Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Pharthan]

I am trying to into MT strategic bomber
I'm not really sure what I'm doing.

10/10 would just smooth out the blend in the front "head" thingy with the rest of the fuselage.

[New Visegrad]

I am trying to into MT strategic bomber
I'm not really sure what I'm doing.

10/10 would just smooth out the blend in the front "head" thingy with the rest of the fuselage.

At the moment it looks like this, which I'm quite happy with.

[Paragania]

At the moment it looks like this, which I'm quite happy with.

Looks really good!

I feel like if it were thinner and longer like a dart it would look better though.

[New Visegrad]

At the moment it looks like this, which I'm quite happy with.

Looks really good!

I feel like if it were thinner and longer like a dart it would look better though.

That was one of the options, but I decided to go the opposite way and make it shorter and more B-2alike. Since it was already quite wide and flat I thought that fitted better.

Edit: improved

[New Visegrad]

I don't usually double post, but when I do, it's to mention that I can't think of anything else to add to this and now's the time to mention anything I've forgotten.

SeR-87 Bhala strategic strike aircraft
Carries high-volume munitions and heavy missiles on long-range missions. In the event of a nuclear exchange, SeR-87s are planned to be part of the second wave of nuclear delivery vehicles, after submarine-launched warheads and alongside ICBMs.

Edit: I should start making notes of my Hindi translations. I legitimately have no idea what the "Se" part of Cirasthayi aircraft designations stands for any more.

[Yukonastan]

Question: What sort of air-to-air missiles had TNT-based warheads in the '70s? Especially American, French, and whatever the Libyans had around that time.

[Spodystan]

Quick question, what would be a good modern tactical recon aircraft that could replace the RF4E or do they even make dedicated tac recon birds anymore?

[Atlantica]

Quick question, what would be a good modern tactical recon aircraft that could replace the RF4E or do they even make dedicated tac recon birds anymore?

In a concept similar to the RF-4, I guess you can use the RF-16 or even the proposed RF-15.

[Organized States]

Quick question, what would be a good modern tactical recon aircraft that could replace the RF4E or do they even make dedicated tac recon birds anymore?

In a concept similar to the RF-4, I guess you can use the RF-16 or even the proposed RF-15.

Or develop an RF-35A if you feel like you have the time.

[Morganutopia]

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 250
F-22 raptor 600
F-35C/B 1,250
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 450
Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit 75
B-1B 65
What is your opinion on my air force, any advice?

[Spirit of Hope]

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 250
F-22 raptor 600
F-35C/B 1,250
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 450
Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit 75
B-1B 65
What is your opinion on my air force, any advice?

Well you need to have some support aircraft. Things like tankers and AWACs.
Why the F-/A-18? It would only make sense if you have it for carriers, but the F-35 is carrier capable.
You have way to many F-22 and B-2 for the number of F-35, F-15, and B-1s. F-22 are great but are an ai superiority fighter, they can do other things but aren't that efficient about it, the same is true of the B-2 with the difference being it is a very costly stealth bomber.

[The Akasha Colony]

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 250
F-22 raptor 600
F-35C/B 1,250
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 450
Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit 75
B-1B 65
What is your opinion on my air force, any advice?

Why do you have both the F/A-18 and the F-15? Unless you need carrier aircraft, the latter is better than the former. It might also be helpful to have a medium fighter, such as the F-16 or F-35A.

You also most likely need transport aircraft as well.

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 250
F-22 raptor 600
F-35C/B 1,250
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 450
Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit 75
B-1B 65
What is your opinion on my air force, any advice?

Well you need to have some support aircraft. Things like tankers and AWACs.
Why the F-/A-18? It would only make sense if you have it for carriers, but the F-35 is carrier capable.
You have way to many F-22 and B-2 for the number of F-35, F-15, and B-1s. F-22 are great but are an ai superiority fighter, they can do other things but aren't that efficient about it, the same is true of the B-2 with the difference being it is a very costly stealth bomber.

There's no set ratio of fighter types. The F-22 is also fine for air to ground work, the current shortcomings are software immaturity. Air-to-air was a priority but hardware these days is capable of a lot of different roles, it just needs the proper software to enable those modes. There's also a lot of upgrade space in the F-22 for additional hardware in the event the USAF ever gets more funding.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well you need to have some support aircraft. Things like tankers and AWACs.
Why the F-/A-18? It would only make sense if you have it for carriers, but the F-35 is carrier capable.
You have way to many F-22 and B-2 for the number of F-35, F-15, and B-1s. F-22 are great but are an ai superiority fighter, they can do other things but aren't that efficient about it, the same is true of the B-2 with the difference being it is a very costly stealth bomber.

There's no set ratio of fighter types. The F-22 is also fine for air to ground work, the current shortcomings are software immaturity. Air-to-air was a priority but hardware these days is capable of a lot of different roles, it just needs the proper software to enable those modes. There's also a lot of upgrade space in the F-22 for additional hardware in the event the USAF ever gets more funding.

All very true, I guess I should have said "how much are you paying for all of this." The F-35 is/will be one of the top aircraft in the world, and is certainly in competing range with everything above it. I just don't see the need for 600 F-22s alongside 1,200 F-35s.

[Crookfur]

Quick question, what would be a good modern tactical recon aircraft that could replace the RF4E or do they even make dedicated tac recon birds anymore?

Just about any modern multirole can do the job with the help of a decent podded system. Most of the current western systems are based around the UTAS DB-110 sensor package:

http://utcaerospacesystems.com/cap/Docu ... system.pdf

[The balkens]

Panavia Tornado, good for Ground attack?

[Luepola]

Alright. To my knowledge, some of the last piston-engined fighter/attack aircraft that saw mass production before the near-complete takeover of the roles by jet aircraft are planes such as the Sea Fury, La-9, A-1 Skyraider and F8F Bearcat, among others. If R&D had continued on piston/prop aircraft well into the 50's and even 60's, what could i imagine these aircraft would be like, in terms of armament, performance, looks, etc.? I do fully understand that their performance will likely be sub-par to their contemporary jet-powered counterparts.

I ask this because in my canon, my nation was defeated in a war with mid-WWII technology, and was rendered unable to research jet/rocket technology. Thus, they would be using indigenously-designed prop aircraft until the early 70's, when they would begin importing MiGs.

[Organized States]

Alright. To my knowledge, some of the last piston-engined fighter/attack aircraft that saw mass production before the near-complete takeover of the roles by jet aircraft are planes such as the Sea Fury, La-9, A-1 Skyraider and F8F Bearcat, among others. If R&D had continued on piston/prop aircraft well into the 50's and even 60's, what could i imagine these aircraft would be like, in terms of armament, performance, looks, etc.? I do fully understand that their performance will likely be sub-par to their contemporary jet-powered counterparts.

I ask this because in my canon, my nation was defeated in a war with mid-WWII technology, and was rendered unable to research jet/rocket technology. Thus, they would be using indigenously-designed prop aircraft until the early 70's, when they would begin importing MiGs.

Well, there was the Thunderscreech. That'd definately be something to look into.

[New Korongo]

Alright. To my knowledge, some of the last piston-engined fighter/attack aircraft that saw mass production before the near-complete takeover of the roles by jet aircraft are planes such as the Sea Fury, La-9, A-1 Skyraider and F8F Bearcat, among others. If R&D had continued on piston/prop aircraft well into the 50's and even 60's, what could i imagine these aircraft would be like, in terms of armament, performance, looks, etc.? I do fully understand that their performance will likely be sub-par to their contemporary jet-powered counterparts.

I ask this because in my canon, my nation was defeated in a war with mid-WWII technology, and was rendered unable to research jet/rocket technology. Thus, they would be using indigenously-designed prop aircraft until the early 70's, when they would begin importing MiGs.

If research and development into propeller-driven aircraft did continue, I doubt the resulting design would be significantly more advanced than the aircraft you mention.

You could probably expect a turboprop engine driving contra-rotating propellers, though a more efficient and powerful development of radial engine like the Wright R-3350 or an inline engine like the Napier Sabre could also be a possibility. You would probably be looking at a maximum speed somewhere between Mach 0.7 and Mach 0.8 at most. To achieve this speed, your propellers will be most likely be travelling faster than the speed of sound and that has some big disadvantages. Namely considerable noise and a continuous sonic boom. Mach 0.6 - 0.7 would be a more practical speed.

The aircraft probably would not look that different from the Sea Fury or Bear Cat, though it could take on the appearance of early jet fighters with the nose inlet replaced with the engine and propellers. Look into the XF-84H to see what I mean. I would not expect gun armament to change much from the designs you mentioned. Four 20 mm cannons located in the wings would be most likely. The aircraft could also be fitted with a couple of short range air to air missiles or unguided rockets. Radar is difficult since the propellers and engine occupy the nose, but you could put the antenna dish in a fairing on the wing. The F6F-5N had such a set up. The range of the aircraft could be possible through wingtip tanks. Even with radar and air to air missiles, the effectiveness of the aircraft against jet fighter designs would decrease significantly. By the late 1960s you would probably have to relegate it to training and ground attack roles.

With that said, many small air forces soldiered on with propeller aircraft after the Second World War ended for quite some time. Some Mustangs remained in service until the 1980s and Burma only received Sea Furies in 1958. Researching and developing an entirely new aircraft might not be worth the cost. Also, I am not an expert in these things so take what I said with a grain of salt.

[Urran]

What would serve as an excellent replacement for the P-3C Orion as a long-range maritime patrol aircraft?

The P8 that was built to replace it.

[New Vihenia]

Study on new Vihenian Delta-Canard light-medium low radar observability fighter.

Concept

RCS sim.



The fighter will be mainly for volume export to allies or any interested parties, featuring high maneuverability, versatility and ruggedness to allow reduced training and facility requirement for the aircraft. Should stealth is no longer required the aircraft features capability to support external pylons.

[Bratislavskaya]

Not necessarily an air force question, but would it be possible to turn an An-225 into a large passenger jet, similar to the Boeing 747? I'm looking for long range passenger aircraft, from the east, and there doesn't seem to be anything comparable to the 747 (in range at least) other than the An-225.

[New Vihenia]

Not necessarily an air force question, but would it be possible to turn an An-225 into a large passenger jet, similar to the Boeing 747? I'm looking for long range passenger aircraft, from the east, and there doesn't seem to be anything comparable to the 747 (in range at least) other than the An-225.

Il-96-300. Granted it only has half passanger seat as 747. But then that's the closest.

Converting AN-225 to carry passanger may likely not end well, given that it's been optimized for cargo not for passanger.

[San-Silvacian]

Alright. To my knowledge, some of the last piston-engined fighter/attack aircraft that saw mass production before the near-complete takeover of the roles by jet aircraft are planes such as the Sea Fury, La-9, A-1 Skyraider and F8F Bearcat, among others. If R&D had continued on piston/prop aircraft well into the 50's and even 60's, what could i imagine these aircraft would be like, in terms of armament, performance, looks, etc.? I do fully understand that their performance will likely be sub-par to their contemporary jet-powered counterparts.

I ask this because in my canon, my nation was defeated in a war with mid-WWII technology, and was rendered unable to research jet/rocket technology. Thus, they would be using indigenously-designed prop aircraft until the early 70's, when they would begin importing MiGs.

They would most likely do what most people did and had to work with shitty mid to late WW2 style props.

[Triplebaconation]

Not necessarily an air force question, but would it be possible to turn an An-225 into a large passenger jet, similar to the Boeing 747? I'm looking for long range passenger aircraft, from the east, and there doesn't seem to be anything comparable to the 747 (in range at least) other than the An-225.

No.

[Luepola]

If research and development into propeller-driven aircraft did continue, I doubt the resulting design would be significantly more advanced than the aircraft you mention.

You could probably expect a turboprop engine driving contra-rotating propellers, though a more efficient and powerful development of radial engine like the Wright R-3350 or an inline engine like the Napier Sabre could also be a possibility. You would probably be looking at a maximum speed somewhere between Mach 0.7 and Mach 0.8 at most. To achieve this speed, your propellers will be most likely be travelling faster than the speed of sound and that has some big disadvantages. Namely considerable noise and a continuous sonic boom. Mach 0.6 - 0.7 would be a more practical speed.

The aircraft probably would not look that different from the Sea Fury or Bear Cat, though it could take on the appearance of early jet fighters with the nose inlet replaced with the engine and propellers. Look into the XF-84H to see what I mean. I would not expect gun armament to change much from the designs you mentioned. Four 20 mm cannons located in the wings would be most likely. The aircraft could also be fitted with a couple of short range air to air missiles or unguided rockets. Radar is difficult since the propellers and engine occupy the nose, but you could put the antenna dish in a fairing on the wing. The F6F-5N had such a set up. The range of the aircraft could be possible through wingtip tanks. Even with radar and air to air missiles, the effectiveness of the aircraft against jet fighter designs would decrease significantly. By the late 1960s you would probably have to relegate it to training and ground attack roles.

With that said, many small air forces soldiered on with propeller aircraft after the Second World War ended for quite some time. Some Mustangs remained in service until the 1980s and Burma only received Sea Furies in 1958. Researching and developing an entirely new aircraft might not be worth the cost. Also, I am not an expert in these things so take what I said with a grain of salt.

They would most likely do what most people did and had to work with shitty mid to late WW2 style props.

Alright, from these responses I'm guessing that piston engines reached their maximum possible performance in the Sea Fury and similar. What if I opted to use a turboprop instead, ala the C-130's engine (but optimized for fighter/attack)? I do understand that they're quite similar to jets, but I also know they didn't really become a thing until a little while after WWII (AFAIK, the Tu-95 was the first mass-produced turboprop aircraft and it didn't surface until the 50's), so turboprop research would've likely been overlooked and therefore permitted; thus, unless the cons outweigh the pros of using a turboprop over a piston engine for a propeller-driven aircraft, my nation would readily use turboprop fighters.

tldr 60's-era turboprop fighters y/n