Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Rich and Corporations]

Random question time. We know that the Swiss make the best watches, knifes, rifles and tanks. But did Switzerland ever actually design a single military aircraft?

Nope. To memory, they imported war planes from the Nazis.

They don't really need aircraft. Aircraft is primarily an offensive weapon.

[Spirit of Hope]

Question: what changes need to be made to change a regular land-based aircraft to a naval fighter? I'd like to, if possible, use an aircraft that is built primarily for land-based operations, but can land on carriers if need be. The idea is that I could have jets that are able to operate from allied nations' carriers if need be, since my own navy is particularly lacking (since I only border the Baltic sea, so I only need to control that to secure my shores. Thus, no carriers), without having to build a specialized fighter for that role, since that would likely be impractical for a nation like mine.

The big deal is reinforcing the air frame and adding a way for the aircraft to catch the arresting cable and the catapult. It probably wouldn't be that hard to have most multi role and fighter aircraft be carrier capable. There were proposals for the Ero fighter to be carrier capable but those fell through do to cost and the added weight to the aircraft.

[The Akasha Colony]

Question: what changes need to be made to change a regular land-based aircraft to a naval fighter? I'd like to, if possible, use an aircraft that is built primarily for land-based operations, but can land on carriers if need be. The idea is that I could have jets that are able to operate from allied nations' carriers if need be, since my own navy is particularly lacking (since I only border the Baltic sea, so I only need to control that to secure my shores. Thus, no carriers), without having to build a specialized fighter for that role, since that would likely be impractical for a nation like mine.

The big deal is reinforcing the air frame and adding a way for the aircraft to catch the arresting cable and the catapult. It probably wouldn't be that hard to have most multi role and fighter aircraft be carrier capable. There were proposals for the Ero fighter to be carrier capable but those fell through do to cost and the added weight to the aircraft.

But therein lies the problem. Aircraft are designed for a certain performance standard and adding the weight of the reinforcement and the tailhook decreases that. Generally, existing naval aircraft have no problem being modified for ground use, but vice versa often gives mixed results at best.

[Organized States]

Random question time. We know that the Swiss make the best watches, knifes, rifles and tanks. But did Switzerland ever actually design a single military aircraft?

They build some nice trainers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-9), which Ireland modified into a COIN aircraft for their UN peacekeeping stuff. I believe Beechcraft's licensed version (T-6 Texan II) was built as a COIN Aircraft as well.

[Luepola]

Question: what changes need to be made to change a regular land-based aircraft to a naval fighter? I'd like to, if possible, use an aircraft that is built primarily for land-based operations, but can land on carriers if need be. The idea is that I could have jets that are able to operate from allied nations' carriers if need be, since my own navy is particularly lacking (since I only border the Baltic sea, so I only need to control that to secure my shores. Thus, no carriers), without having to build a specialized fighter for that role, since that would likely be impractical for a nation like mine.

The big deal is reinforcing the air frame and adding a way for the aircraft to catch the arresting cable and the catapult. It probably wouldn't be that hard to have most multi role and fighter aircraft be carrier capable. There were proposals for the Ero fighter to be carrier capable but those fell through do to cost and the added weight to the aircraft.

So, what benefits do land fighters have over naval fighters and vice versa, other than carrier compatibility (To make it a bit easier for you, can you compare the MiG-29M and MiG-29K?)?

Also, how easily could the Shenyang J-31 be outfitted as a naval fighter, if there's enough publicly disclosed (or otherwise known) information to answer that? I based my nation's fighter off of the J-31 because NS, but I guess I should update my fighter inventory if that can't fit the requirements (I don't actually field any non-stealth aircraft, apart from VTOLs and dedicated attack aircraft. I should probably change that).

[Spirit of Hope]

The big deal is reinforcing the air frame and adding a way for the aircraft to catch the arresting cable and the catapult. It probably wouldn't be that hard to have most multi role and fighter aircraft be carrier capable. There were proposals for the Ero fighter to be carrier capable but those fell through do to cost and the added weight to the aircraft.

So, what benefits do land fighters have over naval fighters and vice versa, other than carrier compatibility (To make it a bit easier for you, can you compare the MiG-29M and MiG-29K?)?

Also, how easily could the Shenyang J-31 be outfitted as a naval fighter, if there's enough publicly disclosed (or otherwise known) information to answer that? I based my nation's fighter off of the J-31 because NS, but I guess I should update my fighter inventory if that can't fit the requirements (I don't actually field any non-stealth aircraft, apart from VTOLs and dedicated attack aircraft. I should probably change that).

As Akasha notes, designing an aircraft to be carrier capable includes trade offs. Carrier based planes are going to be heavier than ground based planes, which can mean slower top speed, slower acceleration and less maneuverability.

The Shenyang J-31 is a tricky case, there isn't that much information and some of it is probably lies from both sides. I would say don't go with turning it into a naval fighter, it looks like it would be to complicated and might not even be possible.

[The Akasha Colony]

So, what benefits do land fighters have over naval fighters and vice versa, other than carrier compatibility (To make it a bit easier for you, can you compare the MiG-29M and MiG-29K?)?

Also, how easily could the Shenyang J-31 be outfitted as a naval fighter, if there's enough publicly disclosed (or otherwise known) information to answer that? I based my nation's fighter off of the J-31 because NS, but I guess I should update my fighter inventory if that can't fit the requirements (I don't actually field any non-stealth aircraft, apart from VTOLs and dedicated attack aircraft. I should probably change that).

Land fighters are lighter since they don't need reinforcements for catapult take off and arrested landings. Many carrier aircraft also have wing-folding mechanisms, which aren't needed on land-based fighters. The F-18L land-based variant of the F/A-18 Hornet was several tonnes lighter than its naval counterpart due to the removal of its carrier landing equipment. This means improved performance from the same components, as the wing loading is lower.

[Yukonastan]

So, what benefits do land fighters have over naval fighters and vice versa, other than carrier compatibility (To make it a bit easier for you, can you compare the MiG-29M and MiG-29K?)?

Also, how easily could the Shenyang J-31 be outfitted as a naval fighter, if there's enough publicly disclosed (or otherwise known) information to answer that? I based my nation's fighter off of the J-31 because NS, but I guess I should update my fighter inventory if that can't fit the requirements (I don't actually field any non-stealth aircraft, apart from VTOLs and dedicated attack aircraft. I should probably change that).

Land fighters are lighter since they don't need reinforcements for catapult take off and arrested landings. Many carrier aircraft also have wing-folding mechanisms, which aren't needed on land-based fighters. The F-18L land-based variant of the F/A-18 Hornet was several tonnes lighter than its naval counterpart due to the removal of its carrier landing equipment. This means improved performance from the same components, as the wing loading is lower.

That said, some nations operate naval fighters exclusively from land. Cited reasons are the wing-folding mechanism, to allow more compact storage, the arrestor hook to allow at the very least landing on short runways, and the stronger landing gear to allow operation from rough strips in the Arctic.inb4 canada

[The Akasha Colony]

Land fighters are lighter since they don't need reinforcements for catapult take off and arrested landings. Many carrier aircraft also have wing-folding mechanisms, which aren't needed on land-based fighters. The F-18L land-based variant of the F/A-18 Hornet was several tonnes lighter than its naval counterpart due to the removal of its carrier landing equipment. This means improved performance from the same components, as the wing loading is lower.

That said, some nations operate naval fighters exclusively from land. Cited reasons are the wing-folding mechanism, to allow more compact storage, the arrestor hook to allow at the very least landing on short runways, and the stronger landing gear to allow operation from rough strips in the Arctic.inb4 canada

You can actually still remove a lot of the dedicated carrier gear and save a lot of weight while retaining basic arrested landing capability. The F-18L and F/A-18L land-based variants both retained an arresting hook, but were much lighter than the carrier-model F/A-18A.

[Yukonastan]

That said, some nations operate naval fighters exclusively from land. Cited reasons are the wing-folding mechanism, to allow more compact storage, the arrestor hook to allow at the very least landing on short runways, and the stronger landing gear to allow operation from rough strips in the Arctic.inb4 canada

You can actually still remove a lot of the dedicated carrier gear and save a lot of weight while retaining basic arrested landing capability. The F-18L and F/A-18L land-based variants both retained an arresting hook, but were much lighter than the carrier-model F/A-18A.

Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols), an excellent radar set, while being considerably more affordable than the F-14 and the F-15.
...
Many features that made the F/A-18 suitable for naval carrier operations were also retained by the Canadian Forces, such as the robust landing gear, the arrestor hook, and wing folding mechanisms, which proved useful when operating the fighters from smaller airfields such as those found in the Arctic.

[Triplebaconation]

The CF-188 and the F-18L aren't the same thing.

Random question time. We know that the Swiss make the best watches, knifes, rifles and tanks. But did Switzerland ever actually design a single military aircraft?

Several.

[Oaledonia]

You son of a bitch

[Hasmonea]

Random question time. We know that the Swiss make the best watches, knifes, rifles and tanks. But did Switzerland ever actually design a single military aircraft?

Several.

The ALR Piranha is swell.

[Allanea]

Question for you people.

Now as we know Zeppelin aircraft carriers went out of vogue somewhere around the late 1930s, due to the fact it was difficult to get the aircraft back onto the Zeppelin.

But what if instead of aircraft, we had small hexacopter/octocopter/whatever-copter drones?

We could then have a dronezep fly into an area, and then hexacopters fly off the dronezep and patrol, say, an area of 10 km in radius in great detail, communicate to the dronezep, which carries say a high-power, high-bandwidth communications antenna and then communicates everything back to headquarters which is say 50-100 kilometers back, and then maybe headquarters launches helicopters/missiles/MLRS strikes at suspicious things such as guerilla teams moving etc.

[Purpelia]

Question for you people.

Now as we know Zeppelin aircraft carriers went out of vogue somewhere around the late 1930s, due to the fact it was difficult to get the aircraft back onto the Zeppelin.

But what if instead of aircraft, we had small hexacopter/octocopter/whatever-copter drones?

We could then have a dronezep fly into an area, and then hexacopters fly off the dronezep and patrol, say, an area of 10 km in radius in great detail, communicate to the dronezep, which carries say a high-power, high-bandwidth communications antenna and then communicates everything back to headquarters which is say 50-100 kilometers back, and then maybe headquarters launches helicopters/missiles/MLRS strikes at suspicious things such as guerilla teams moving etc.

Sounds to me like a massively more expensive, complicated and less useful version of an UAV spam.
The immediate problem I see is that if your patrol radius is 10km that means your airships need to be within MANPAD range of what ever they are observing. Your enemy having any form of rudimentary air defense or worse yet something like a ZSU-23-4 is going to basically make them useless.

[Allanea]

That's obviously only a problem when fighting a conventional force.

Of course, it's possible that patrol radius will be longer.

[Purpelia]

That's obviously only a problem when fighting a conventional force.

Of course, it's possible that patrol radius will be longer.

I would not be so sure. If Afghanistan has proven anything it's that MANPADs are often found in the hands of guerrilla forces.

[Allanea]

And are rather ineffective in these hands.

[Imperializt Russia]

And are rather ineffective in these hands.

Fuel elements and batteries being forty years old doesn't help.

[Allanea]

Look up effectiveness statistics on combat use of Stinger missiles and Strelas in the Soviet-Afghan war. It ain't pretty.

[Imperializt Russia]

Look up effectiveness statistics on combat use of Stinger missiles and Strelas in the Soviet-Afghan war. It ain't pretty.

In what manner?

[Allanea]

Basically MANPADs were far far less effective than the myth claims.

[Purpelia]

Basically MANPADs were far far less effective than the myth claims.

And a static airship is much easier to hit than a fighter jet.

[Allanea]

1. Solution, make the range of the UAVs longer.

2. Will MANPADs be able to lock on to its engine?

[Purpelia]

1. Solution, make the range of the UAVs longer.

2. Will MANPADs be able to lock on to its engine?

If all else fails a RPG shot might rattle it. It's a mostly static and huge airborne target. Get creative.