Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

That shit's way too cool.
God bless the Russians and the TB-3.

[Oaledonia]

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.

*Boeing 747 AAC intensifies*

[Oaledonia]

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.

*Boeing 747 AAC intensifies*

Which, might I add, has one key advantage over mid-air refueling.

[Britinthia]

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.

If small scale precision missiles can be delivered without the use of aircraft, why are we still developing combat aircraft at all, except for maybe air defence? You still need a platform to launch the missiles, and my argument is that aircraft can be manned or unmanned. It doesn't really matter which at the end of the day, but using a 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio of manned to unmanned launch platforms allows you to be as effective, if not more effective, without risking as many lives.

When you talk about parasite UCAVs, do you mean one that would be carried and launched by a mother ship aircraft? Because when I talk about UCAVs I mean full size fighters that just happen to have no pilot, and all that comes from the manned aircraft are orders.

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.

I assume you are talking to me, if not, sorry for interrupting.

The way I see it the command and control fighter wouldn't be controlling the UCAVs, not in a literal sense anyway. Trying to control one aircraft while maneuvering in another would probably cause many a lunch to be lost. It would be more finding target and telling the UCAV to engage. All defensive measures would be automatic I assume. You are right though, that information could just as easily be sent back to base and they could give the order. The main drawback of UCAVs is they cant react like a human, having that guy watching over them from another aircraft can help negate that problem.

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?

In my opinion an existing aircraft could probably be converted. Pretty much anything can be strapped to a fighter, within reason.

[Purpelia]

*Boeing 747 AAC intensifies*

Which, might I add, has one key advantage over mid-air refueling.

Any word on what kind of fighter that thing was to carry?

[Oaledonia]

Which, might I add, has one key advantage over mid-air refueling.

Any word on what kind of fighter that thing was to carry?

Wooosh

[Purpelia]

That really does not tell me much.

[Oaledonia]

That really does not tell me much.

The Boeing 985-213 Microfighter.

[Purpelia]

That really does not tell me much.

The Boeing 985-213 Microfighter.

I actually know of the designation (surprisingly) from beforehand. But can find nothing about it.

[Oaledonia]

The Boeing 985-213 Microfighter.

I actually know of the designation (surprisingly) from beforehand. But can find nothing about it.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0529372

[Gallia-]

stop

no

why

[Oaledonia]

stop

no

why

Commie Galla hates AACs and other awesomes.

[Gallia-]

stop

no

why

Commie Galla hates AACs and other awesomes.

I meant why did you link him something that came up on the third or fourth hit on Google when I searched "Boeing microfighter".

[Oaledonia]

Commie Galla hates AACs and other awesomes.

I meant why did you link him something that came up on the third or fourth hit on Google when I searched "Boeing microfighter".

Oops

Anyways, the only real advantage it seems to have is the ability to re-arm for a different mission while still near the combat zone. Which seems to be negated by multi-roles.

[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.

I assume you are talking to me, if not, sorry for interrupting.

The way I see it the command and control fighter wouldn't be controlling the UCAVs, not in a literal sense anyway. Trying to control one aircraft while maneuvering in another would probably cause many a lunch to be lost. It would be more finding target and telling the UCAV to engage. All defensive measures would be automatic I assume. You are right though, that information could just as easily be sent back to base and they could give the order. The main drawback of UCAVs is they cant react like a human, having that guy watching over them from another aircraft can help negate that problem.

Yeah, apologies for not using the quote button, I didn't want to quote a lengthy post and was too lazy to edit. I see what you mean though concerning the UCAVs, I had thought you meant they were physically controlling the UAV from the second seat, while they're instead just correcting them in situations, and providing general coordination.

[Gallia-]

I meant why did you link him something that came up on the third or fourth hit on Google when I searched "Boeing microfighter".

Oops

Anyways, the only real advantage it seems to have is the ability to re-arm for a different mission while still near the combat zone. Which seems to be negated by multi-roles.

The real advantage is response time, since you're cutting out significant portions of flight from and to an airbase.

[Oaledonia]

Oops

Anyways, the only real advantage it seems to have is the ability to re-arm for a different mission while still near the combat zone. Which seems to be negated by multi-roles.

The real advantage is response time, since you're cutting out significant portions of flight from and to an airbase.

I just said that, lurn2context.

[Allentyr]

Here's a list of aircraft my military uses:

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=alle ... /id=205706

It might need work. Also, could anyone give me a list of UAVs to use?

[Gallia-]

The real advantage is response time, since you're cutting out significant portions of flight from and to an airbase.

I just said that, lurn2context.

How is it negated by a multirole aircraft? The latter will still have to fly back to airbase, refuel, rearm, and fly back to the combat zone.

The 747 can just float near the combat zone and spit out tiny fighters at anything that the AWACS points out. The disadvantage (aside from the disadvantages of having an 747 based AAC) of microfighter is loiter time.

[Oaledonia]

I just said that, lurn2context.

How is it negated by a multirole aircraft? The latter will still have to fly back to airbase, refuel, rearm, and fly back to the combat zone.

The 747 can just float within the combat zone and spit out tiny fighters at anything that the AWACS points out.

Because the combined 8 microfighters had a total combat load of similar multiroles? (Guessing Oale is guessing)

[Britinthia]

[

Yeah, apologies for not using the quote button, I didn't want to quote a lengthy post and was too lazy to edit. I see what you mean though concerning the UCAVs, I had thought you meant they were physically controlling the UAV from the second seat, while they're instead just correcting them in situations, and providing general coordination.

While it probably wont work in real combat I think you have just shown me my new favourite way to torment Air Cadets on visits to an Air Base.

"Wanna fly in the back of a fighter?"

"YEAH!"

"Wanna fly a uav while in the fighter"

"YEAH... *sound of breakfast being violently ejected from the cadet*"

[Gallia-]

How is it negated by a multirole aircraft? The latter will still have to fly back to airbase, refuel, rearm, and fly back to the combat zone.

The 747 can just float within the combat zone and spit out tiny fighters at anything that the AWACS points out.

Because the combined 8 microfighters had a total combat load of similar multiroles? (Guessing Oale is guessing)

Microfighter would have carried a cannon and like two AIM-7s. You'd probably get like 30 minutes of flight time or something silly with that.

They weren't multiroles, they were parasite fighters.

[Oaledonia]

Because the combined 8 microfighters had a total combat load of similar multiroles? (Guessing Oale is guessing)

Microfighter would have carried a cannon and like two AIM-7s. You'd probably get like 30 minutes of flight time or something silly with that.

They weren't multiroles, they were parasite fighters.

So liek bomber escorts? :3

[Gallia-]

Microfighter would have carried a cannon and like two AIM-7s. You'd probably get like 30 minutes of flight time or something silly with that.

They weren't multiroles, they were parasite fighters.

So liek bomber escorts? :3

They wouldn't have the range to escort anything.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

[

Yeah, apologies for not using the quote button, I didn't want to quote a lengthy post and was too lazy to edit. I see what you mean though concerning the UCAVs, I had thought you meant they were physically controlling the UAV from the second seat, while they're instead just correcting them in situations, and providing general coordination.

While it probably wont work in real combat I think you have just shown me my new favourite way to torment Air Cadets on visits to an Air Base.

"Wanna fly in the back of a fighter?"

"YEAH!"

"Wanna fly a uav while in the fighter"

"YEAH... *sound of breakfast being violently ejected from the cadet*"

By the time the drones finally get utilized for reconnaissance, spotting, and attack, the cadets will hate them so much that they'll be trying to shoot their own drones down, to avenge hundreds of lost breakfasts and so many uniforms soaked with vomit.