Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Antarticaria]

Here is how Australia wins a war.

w8 for derm murricans to come and beat up the baddie-waddie.

just ask your father, England, how that goes, he knows how that works the most out of the rest of the world.

who liberated europe again?

[hint it wasnt u-s-gay]

I would watch your tongue there buddy. and Each country from ww2 and ww1 deserves its respects for everything they did. (Excluding the losers or 'bad guys') however I do admire Germany for wiping out half of Europe quickly and efficiently considering its state from WW1 and Japan for having the stones to throw a first punch to us.



*edit*
Kicking it old school:

Did you know that Bi planes are common for civilians in Antarticaria when exploring the Island on a extremely clear day?

[Gallia-]

who liberated europe again?

[hint it wasnt u-s-gay]

I would watch your tongue there buddy.

I'm not your buddy. (:

The Holocaust isn't admirable.

[Antarticaria]

I would watch your tongue there buddy.

I'm not your buddy. (:

The Holocaust isn't admirable.

Of course it isnt! Its down right despicable and a black stain on humanity's history.
Im talking about the industrialization and development of war weapons that sprout off into future nations weaponry of the modern times. Im a gun nut not a nazi nut.

[Marona]

All Hail The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not the British Empire, not the United States.

---

The Royal Maronan Aerial Forces are comprised primarily of Flyers* attached to Airships.

*Biplane like things.

[Gallia-]

The USSR didn't liberate Europe tbh.

It "liberated" the other half of Poland, some minor Axis allies, and a small portion of Germany itself.

[Antarticaria]

The USSR didn't liberate Europe tbh.

It "liberated" the other half of Poland, some minor Axis allies, and a small portion of Germany itself.

and started as a annexation** but turned to liberation. Still did their part like all Allied nations did. ha

[Marona]

The USSR didn't liberate Europe tbh.

It "liberated" the other half of Poland, some minor Axis allies, and a small portion of Germany itself.

It drained Germany's war machine and ability to effectively fight in western Europe in result. It could use a salute or three.

[The Akasha Colony]

and started as a annexation** but turned to liberation. Still did their part like all Allied nations did. ha

They were so willing to be liberated many fought against the invading Soviets...

It was nothing more than a pretense for what was functionally annexation. Stalin never pretended it was anything but that.

[Antarticaria]

and started as a annexation** but turned to liberation. Still did their part like all Allied nations did. ha

They were so willing to be liberated many fought against the invading Soviets...

It was nothing more than a pretense for what was functionally annexation. Stalin never pretended it was anything but that.

Agreed. Anyways back to planes.

[Gallia-]

The USSR didn't liberate Europe tbh.

It "liberated" the other half of Poland, some minor Axis allies, and a small portion of Germany itself.

and started as a annexation** but turned to liberation. Still did their part like all Allied nations did. ha

Then proceeded to continue their pre-war policies of ethnic cleansing and Hitler-esque concentration/labour camps.

Such liberation. Much freedom.

The USSR didn't liberate Europe tbh.

It "liberated" the other half of Poland, some minor Axis allies, and a small portion of Germany itself.

It drained Germany's war machine and ability to effectively fight in western Europe in result. It could use a salute or three.

Without the USSR, the war would have lasted a few more months until the USA nuked Berlin or something and Germany surrenders unconditionally.

[Antarticaria]

and started as a annexation** but turned to liberation. Still did their part like all Allied nations did. ha

Then proceeded to continue their pre-war policies of ethnic cleansing and Hitler-esque concentration/labour camps.

Such liberation. Much freedom.

Never said it was a good thing. lol. we all can agree Stalin was a twisted greedy wackjob.

[Emmerian Republic]

The Emmerian Republic Air Force uses mainly from the United Sates Air Force, but more likely use mostly stealth fighters as the new innovations of the fighters and uses UCAV drones.

Drones pplays the same roles as the amnned aircrafts in my military,but many are modified from the 4th gneration fighters to act as a extra force for the stealth fighters.
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=emmerian_republic/detail=factbook/id=172566

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Here is how Australia wins a war.

w8 for derm murricans to come and beat up the baddie-waddie.

just ask your father, England, how that goes, he knows how that works the most out of the rest of the world.

who liberated europe again?

[hint it wasnt u-s-gay]

Poland?

Bear-Artillerymen: Fuck yeah.

[Imperializt Russia]

Thanks Purp. XD

I see what you mean about strike fighters needing the extra seat, however I was thinking along the lines of the F-14. A high performance inteceptor, meant to engage multiple threats from afar, protect fleets and less capable strike fighters. The stike fighter being derived from an early lockheed FCBA concept, something ike an F-35 with some of the fat trimmmed off to make it move a bit better. I suppose I have just described the F-22 though, and therefore have defeated my own argument.

Trimming the fat from old concepts probably goes so far as removing a dedicated radar operator and his seat's space requirement from their aircraft.

[Britinthia]

Thanks Purp. XD

I see what you mean about strike fighters needing the extra seat, however I was thinking along the lines of the F-14. A high performance inteceptor, meant to engage multiple threats from afar, protect fleets and less capable strike fighters. The stike fighter being derived from an early lockheed FCBA concept, something ike an F-35 with some of the fat trimmmed off to make it move a bit better. I suppose I have just described the F-22 though, and therefore have defeated my own argument.

Trimming the fat from old concepts probably goes so far as removing a dedicated radar operator and his seat's space requirement from their aircraft.

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines to slimming out the fuselage seeing as it doesnt have to leave space for a lift fan, or indeed a second seat. As well as making more efficient use of available space as it doesnt need to have commonality between airframes.

That said the option of a second seat would 'future proof' it. I envision the future being 2 or 4 of these two seater air superiority fighters, each with two drones slaved to them. The drones being the strike package while the escorting fighters take care of enemy aircraft and maybe air defenses too. The drones could even just be mobile armouries with no targetting capabilities themselves, relying on the manned aircraft to do that.

To do any of that a second person in the cockpit would be absolutely required.

Edit: my tablet posted before I had finished typing.

[Triplebaconation]

Trimming the fat from old concepts probably goes so far as removing a dedicated radar operator and his seat's space requirement from their aircraft.

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines to slimming out the fuselage seeing as it doesnt have to leave space for a lift fan, or indeed a second seat. As well as making more efficient use of available space as it doesnt need to have commonality between airframes.

That said the option of a second seat would 'future proof' it. I envision the future being 2 or 4 of these two seater air superiority fighters, each with two drones slaved to them. The drones being the strike package while the escorting fighters take care of enemy aircraft and maybe air defenses too. The drones could even just be mobile armouries with no targetting capabilities themselves, relying on the manned aircraft to do that.

To do any of that a second person in the cockpit would be absolutely required.

Why?

[Britinthia]

Why?

Well it will create a whole new workload which the pilot would not previously have been required to do. Seems like it would be asking for trouble to pile controlling UCAVs on top of trying to mot get shot down.

[The Akasha Colony]

Why?

Well it will create a whole new workload which the pilot would not previously have been required to do. Seems like it would be asking for trouble to pile controlling UCAVs on top of trying to mot get shot down.

And these UCAVs could not be remotely controlled from a base because...?

Or perhaps even better, why could these armaments could not already be mounted on a conventional manned aircraft? The normal benefit of protection of air crew that UCAVs enjoy is somewhat negated if the pilot is flying alongside in another aircraft, as are most cost advantages if the drones have to be sufficiently high-performance to keep up with a modern fighter.

[Britinthia]

Well it will create a whole new workload which the pilot would not previously have been required to do. Seems like it would be asking for trouble to pile controlling UCAVs on top of trying to mot get shot down.

And these UCAVs could not be remotely controlled from a base because...?

Or perhaps even better, why could these armaments could not already be mounted on a conventional manned aircraft? The normal benefit of protection of air crew that UCAVs enjoy is somewhat negated if the pilot is flying alongside in another aircraft, as are most cost advantages if the drones have to be sufficiently high-performance to keep up with a modern fighter.

The main reason they cant be controlled from base is the slow speed of communications over long distance and lack of awareness of surroundings. Both of which were arguments given to me on here as to why I couldnt field UAVs from base if I wanted them to take the place of manned aircraft like I am suggesting.

I honestly dont know all that much about this field, as is clearly evident from my posts Im sure.
My argument therefore is based upon a number of assumptions I have made, from various posts I have seen here as well as some google searches.
They are:
Manned and unmanned aircraft will have a transition period where they will fly alongside each other and the invention of a fully autonomous UCAV that can out-fly a real pilot wont happen for a long while.
Lives lost will be a more important factor in future wars than cost. I.e. the public wont mind as much if you spend $2billion if it saves the lives of a few pilots.
The general idea that western air forces will use high performance air superiority fighters to protect lesser capable strike fighters as part of a combined package, aka the F-22/F-35 relationship, is a viable tactic.

So instead of sending up 4 F-22s and 16 F-35s, I can send 4 two seater fighters and 16 UCAVs, possibly even 12 UCAVs as the extra space and weight loss should mean higher payload.

The second idea being an arsenal ship in the sky. Whereby instead of sending say 12 fighters on a patrol or strike mission or whatever, you can send 6 and a couple of UCAVs whos sole purpose is to carry extra missiles. Now obviously in the second senario not every manned fighter will be two seater, else the cost would be far too great, but one or two could be and you shouldnt lose any capability.

[The Soodean Imperium]

And these UCAVs could not be remotely controlled from a base because...?

Or perhaps even better, why could these armaments could not already be mounted on a conventional manned aircraft? The normal benefit of protection of air crew that UCAVs enjoy is somewhat negated if the pilot is flying alongside in another aircraft, as are most cost advantages if the drones have to be sufficiently high-performance to keep up with a modern fighter.

The main reason they cant be controlled from base is the slow speed of communications over long distance and lack of awareness of surroundings. Both of which were arguments given to me on here as to why I couldnt field UAVs from base if I wanted them to take the place of manned aircraft like I am suggesting.

I honestly dont know all that much about this field, as is clearly evident from my posts Im sure.
My argument therefore is based upon a number of assumptions I have made, from various posts I have seen here as well as some google searches.
They are:
Manned and unmanned aircraft will have a transition period where they will fly alongside each other and the invention of a fully autonomous UCAV that can out-fly a real pilot wont happen for a long while.
Lives lost will be a more important factor in future wars than cost. I.e. the public wont mind as much if you spend $2billion if it saves the lives of a few pilots.
The general idea that western air forces will use high performance air superiority fighters to protect lesser capable strike fighters as part of a combined package, aka the F-22/F-35 relationship, is a viable tactic.

So instead of sending up 4 F-22s and 16 F-35s, I can send 4 two seater fighters and 16 UCAVs, possibly even 12 UCAVs as the extra space and weight loss should mean higher payload.

The second idea being an arsenal ship in the sky. Whereby instead of sending say 12 fighters on a patrol or strike mission or whatever, you can send 6 and a couple of UCAVs whos sole purpose is to carry extra missiles. Now obviously in the second senario not every manned fighter will be two seater, else the cost would be far too great, but one or two could be and you shouldnt lose any capability.

Hmm... this reminds me of my revolutionary pioneering of the "air-to-air kamikaze UAV" concept. [warning: must read entire post including linked source to get the point]

On a serious note, though, it's worth asking what advantages these linked UCAVs would have over, say, standoff air-to-air missiles. A plane which is carrying a smaller plane which is carrying a missile seems a tad redundant, and will greatly reduce your payload in space and weight. And many of the tasks you're trying to accomplish could be done similarly well by having a group of low-RCS (read: stealth) fighters hang back and pick off the enemy from a safe distance.

[Britinthia]

[
Hmm... this reminds me of my revolutionary pioneering of the "air-to-air kamikaze UAV" concept. [warning: must read entire post including linked source to get the point]

On a serious note, it's worth asking what advantages these linked UCAVs would have over, say, standoff air-to-air missiles. A plane which is carrying a smaller plane which is carrying a missile seems a tad redundant, and will greatly reduce your payload in space and weight. And many of the tasks you're trying to accomplish could be done similarly well by having a group of low-RCS (read: stealth) fighters hang back and pick off the enemy from a safe distance.

Hahaha, I read that first time round actually. Suppose I should learn from others mistakes.
They would have no advantage in air-to-air. Exactly the opposite in fact, it seems clear that A2A combat is out of a UCAVs reach for now. As you say a missile will always perform better.

The point I am failing to make is that A2A should be left to the manned aircraft, but the ground attack/strike missions can be largely handed over to unmanned platforms, with a manned fighter present as command and control, and if required to prorect the UCAVs from air threats. In this senario the manned aircraft, the A2A fighters, are performing the same mission regardless of whether it is alongside manned or unmanned platforms. The only difference is if they have one or two crewmembers.

Maybe my logic is fatally flawed and I just cant see it. Im happy to gracefully admit defeat anyway.

[The Soodean Imperium]

[
Hmm... this reminds me of my revolutionary pioneering of the "air-to-air kamikaze UAV" concept. [warning: must read entire post including linked source to get the point]

On a serious note, it's worth asking what advantages these linked UCAVs would have over, say, standoff air-to-air missiles. A plane which is carrying a smaller plane which is carrying a missile seems a tad redundant, and will greatly reduce your payload in space and weight. And many of the tasks you're trying to accomplish could be done similarly well by having a group of low-RCS (read: stealth) fighters hang back and pick off the enemy from a safe distance.

Hahaha, I read that first time round actually. Suppose I should learn from others mistakes.
They would have no advantage in air-to-air. Exactly the opposite in fact, it seems clear that A2A combat is out of a UCAVs reach for now. As you say a missile will always perform better.

The point I am failing to make is that A2A should be left to the manned aircraft, but the ground attack/strike missions can be largely handed over to unmanned platforms, with a manned fighter present as command and control, and if required to prorect the UCAVs from air threats. In this senario the manned aircraft, the A2A fighters, are performing the same mission regardless of whether it is alongside manned or unmanned platforms. The only difference is if they have one or two crewmembers.

Maybe my logic is fatally flawed and I just cant see it. Im happy to gracefully admit defeat anyway.

In that case, you're probably best off taking the same approach to air-ground munitions as air-to-air ones.

That is, if you're going to go to the expense to have a television-guided UAV that drops a 500kg bomb on its target, why not just make a television-guided missile with a 500kg warhead? State-of-the-art munitions like the JASSM offer an excellent standoff range, as do air-launched cruise missiles like the Kh-55 which have been in service for decades. These can be fired from well outside the range of even theatre-range SAM systems, though the missiles themselves can still be shot down. Likewise, there's always the problem of finding targets before the strike, which is why cruise missiles are usually reserved for large, stationary targets. But otherwise, it's essentially all the capabilities of a parasite ground-attack UAV in a neat little package.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

Wouldn't a lot of the problems with lag and control time problems be reduced in your theoretical ground strike drones, and thus it would be more possible to control them from base? I mean obviously control from base wouldn't be practical for air to air missions, but surely a few milliseconds of lag wouldn't affect the air to ground role with missiles and bombs too too much, unless if I suppose it has to avoid missiles surface to air fired at it. But it seems like a human pilot controlling it nearby would be hard pressed in such a situation anyway with being slightly stressed since they'd probably be shot at too and their plane would be undergoing some mild aerodynamic maneuvers. I don't know what I'm talking about so that was just wild speculation with no actual knowledge in the field.

and in the time i spend typing another posts renders this already obsolete, i am of such failure ect. ect.

[Organized States]

This UCAV discussion is rather interesting and I am getting mad-Dale Brown vibes off of this, but my question is, would it be better to upgrade an existing aircraft to perform this drone control role, or to build an entirely new one?

[The Soodean Imperium]

To be fair, it's a design fantasy that dates back to 1931 or earlier, when the USSR started experimenting with the Zveno project (otherwise known as "Yo dawg I herd you liek bombers"): two to five small fighters attached to a long-range TB-3, to be used as precision strike aircraft with 250kg bombs.

In its time, the Zveno project was actually quite successful, as the fighters could carry more munitions than their takeoff weight allowed and could hit small targets with much more precision than a high-altitude bomber. But by the Vietnam War, guided bombs were already being used to knock out bridges and railways which regular gravity bombs couldn't reliably hit. Modern standoff munitions did even more to narrow what was already a niche role.

I do recall of hearing some Cold-War proposals for manned "parasite fighters," which would hang from a bomber's wing and detach to act as an escort at long ranges; but I don't know much about them, so that might be a topic to ask someone else about.