Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[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.

[Triplebaconation]

The F-14 didn't fit into neat little wiki categories, sorry.

[Oaledonia]

Hypothetically, if the Radar Operator at Pearl Harbor somehow knew that those where intruding aircraft, how would the scenario have played out?

[Freihafen]

dont be silly

f-14 is only an interceptor in the same sense that f-15 prior to strike eagle was an air superiority fighter

it really boils down to the electronics

f-14e gogo

[The Grand World Order]

-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.

wait wait what

an EA-18G Growler isn't a recon plane, it's an EW platform, EW is a form of fire

Electronic Attack 18

[Spirit of Hope]

Hypothetically, if the Radar Operator at Pearl Harbor somehow knew that those where intruding aircraft, how would the scenario have played out?

Depends, if the warning from the radar operators was timely, taken seriously and the US forces responded well the Japanese forces would have been in for a hell of a fight. This is however slightly doubtful.

First THe US fleet would likely have made ready for battle, at the very least manning AA guns, clearing decks, getting people to there stations and otherwise preparing for battle. Likely they would have attempted to make way to open water so they could better maneuver, though I don't know if they would have had the time to make it of the harbor.

Additionally US warplanes would have risen to fight the Japanese force, they might not have been that successful given the maneuverability of the Zero, but they certainly would have made life difficult, plus dive bombers and torpedo planes aren't ever that maneuverable and fast.

The interesting thing is could/would the US fleet then attempt to engage the Japanese fleet? Depending on the changes to US casualties they could have had a formidable strike force, with air coverage, bombers, and knowledge of where the Japanese fleet was.

It certainly would have made the battle different.

[The Akasha Colony]

The interesting thing is could/would the US fleet then attempt to engage the Japanese fleet? Depending on the changes to US casualties they could have had a formidable strike force, with air coverage, bombers, and knowledge of where the Japanese fleet was.

It certainly would have made the battle different.

Unlikely. Once the Japanese knew their first strike had been intercepted, they'd have turned around and left. They hadn't planned for a fleet confrontation at that time, and with the losses that may have been incurred fighting off the US defenses, they'd have likely preferred to engage at a different time of their own choosing.

The US probably wouldn't have pursued them either. They wouldn't be sufficiently organized even if they had managed to put to sea, and coordinating with Army Air Force planes operating in an entirely different chain of command would have been complicated at best. On top of that, the battleships at Pearl Harbor were of the old Standard type, not exactly fast to begin with and not able to close the gap with the Japanese (who were well north of Oahu) from the south, where Pearl Harbor is.

[Spirit of Hope]

The interesting thing is could/would the US fleet then attempt to engage the Japanese fleet? Depending on the changes to US casualties they could have had a formidable strike force, with air coverage, bombers, and knowledge of where the Japanese fleet was.

It certainly would have made the battle different.

Unlikely. Once the Japanese knew their first strike had been intercepted, they'd have turned around and left. They hadn't planned for a fleet confrontation at that time, and with the losses that may have been incurred fighting off the US defenses, they'd have likely preferred to engage at a different time of their own choosing.

The US probably wouldn't have pursued them either. They wouldn't be sufficiently organized even if they had managed to put to sea, and coordinating with Army Air Force planes operating in an entirely different chain of command would have been complicated at best. On top of that, the battleships at Pearl Harbor were of the old Standard type, not exactly fast to begin with and not able to close the gap with the Japanese (who were well north of Oahu) from the south, where Pearl Harbor is.

I agree, it probably wouldn't have happened. But without the US fleet engaging the Japanese fleet there would have been very little strategic change because of knowing about Pearl Harbor.

[Triplebaconation]

It would have been exactly the same.

[Rabbidskiya Republika]

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.

-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.

[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.

[Rabbidskiya Republika]

-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.

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

[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.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Hypothetically, if the Radar Operator at Pearl Harbor somehow knew that those where intruding aircraft, how would the scenario have played out?

No differently. Maybe more US aircraft would have been destroyed on the runway rather than in the hangers.

[The Akasha Colony]

Hypothetically, if the Radar Operator at Pearl Harbor somehow knew that those where intruding aircraft, how would the scenario have played out?

No differently. Maybe more US aircraft would have been destroyed on the runway rather than in the hangers.

Or there'd be a bunch of ordnance being loaded up for even more spectacular explosions.

[San-Silvacian]

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.

[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.

[Organized States]

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.

At the time, Hickam and Wheeler had some of their aircraft fueled (10-20 I believe at each, some of them being fighters, while most were PBYs for search and rescue stuff). Here in the US now (after 9/11, I'm assuming Canada responded similarly), 2-5 Fighters from every Air Defense Zone (National Guard Aircraft usually, with a few exceptions) are either flying on a CAP, or hot and ready on the ground.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

It wasn't. The US had no real expectation of being attacked, and inter-service lack of communication would have delayed any transmission of information even further.

Not like it would have mattered. By the time the Japanese were already in the air and detectable, there was insufficient time to ready the planes for flight or get the crews ready to depart the harbor. Even if there had been, the result may have been even worse. If the battleships had been sunk at sea, they would not be recoverable. Instead, being sunk in the harbor meant that aside from Arizona and Oklahoma, all were recovered, repaired, and sent back into action since the flooding had only settled them a few meters into the harbor mud.

[Luepola]

Now, here's an insane-ish question (I'm not expecting very positive answers on this): How easily could a stealth bomber, such as the B2 or upcoming PAK DA, be converted to a troop transport aircraft, assuming this would include pressurizing the bomb bay and adding seats? And would there be any benefit in doing this?

[Keyboard Warriors]

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.

The difference might have been more crew members on machine and anti-aircraft guns earlier, but otherwise there would have been no difference to ships in the harbor. The time it takes for a ship which is moored to build up enough steam to sail out of a harbor is hours, they simply were unable to move.

Now, here's an insane-ish question (I'm not expecting very positive answers on this): How easily could a stealth bomber, such as the B2 or upcoming PAK DA, be converted to a troop transport aircraft, assuming this would include pressurizing the bomb bay and adding seats? And would there be any benefit in doing this?

With difficulty and probably with impossibility if you wanted to add anymore than four or six extra seats or so.

I can't see why you'd want to:
-Parachuting from the aircraft means the enemy will easily be able to detect the parachutes.
-B2s are very difficult to fly and are designed to operate of long, smooth and wide runways, not the sort you're likely to find in a tactical insertion.

Seems pointless.

[San-Silvacian]

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.

They weren't in such a state to respond.

The US has Operation Noble Eagle, which is a rotation of air force bases on the East Coast, to perform patrols over Washington DC airspace and the entire coast in general, armed with live munitions.

In Afghanistan, there are ALWAYS a few aircraft sitting warmed up, filled with munitions, with the pilots sitting in their aircraft, meaning that in minutes they can be already up in the air. They still send aircraft up with A2A missiles typically and AIM-9 and an AIM-120 (At least for F-15Es) along with their bombs and other missiles.

I'm not sure about the West coast all to well.

I do know that when 9/11 happened, all the bases in the US when on lock down and loaded up. Edwards AFB, a base which is mostly for testing aircraft systems, loaded up a mere 2 F-15As or Cs with AIM-9s, AIM-7s and AIM-120s which weapons weren't even sure if they were even able to fire off since most of the F-15s in the squadron were different in terms of software.

[Rabbidskiya Republika]

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.

We are working on building new airframes for the Saabs and F-14s to be installed over the next few months, and new composite skins.

[Imperializt Russia]

Now, here's an insane-ish question (I'm not expecting very positive answers on this): How easily could a stealth bomber, such as the B2 or upcoming PAK DA, be converted to a troop transport aircraft, assuming this would include pressurizing the bomb bay and adding seats? And would there be any benefit in doing this?

You're basically not. Bomb bays are meant for bombs, not people. Pressurisation capability will possibly cripple certain stealth aspects. PAK-DA probably doesn't have the room on any level. It's a strike bomber, not a strategic bomber like the B2.

This also critically forgets the main point of stealth - invisibility is not a realistic goal against modern air defences. It's about reducing the range against which you can be spotted.

A far more practical option is to put men on the ground using low-altitude flights physically trying to evade radar. See the Abbottabad raids, where reduced-RCS helicopters were able to slip under the Pakistani radar network.

[Spirit of Hope]

Now, here's an insane-ish question (I'm not expecting very positive answers on this): How easily could a stealth bomber, such as the B2 or upcoming PAK DA, be converted to a troop transport aircraft, assuming this would include pressurizing the bomb bay and adding seats? And would there be any benefit in doing this?

First have you read the book Ghost by John Ringo? Because in said book he does exactly that, along side other really unrealistic things.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was physically possible to stuff a couple of men into the bomb bays in some form and deploy them. The problem is the usefulness of such. As already noted stealth isn't about not being seen, it is about shortening detection ranges. You will never shorten detection ranges to the point that a stealth aircraft could deploy paratroopers anywhere near where they need or should be.

Any nation where you could sneak in that close you would be much better off just plastering with explosives and taking troops in the regular way.