Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Organized States]

Yeah that's why F-22 is single engine.

because obviously the F-22 isn't an air superiority fighter and totally doesn't need two engines to go faster.

single engine configuration is advantageous it in light, small fighters (usually with multirole capability, since air superiority fighters do a much better job in the air) designed to be cheap-as-fuck, with low maintenance costs. see: MiG-21, F-16, JAS-39.

single engine = lower cost, lower maintenance cost, lower fuel consumption (usually). these are exactly the main reasons why FAB chosen the Gripen instead of the Super Hornet or Rafale (excluding political ones; the Super Hornet was the favorite until our president became upset due to that US-spying-the-others thing. damn politics.), given our government doesn't exactly like to fund the military. they prefer to fund their own wallets instead

The F-22 is twin engine... F-35 is single engine...

[United states of brazilian nations]

because obviously the F-22 isn't an air superiority fighter and totally doesn't need two engines to go faster.

single engine configuration is advantageous it in light, small fighters (usually with multirole capability, since air superiority fighters do a much better job in the air) designed to be cheap-as-fuck, with low maintenance costs. see: MiG-21, F-16, JAS-39.

single engine = lower cost, lower maintenance cost, lower fuel consumption (usually). these are exactly the main reasons why FAB chosen the Gripen instead of the Super Hornet or Rafale (excluding political ones; the Super Hornet was the favorite until our president became upset due to that US-spying-the-others thing. damn politics.), given our government doesn't exactly like to fund the military. they prefer to fund their own wallets instead

The F-22 is twin engine... F-35 is single engine...

i know that. first line i was in /sarcasm mode. i was noting that single engine does have its advantages for small, light, cheap fighters, but when you've got air superiority fighters (like the F-22), twin engine is the best option as it gives more power.

[Organized States]

The F-22 is twin engine... F-35 is single engine...

i know that. first line i was in /sarcasm mode. i was noting that single engine does have its advantages for small, light, cheap fighters, but when you've got air superiority fighters (like the F-22), twin engine is the best option as it gives more power.

Sorry, I am really bad at telling sarcasm from seriousness...

[United states of brazilian nations]

i know that. first line i was in /sarcasm mode. i was noting that single engine does have its advantages for small, light, cheap fighters, but when you've got air superiority fighters (like the F-22), twin engine is the best option as it gives more power.

Sorry, I am really bad at telling sarcasm from seriousness...

no problem, i get confused sometimes as well.

now to bring some more in-topicness: would it be feasible to use large transport planes to airdrop tanks behind enemy lines (provided air supremacy is established before) or would that make the planes/tanks too much of an easy target for enemy anti-air defenses?

[Spoder]

i know that. first line i was in /sarcasm mode. i was noting that single engine does have its advantages for small, light, cheap fighters, but when you've got air superiority fighters (like the F-22), twin engine is the best option as it gives more power.

Sorry, I am really bad at telling sarcasm from seriousness...

I doubt you do.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in text.

[Antarticaria]

Sorry, I am really bad at telling sarcasm from seriousness...

no problem, i get confused sometimes as well.

now to bring some more in-topicness: would it be feasible to use large transport planes to airdrop tanks behind enemy lines (provided air supremacy is established before) or would that make the planes/tanks too much of an easy target for enemy anti-air defenses?

Provided you had a smaller force of infantry, air support or even off shore naval support then yes its easily feasible if your forces removed the key defending installations that provide the greatest threat to your air support entry and exit locations (This can be the same route you used to get in) however to be honest tanks are really not good for this sortof operation, I would advise using infantry because of mobility, numbers, coordination and the fact that using infantry in something modern does not in fact remove firepower in comparison to vehicles due to the amount of shoulder fired and support assets that we have.

Run down short: Its feasible but not advisable for using tanks like this.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Sorry, I am really bad at telling sarcasm from seriousness...

no problem, i get confused sometimes as well.

now to bring some more in-topicness: would it be feasible to use large transport planes to airdrop tanks behind enemy lines (provided air supremacy is established before) or would that make the planes/tanks too much of an easy target for enemy anti-air defenses?

First of all, it's necessary to specify what kinds of "tanks" you're talking about. I would draw the line at 20-25 tons in terms of what you can airdrop without risking failure of the parachute array and ruining the suspension on impact. That rules out western MBTs like the Challenger 2 and M1A1 Abrams, as well as eastern MBTs like the T-80 or T-90. Light tanks like the Sheridan or Sprut-SD, on the other hand, can be safely airdropped (as it was part of their design).

Now to the general question. Mechanized airborne forces are definitely a real thing, and were one of the unique features of the Soviet VDV. The BMD-1 air-droppable IFV entered service in 1969, and its modern cousins BMD-3 and BMD-4 can be airdropped with crew and passengers inside to allow easy location and mobilization once landed. Sprut-SD was a light tank designed to be airdropped in this manner, though apparently it's being withdrawn from service in the Russian Army due to mechanical problems. The VDV would have used this capability to carry out diversionary actions behind enemy lines - seizing critical choke points, delaying enemy reinforcements, and wreaking havoc with rear-line command and logistics targets.

The problem, as Antarcticaria has alluded to, is that this requires a lot of strategic transport aircraft. According to this page, it would take 120 IL-76-sized aircraft to airlift a single VDV regiment and all its vehicles. For a drop that large, one would have to first clear the area of theatre-range SAMs and interceptors, or else anticipate heavy attrition. Which is, after all, true of any strategic airlift.

Not to give a cop-out answer, but the desirability of armored vs. all-infantry airborne units really depends on what role airborne units play under your doctrine. The Soviet Union placed a heavy emphasis on mobile airborne units pursuing deep battle in the enemy's rear areas, so they invested heavily in mechanized VDV forces. Other world militaries, however, saw their airborne forces doing different things and gave less dedicated attention to dedicated airborne tanks and IFVs.

[Rich and Corporations]

I see the usefulness of tankettes armed with 40mm guns, and the ability to load those guns with ... this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_41

[Gallia-]

Yeah that's why F-22 is single engine.

because obviously the F-22 isn't an air superiority fighter and totally doesn't need two engines to go faster.

single engine configuration is advantageous it in light, small fighters (usually with multirole capability, since air superiority fighters do a much better job in the air) designed to be cheap-as-fuck, with low maintenance costs. see: MiG-21, F-16, JAS-39.

single engine = lower cost, lower maintenance cost, lower fuel consumption (usually). these are exactly the main reasons why FAB chosen the Gripen instead of the Super Hornet or Rafale (excluding political ones; the Super Hornet was the favorite until our president became upset due to that US-spying-the-others thing. damn politics.), given our government doesn't exactly like to fund the military. they prefer to fund their own wallets instead

F-16C/D is $22,000 per flight hour.
F-35 is (expected) to be ~$35,000 per flight hour.
F-22 is $19,000 per flight hour.
Rafale is $16,000.
F-15C is $17,000.
EA-18G is (expected) to be $7,500.

Muh twin engines don't actually increase cost.

[Triplebaconation]

150 man-hours per flight hour:

[Gallia-]

muh rokets

[Triplebaconation]

they're supposed to be cluster bombs

[Gallia-]

muh suu-14/a i guess ):

[Kusthet]

Yeah, I'm lazy. You'd think I would have drawn something newer in the...two years since I was here last. NOPE!

[Triplebaconation]

muh suu-14/a i guess ):

what else would you kill sams with?

some kind of "contra-emanation aerial torpedo?"

muh moral fiber

[Triplebaconation]

Muh phallus - lost interest in this about halfway.



Partially revealed in recently declassified documents, Project Pumpkin was an open-cycle gaseous core nuclear ICBM over 500' feet tall. Its eponymous payload was the "Pumpkin," a 1500-ton H-bomb with a yield of "some gigatons." The LAF denies every seriously considering Project Pumpkin, insisting that it was only a thought exercise stemming from early interplanetary mission research.

[Purpelia]

I have a question. In particular, I need a concept evaluated.
Travel back to the 60's and the first ICBM's needing many minutes to fuel up, being unreliable etc.
See just how stupidly inaccurate they can be even when they do not explode on the launch pad.
Figure that because of all this the dam things will just newer catch on.
Realize that you do need something to deliver bombs to any other place on earth.
Design a bomber.

Basically, I want to design a newer realized concept for a 60's sub orbital bomber aircraft. It would take off using rocket busters and reach orbit. It would than use a set of smaller rocket busters to deorbit over a target. Finally, it would use it's huge momentum and speed in combination with some sort of insane ramjet (maybe atomic???) to fly around enemy air space too quickly and too high for enemies to shoot it down and spam atomic weapons like some sort of insane piloted MIRV.

So, what do you think? Could this even technically be done? And in a world where ICBM's newer advanced beyond the early unreliable liquid fuel versions would it be remotely practical? (Them advancing beyond that is what is supposed to kill the project.)

[Triplebaconation]

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bomi.htm

The problem is its just a vastly more complicated ICBM.

[Purpelia]

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bomi.htm

The problem is its just a vastly more complicated ICBM.

That's excellent. It's another reason why it would newer be made. This said, I was imagining something quite larger. As in, something that can take a MIRV equivalent payload.

[The Akasha Colony]

I have a question. In particular, I need a concept evaluated.
Travel back to the 60's and the first ICBM's needing many minutes to fuel up, being unreliable etc.
See just how stupidly inaccurate they can be even when they do not explode on the launch pad.
Figure that because of all this the dam things will just newer catch on.
Realize that you do need something to deliver bombs to any other place on earth.
Design a bomber.

Basically, I want to design a newer realized concept for a 60's sub orbital bomber aircraft. It would take off using rocket busters and reach orbit. It would than use a set of smaller rocket busters to deorbit over a target. Finally, it would use it's huge momentum and speed in combination with some sort of insane ramjet (maybe atomic???) to fly around enemy air space too quickly and too high for enemies to shoot it down and spam atomic weapons like some sort of insane piloted MIRV.

So, what do you think? Could this even technically be done? And in a world where ICBM's newer advanced beyond the early unreliable liquid fuel versions would it be remotely practical? (Them advancing beyond that is what is supposed to kill the project.)

As Danton notes, the problem is that all of the equipment needed to make this bomber be practical is the sort of thing that would make an ICBM practical, with even less investment. You'd literally have to build a working rocket first, with all of the necessary guidance and such, before you could even think about making such a vehicle. Of course, once you've made the rocket, you now have the question of "should I invest billions designing a fancy rocket bomber to drop nukes, or do I just put the nukes directly on this rocket I've just built and call it an ICBM?"

[Purpelia]

As Danton notes, the problem is that all of the equipment needed to make this bomber be practical is the sort of thing that would make an ICBM practical, with even less investment. You'd literally have to build a working rocket first, with all of the necessary guidance and such, before you could even think about making such a vehicle. Of course, once you've made the rocket, you now have the question of "should I invest billions designing a fancy rocket bomber to drop nukes, or do I just put the nukes directly on this rocket I've just built and call it an ICBM?"

That's sort of the point. It's a question that my army asked and came to a resounding "HELL NO!".
However it makes for a good story none the less.

[Gallia-]

Muh phallus - lost interest in this about halfway.

(Image)

Partially revealed in recently declassified documents, Project Pumpkin was an open-cycle gaseous core nuclear ICBM over 500' feet tall. Its eponymous payload was the "Pumpkin," a 1500-ton H-bomb with a yield of "some gigatons." The LAF denies every seriously considering Project Pumpkin, insisting that it was only a thought exercise stemming from early interplanetary mission research.

muh gourd belss murica an' kkkurtis legay

[The Akasha Colony]

That's sort of the point. It's a question that my army asked and came to a resounding "HELL NO!".
However it makes for a good story none the less.

Which is moving the goalposts a bit from this:

So, what do you think? Could this even technically be done? And in a world where ICBM's newer advanced beyond the early unreliable liquid fuel versions would it be remotely practical? (Them advancing beyond that is what is supposed to kill the project.)

If the original question is whether such a vehicle could be built without adequate ICBM technology, then the answer to that question is no; you need pretty developed ICBM/rocket technology to fathom building something like this. Of course, developing such technology is what kills it before it even really takes shape.

[Purpelia]

If the original question is whether such a vehicle could be built without adequate ICBM technology, then the question is no; you need pretty developed ICBM/rocket technology to fathom building something like this. Of course, developing such technology is what kills it before it even really takes shape.

Basically I have the following image.

My army sees ICBM's suck. Two lobbies form. One that wants to develop better ICBM's and another that wants to develop this thing. As time goes by, they both work together to make the necessary tech happen and the second lobby shrinks away into nothingness leaving only one, single, solitary bitter old designer to write about what could have been years later.

[Oaledonia]

OV-10 confirmed in next battlefield /off topic