets.

[Yukonastan]

#stinger #closerange #lotsoflead #FOD

A .50BMG shot into the inlet of a 4th gen fighter can ruin it. It'll blow fan blades everywhere. Especially if it's a sniper on the end of the runway aiming down at your jets as they spool up to take off. But that's beside the point of a Tungus-pard SPAAG.

A Predator-style drone might be shot down by battlefield AA. Werewolves might pour sugar in its gas tank.

Neither's likely except in fantasy land.

Ten percent werewolf service"men" for the win. But no, they do stay practical. No sugar in the JP-8 here, unfortunately. Tungus-pard-puma SPAAG abomination under Air Force command, but often attached to frontline Army units seems practical enough, and when no hostile drones, planes, or helicopters present themselves, 30mm makes one hell of a ground attack shell. Nothing like plunging absurd amounts of ammunition into that village over there.

And yes, I did use the 'Cat as an example of an INSERT_GENERIC_FOURTH_GENERATION_FIGHTER_HERE, because I show too much love for the Falcons and Hornets.

[Yukonastan]

Ten percent werewolf service"men" for the win. But no, they do stay practical. No sugar in the JP-8 here, unfortunately. Tungus-pard-puma SPAAG abomination under Air Force command, but often attached to frontline Army units seems practical enough, and when no hostile drones, planes, or helicopters present themselves, 30mm makes one hell of a ground attack shell. Nothing like plunging absurd amounts of ammunition into that village over there.

And yes, I did use the 'Cat as an example of an INSERT_GENERIC_FOURTH_GENERATION_FIGHTER_HERE, because I show too much love for the Falcons and Hornets.

All SPAAGs grouped under Air Force command? Please tell me I'm not reading that right.

*snip*

Wrong implication, you ARE misreading that. I mean to say that all air defense units are administratively a part of the Air Force, but are attached to Army units, with the commander of each AAD unit serving as liaison between branches.

And yeah, they're intended mainly for helicopters, slow and low drones, and to look cool. Again stinger missiles represent GENERIC_ANTI_AIRCRAFT_VEHICLE_MOUNTED_MISSILE, and are thus open for improvements.

[Yukonastan]

large two-seat multirole (F-14 Tomcat) --Why not consider the Super Hornet, considering the 'Cat was built as an interceptor?
small single seat multirole (F-7 (Saab JAS 39 Gripen), F-35 Lightning II, F-27 Devastator (Rabbidish Designed and Built Fighter Jet)) --Why the Joint Strike Failure? It isn't even certified and it catches on fire a lot. Why not just stick to the Gripen or Devastator?
jet trainer based off prior fighter (F-29 (Saab 29 Tunnan)) --Saab ftw.
Interdictor/fighter-bomber/strike fighter (F-37JA (Saab 37JA Viggen), F-32 (Saab 32 Lansen), FJ-35 (Saab 35 Draken)) --Saab FTW
Single-seat Trainer (Saab 21R) --Sounds good.
Dedicated ground attack fixed wing (A-10 Thunderbolt II) --I have been told that the 30mm cannon is useless against tanks, but you need to ground attack with something. That said, the Tunguska is a recently developed SPAAG that can take the 'Hog down.
strategic bomber (B-52 Stratofortress) --I imagine this is an EB-52 Megafortress, with updated engines, avionics, and a LOT more composite?
surveillance/recon aircraft (Saab 21R, Early Jet Fighter, used for Recon and light Ground Attack) --Again, why not stick with the EA18G?

armored attack helicopter (AH-64 Apache) --May I suggest the AgustaWestland AH64 Mk 1 Apache as specific variant?
small attack helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois, Bell AH-1 Cobra) --UH1Y Venom isn't a good helicopter to attack with, unless the weapons are Marines. Similarly, you have the Apache, no need for an AH1Z Viper.
trainer helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois) --Sure, but most modern Western armies use the Blackhawk or an AgustaWestland, not so much Bell anymore.
recon helicopter (Bell UH-1 Iroquois) --Again, easier to use a standard utility helicopter. If that's the UH1Y Venom, then it's the Venom.

strategic airlifter (C-5 Galaxy) --Cumulus Aluminus, great choice.
tactical airlifter (C-5 Galaxy) --Lolwat fucking ridiculous economic disaster as tactical lifter. I vote A400M or C17 or C130J.
VTOL Aircraft (Harrier) --VTOL is gimmicky. No need for it in my eyes.
really small transport with STOL (American Champion Citabria, not very good for carrying stuff, used to carry important personnel into danger zones) --No need to have a special STOL transporter.

helicopter gunship/transport (Mil Mi-24 HInd) --You already have an attack helicopter, the only thing the Hind adds is a cargo bay, and it's almost never used in real life.
medium transport (Chinook) --Good, good, flying bus, but good.
large transport (Chinook) --You may want something bigger, like a Pave Low or something.

COIN aircraft (F-4U Corsairs, Saab 18 Bombers, Saab 17A Dive-Bomber/Light Bomber) --Based on everything else you suggest, ditch the Corsair.

[Yukonastan]

-The Tomcats are a lot cheaper, and have a longer ranged Radar --Tomcats also turn like shit and are large. You don't use an interceptor as a multirole fighter.
-The Corsairs are for support of the bombers --The bombers shouldn't need support, that's what your F/A18E Super Hornets do. Since they're multirole fighters.
-We have only a few airlifters and they are currently C-5s because we haven't' gotten any C-130s yet. They are planned, but not yet in use. --Well, get on it then. Meanwhile don't waste your aluminum clouds trying to tactically transport, wait for your Herks.
-The UH1 is dirt cheap, and we already have them, why replace them now? --I was suggesting a variant, that is both modern, new production, and has no airframe hours when delivered. As for the Sikorskys and AWs, that is just what most Western air forces and armies operate in terms of rotorwing.
-The AH1 Cobras are for heavier attack than the UH1s and lighter than the AH-64s. --Don't use a UH for an AH's job, use an AH for an AH's job.
-I agree VTOL is gimmicky, but it is useful as a navy Fighter. --VTOL is useless if you want to carry a reasonable weapons load. The UK launched its harriers STOL, guaranteed.
-We have a couple F35 JSFs, but they are probably going to be traded for a couple Sukhois soon. --Burn those abominations.
-Our B52s are a mix of the fully upgraded ones and a couple original equipment ones with most somewhere in between. --This is NS, ditch those old engines. Get new ones on them pylons. No need to have old and inefficient engines.
-A10s have been in use for Decades, and are tough to shoot down. Plus, they have a lower price tag. --I say that they are good, but remember that any country worth its salt has introduced air defenses larger than ZSU-23-4. Again, new production DOES give you the advantage of zero airframe hours logged.
-We don't use F-18 variants, the Saab 21Rs have been in use for a long time (Since the late 1940s/early 1950s) as both trainers and light/recon fighters. The Saab 21Rs are soon to be replaced, and the EA18 Growlers are a possible replacement, but so are the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter as long as it goes into production, but those are not going to be available until at least 2017 so they are probably out of the running. --TIME TO REPLACE 'EM, MAY I SUGGEST THESE BEAUTIFUL NEW FROM THE FACTORY EA18G GROWLERS. BEFORE YOUR FANCY SAABS FALL OUT OF THE SKY DUE TO AIRFRAME AGE FRACTURES.
-the Citabria is for use as a personal transport for generals mainly, but can carry a very small load too. --No need for this, then.
-Hinds are versatile and armed, a perfect combination. Sure they are Attack Helicopters, but they are also transports. --Hinds are used as attack helicopters, the transport space is only to be used in case of emergency. I see where you're coming from, and FYI the Apache will allow two riders on the avionics bays.
-Pave Lows are not as cheap, and we already have the Chinooks. --You get my point, right?

[Yukonastan]

1. Tomcats also turn like shit and are large. You don't use an interceptor as a multirole fighter.
2. I was suggesting a variant, that is both modern, new production, and has no airframe hours when delivered. As for the Sikorskys and AWs, that is just what most Western air forces and armies operate in terms of rotorwing.
3. Don't use a UH for an AH's job, use an AH for an AH's job.
4. VTOL is useless if you want to carry a reasonable weapons load. The UK launched its harriers STOL, guaranteed.
5. Burn those abominations.
6. This is NS, ditch those old engines. Get new ones on them pylons. No need to have old and inefficient engines.
7. TIME TO REPLACE 'EM, MAY I SUGGEST THESE BEAUTIFUL NEW FROM THE FACTORY EA18G GROWLERS. BEFORE YOUR FANCY SAABS FALL OUT OF THE SKY DUE TO AIRFRAME AGE FRACTURES.
8. No need for this, then.
9. You get my point, right?

1. Meanwhile Tomcats were pulling 8.5 G's in accelerating turns with the TF30, and knocking down QF-86's doing 6 G's with the notoriously unmanoeuvreable Phoenix at WVR ranges, not to mention Gulf of Sidra vs Floggers.
2. Are you paying for this? Maybe he prefers Hueys.
3. Yeah, no.
4. Brits were doing fine in Falklands with Sidewinder-L's and Sea Harriers. Besides only idiots send up STOVL fighters in vertical takeoff sorties.
5. In the 80's you'd be harping on the Hornet's massive drag, inadequate range compared to the Intruder and weak stabilizers.
6. Are you paying for this?
7. What's wrong with F-16C's?
8. CT-43, C-40, C-37 and many more are lolwutting at you.
9. Chinooks augmented by C-130's is perfectly fine for the role he envisions. In fact I think the RAF runs a similar scheme.

1. Alright, but the 'Cat is still an interceptor and not a multirole fighter at heart.
2. Are you paying for maintenance of the old Hueys, while I spend a lot less maintenance on my factory-fresh Venoms, which also have modern avionics already fitted?
3. That was Vietnam, when there was a sort-of-shortage of dedicated attack helicopters. Which differ in not holding any crew, generally holding a lot more armament, as well as holding armor.
4. Because they were STOVLing, and not VTOLing. That was my point. VTOL is a gimmick, and if you have it, you'll only take off vertically at airshows. Not in combat.
5. This is a modern army, with a ton of surplus fighters, and a bunch of the newest things that are already on the way out. Point taken, but invalidated.
6. Bombers want new engines too...
7. Or the F-16C. Point of buying new or gently used is so you have airframe hours left.
8. Then get Gulfstreams instead of what are basically Cessna Skyhawks. They'll also carry more than your Citabria.
9. Point is, he has no C-130s yet. And is using some C5 fucking ridiculous economic disasters as tactical transports in the interim, hence why some heavier rotorwings, even if these are surplus, are a good idea.

[Yukonastan]

1. Alright, but the 'Cat is still an interceptor and not a multirole fighter at heart.
2. Are you paying for maintenance of the old Hueys, while I spend a lot less maintenance on my factory-fresh Venoms, which also have modern avionics already fitted?
3. That was Vietnam, when there was a sort-of-shortage of dedicated attack helicopters. Which differ in not holding any crew, generally holding a lot more armament, as well as holding armor.
4. Because they were STOVLing, and not VTOLing. That was my point. VTOL is a gimmick, and if you have it, you'll only take off vertically at airshows. Not in combat.
5. This is a modern army, with a ton of surplus fighters, and a bunch of the newest things that are already on the way out. Point taken, but invalidated.
6. Bombers want new engines too...
7. Or the F-16C. Point of buying new or gently used is so you have airframe hours left.
8. Then get Gulfstreams instead of what are basically Cessna Skyhawks. They'll also carry more than your Citabria.
9. Point is, he has no C-130s yet. And is using some C5 fucking ridiculous economic disasters as tactical transports in the interim, hence why some heavier rotorwings, even if these are surplus, are a good idea.

-Venoms are good, but we can't get all of our equipment modernized at once, especially since we have experimental fighters in the works.
-F-16s and our air force equals cluster#&@$ because we tried them in the early 90s, and had many problems with them.
-Our F-14s have been modernized with new avionics and engines a couple years ago.
-Some of our B-52s have been updated, but we left some original on purpose as they are for use as training craft for crews and don't get flown very often. The Semi-modernized and fully modernized ones are for combat use.
-The JSFs will probably be replaced soon with Sukhois.
-The Citabrias are not very useful, but they have a purpose. They are for going places Gulfstreams can't go, such as forests.
Most of our equipment can't get modernized right away.

I'm going to specifically mention one thing you want to keep in mind, though. Airframe life, both in hours and in cycles. An airframe will inevitably wear and crack very slightly as you use this, and unless you use adamantium or unobtanium to build your airframe, it has a limited life. Because the little stress cracks add up, and because landing especially puts quite a strain on specific parts of the airframe, an aircraft is only rated to fly a certain number of hours and a certain number of cycles. This basically demands that you stay relatively recent as far as surplus goes, especially if you buy secondhand from a place like the States.

[Yukonastan]

I'm going to specifically mention one thing you want to keep in mind, though. Airframe life, both in hours and in cycles. An airframe will inevitably wear and crack very slightly as you use this, and unless you use adamantium or unobtanium to build your airframe, it has a limited life. Because the little stress cracks add up, and because landing especially puts quite a strain on specific parts of the airframe, an aircraft is only rated to fly a certain number of hours and a certain number of cycles. This basically demands that you stay relatively recent as far as surplus goes, especially if you buy secondhand from a place like the States.

All of our aircraft were bought new by our air force. None are surplus.

Still, based on eras and what you're sticking into service now, a lot of what you have is in the latter half of airframe life; you might want to keep this in mind.

[Yukonastan]

The ships wouldn't had have been completely defenseless.

Losses would have still been high for the air fields, maybe a few more aircraft in the air if they had any sitting prepared.

There's a hangar at CFB Cold Lake, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards, covered by NO PHOTOGRAPHY regulation, in which the scramble interceptors are housed. You would still need to start the turbines on 'em, but for the rest, they are hot and ready to go. Don't know if Pearl was like that, however.