Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Bratislavskaya]

The Peoples Revolutionary Air Forces of Tongola (PRAFT) operates the fallowing aircraft:

Fixed Wing

• 5 Shenyang J-5
• 3 MB-326
• 4 Air Tractor AT-300 (Used as combat and crop dusting aircraft )
• 1 Piper PA-23
  Helicopter
• 1 Alouette II
• 1 SA 330 Puma
• 1 Bell 412 (converted to a gunship)

I take it as you're going for a...rusted aesthetic?

[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.

[Bratislavskaya]

Quick question: As my main heavy fighter should I replace the Su-27 with the Su-35S or an Su-30 variant?

[Bratislavskaya]

Right I am going to do an aircraft rundown, any suggestions would be appreciated:

Fighters:
Su-27
MiG-29(Used in Fighter Air Regiments in Tactical Air Divisions which are mixed units that get deployed to foreign nations to support troops)
Above are to be replaced by the Su-35 and MiG-35 respectively
MiG-31

Strike Aircraft:
Su-25
Su-24
Above to be replaced by Su-39 and Su-34 respectively

Bombers
Tu-95
Tu-160

Transport
An-3
An-26
An-12 (to be replaced by Shaanxi Y-9)
Il-76
An-124
An-225

Special Mission
Beriev A-50
KJ-200
Il-78

Trainers
L-39
To be replaced by Yak-130
And Trainer variants of other Aircraft in service.

Seem good?

[Bratislavskaya]

Right I am going to do an aircraft rundown, any suggestions would be appreciated:

Fighters:
Su-27
MiG-29(Used in Fighter Air Regiments in Tactical Air Divisions which are mixed units that get deployed to foreign nations to support troops)
Above are to be replaced by the Su-35 and MiG-35 respectively
MiG-31

Strike Aircraft:
Su-25
Su-24
Above to be replaced by Su-39 and Su-34 respectively

Bombers
Tu-95
Tu-160

Transport
An-3
An-26
An-12 (to be replaced by Shaanxi Y-9)
Il-76
An-124
An-225

Special Mission
Beriev A-50
KJ-200
Il-78

Trainers
L-39
To be replaced by Yak-130
And Trainer variants of other Aircraft in service.

Seem good?

Might want a basic trainer.

People who apply for pilot positions should have prior experience, which is fairly easy to get through the DOSAAF equivalent.

[Bratislavskaya]

People who apply for pilot positions should have prior experience, which is fairly easy to get through the DOSAAF equivalent.

Oh, fair enough.

Not quite sure that the best though. You do have the possiblity of limiting your pilot corps to a rather small force. That can either be absolutely great, or really bad.

Most people are encouraged to take part in the organisation. They also are the people who give driving lessons. It's near free as well, so anyone can afford it.

[Bratislavskaya]

With Fifth Gen Jets just around the corner, is it worth upgrading my 4th Gen Jets to 4++ or should I just wait and replace with Fifth Gen?

[Bratislavskaya]

That depends on your acquisition options. Remember, just because these things are out there does not mean you'll be able to buy them. You either have to develop your own or pray that someone who does is willing to sell you some before a decade or so passes and they have already produced all the units they want or need. And this is assuming they want to sell at all.

Well, I would be able to acquire anything Russian (USSR still exists as a looser EU like thing, and RF is the RSFSR) so the PAK-FA won't be an issue, and I'm sure China is willing to sell me stuff. The question is whether or not it's worth the cost, and the wait.

[Bratislavskaya]

In that case it depends on the state of your existing fleet. Are they competitive with other fleets out there that do not have 5th gens or are they inferior? Also, are you under any foreign military pressure that forces you to get something out fast?

The current fleet is fairly well maintained, but the majority of it has been in service since the 1980's. The majority of the fleet consists of Su-27's, Su-25s and Su-24's, along with a few MiG-29's for service in the Navy (that's the stuff I'll look to replace at least). The reason I'm wanting to upgrade is due to a military modernization program that is to take place over the next five years (a Five Year Plan for the military if you will) and I'm going to replace the majority of military equipment, to "bring the Bratislavskayan Military fully into the 21st Century", and "allow it to take a more active role in the world today". I'm going to replace the stuff, but the question is 4++ or 5th Gen?

[Bratislavskaya]

I am thinking of putting together a police factbook right now and i want to standardize search and rescue helicopters for the police.

Something small, cheap to operate, single pilot with the ability to use it as a trainer, maximum 3-4 persons in the cab total. Needs to be able to carry stretchers externally and be fitted with an optics pod for search operations. A light armament would be nice but not required.

Ideas?

Ka-226? That could work.

[Bratislavskaya]

To replace my Su-27's as my primary air superiority aircraft which would be a better idea the J-11B or the Su-30MKK (Or variants of it)? And of the next gen fighters, which of these three is probably going to end better: the J-20, J-31 or the PAK-FA (and variants)?

[Bratislavskaya]

To replace my Su-27's as my primary air superiority aircraft which would be a better idea the J-11B or the Su-30MKK (Or variants of it)? And of the next gen fighters, which of these three is probably going to end better: the J-20, J-31 or the PAK-FA (and variants)?

1. Su-35
2. PAK-FA

1: Any particular reason to use it over the others that I named?
2: Good.

[Bratislavskaya]

1: Any particular reason to use it over the others that I named?
2: Good.

Su-35 is the most advanced member of the Flanker family and a direct evolution of the Su-27 which you are already using.

What is so advanced about it? What specific things make it better than the MKK or the J-11? The engines? The Avionics?

[Bratislavskaya]

What is so advanced about it? What specific things make it better than the MKK or the J-11? The engines? The Avionics?

It's newer and not Chinese.

This is the thing however: I want Chinese. I want to RP be getting a bit cuddly with the Chinese because reasons, and happen to be upgrading stuff at the same time. Could I just use the J-11B and slap some new shiz in there? Su-35 engines, updated avionics, and a few more hardpoints?

[Bratislavskaya]

This is the thing however: I want Chinese. I want to RP be getting a bit cuddly with the Chinese because reasons, and happen to be upgrading stuff at the same time. Could I just use the J-11B and slap some new shiz in there? Su-35 engines, updated avionics, and a few more hardpoints?

So keep just the body? That is only going to increase the cost, and might not even be possible depending on a number of factors. You can put better avionics in, but the space you have to work with is limited by the original avionics, same goes for engines, and other fiddly bits. You can't just add extra hard points, the number an aircraft has is determined by how much load the wings can carry, size of munitions, etc.

In the end you can't really just "slap some new shiz in there."

Both aircraft are evolved variants of the Su-27, so I don't see the upgrades being that difficult, but they would be kind of pointless when I could just buy the Su-35.

[Bratislavskaya]

This is the thing however: I want Chinese. I want to RP be getting a bit cuddly with the Chinese because reasons, and happen to be upgrading stuff at the same time.

But that involves a slightly different question: not "which is best," but "which is the most likely acquisition choice for my country given the options at its disposal, the priorities of its government, and the rationale the buyer will use?"

From a purely RP standpoint, you could just accept that your military bought the J-11 for political reasons, and accept that it isn't the best quality out there. Which, IRL, happens all the time.

If you insist on the *NS* path of best-and-brightest-everything, then potentially you could order the design and manufacture of a special variant with a J-11 airframe but the engines, electronics, and hardpoint layout of your choice, sort of like India's Su-30MKI or Malaysia's Su-30MKM. But this depends on the seller's relations with you and a range of other things specific to your international context.

I'm thinking local production but in a modified form, with some upgrades. Sound decent?

[Bratislavskaya]

How does the J-31 compare to current 4++ Gen fighters? Will it be a match for say Su-27 variants?

[Bratislavskaya]

Anybody know of a good V/STOVL aircraft for Amphibious Assault Ships. I do not want Harriers. I already have those. Any other designs or NS planes I could use?

change "good" to "bad" and use this

Why would he use the trainer version when he could use the non-trainer:

Guaranteed not to be a massive disappointment upon delivery! I still RP having a number of the things about due to them not being fully replaced by 141's, because the Navy is the unloved child of the Bratislavskayan state.

[Britinthia]

F-20, if it was put into production and continually modernised, as the F-16 has been, is it a sensible fighter? Assuming that by 2010-ish it will have been relegated to supporting UCAVs anyway. Also naval variant possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

[Britinthia]

Maybe. Keep in mind it was created as a cheaper, reduced capability F-16 due to Carter's export restrictions. When that died out the plane was overshadowed in the market by the F-16. If continued it might make a decent lightweight, low-cost fighter. JF-17 rings some bells there for comparison.

The concept today lives on as the FA-50
The F-20 would just be a better version of that, with a slightly smaller payload, so I think it'd be "sensible."

That works for me. I have no need for a super-duper stealth fighter that can do everything. I just need a little something to say I have an combat ready air force.

[Britinthia]

That works for me. I have no need for a super-duper stealth fighter that can do everything. I just need a little something to say I have an combat ready air force.

Yeah, as said above, you should get a full sized fighter—something around the size of an F-16, Gripen, or even Eurofighter or Rafale. If you're cash-strapped, use a combination of a few of those with larger numbers of F-20s.

Well I have UCAVs (non autonomous) to do the dirty work, which I reckon will have replaced a manned fighter in the 2005-2010 area. Probably a tornado or other obsolete European fighter. F-20s are just there to back them up and provide an up-close human presence to help pilots on the ground.

If you are wondering about UCAVs suitability in MT, I refer you to this study, which taking into account Britinthia is a fictional nation with different aims, interests and cultural values to the U.S. I don't see any reason it cannot be possible.
http://www.cosmicscribbler.com/erau/Res ... ityUAV.pdf

[Britinthia]

Dates can be altered, 2015-2020, see I did it right there, but UCAVs have been in service long before that study was written. It states that only two things stand in the way of UCAVs;

"Situational Awareness will be able to meet the requirements in the near future with few advances in technology, but the ability will be expensive due to the number of sensors that are required and the amount of processing or bandwidth required (depending on the level of autonomous operation) will be high."

Situational awareness, which it even goes as far as to say can be overcome with enough investment in the appropriate technology,
Lack of real-time control, which can be overcome with enough R&D in appropriate fields and more likely, not using them on the other side of the globe without someone on the ground (or better still, a carrier) to operate them.


The jump from blowing up insurgents in the desert to enemy aircraft isn't that big if you are that way inclined. Logical, no. Possible, yes.

[Britinthia]

Its almost as if you didn't bother reading the study's abstract, conclusion and recomendations . A.K.A. the three parts of the study that tell you everything you need to know. You at least started to read the conclusion as you quoted the first sentence. Unfortunately that seems to have been where you stopped reading.

..autonomous operation of the whole aircraft is the only factor that poses a seemingly impassable problem.Air combat is too sophisticated for any foreseeable technology to be able to handle.
Computers are methodical and do the same thing every time. Any unforeseeable situation would be impossible for an autonomous system to overcome. A pilot controlling the plane is, at this stage, the more practical way although it does introduce control latency

This is literally two sentences after what you quoted.

And of course you completely missed the recommendations:

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this report, it is recommended that the United States Air Force continue development of unmanned vehicles for use as air-superiority craft.It is also concluded that unmanned air-superiority fighters alone will not be sufficient. Manned and unmanned fighters should be used together to
most efficiently achieve air-superiority. By this method, the decision-making skills needed from the human operators, the efficiency, and the safety of the unmanned systems can be utilized to effectively suppress enemy air activity.

Yes. For autonomous function, it is impossible. I did not say at any point that I expected this, in fact I clearly stated that I intended to use pilots to control the aircraft from the ground, at comparatively short range, if possible from mobile stations like an aircraft carrier. This is an attempt to compensate for the control flaws mentioned in the study, which are brought on by operating at extreme ranges. However the study states that this delay is only about 2 seconds, and my own thoughts on this are that shorter ranges would negate this. I also clearly stated that I was aware of the financial burden this would put on any nation fielding a UCAV in this manner.

I fail to see my mistake, I have vaguely addressed the issues presented, although mot in detail as it is too late to start now, and I have ignored the impossible, i.e. autonomy because its not a requirement. Whats wrong with that?

[Britinthia]

Going for, essentially, a C-130-look-alike. Cargo aircraft, meant for short makeshift airfields. A versatile baseline cargo-plane. Now, questions:

1- Turboprop or Turbofan?
2- Wing configuration? Tail configuration?
-- I was thinking of either doing a slanted box-design, for lift, or a regular horizontal, top-mounted wing like the C-130.
-- For the tail, dual-canted, or single-vertical? Stabilizers mounted at the base or the end?

I've been trying to come up with a similar idea myself, so I will pass on my thoughts.

1 - Turboprop all the way. Efficiency is a major factor, but also if you are operating from unpaved/improvised surfaces you don't want things being sucked into a Turbofan.
2 - The wing configuration is going to be straight, high mounted. Again you dont want rubble bejng flicked up and catched the control surfaces. It also keeps the props out of the way when loading and increases your ground clearance if you want to do amphibious/arctic variants.
As for the tail, either C-17 style, on the basis that the new A400M uses it and so it must have some major advantages, or, twin vertical/slightly canted (Think F-15SE style) with base mounted stabilisers for maximum control amd rule-of-cool.

A box wing would have some advantages but I believe these would be better suited to a strategic transport/tanker aircraft that will be operating out of major airports most of the time.

[Britinthia]

I'm sure this bad boy has come up on this thread before:
http://sidelobe.files.wordpress.com/201 ... tsmall.jpg

It appears to be an overly complicated helicopter-esque sort of aircraft. For those of you 'in the know' does it appear as though it could function as a helicopter gunship replacement? Or is it more likely to be just done for coolness without any thought given to whether it is operationally functional?