Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Britinthia]

So my air force's combat fleet looks like:
72 F/A-18F as my best aircraft
96 F-20C as my cheap "backbone" to make up numbers
48 Texan II as a CAS/COIN/trainer

Can I also justify a few squadrons of Harriers? I mean I can justify why I need them, as I have lots of forests to hide them in and a doctrine that promotes 'hit and run' tactics and avoiding open conflict. But I am always afraid of creating a logistical nightmare. XD

[Britinthia]

Does camouflage on aircraft serve any purpose or id it just a stylistic choice? Like western fighters tend to be painted grey, russians and eastern bloc nations tend to have bluey-greeny camo, is there a reason for this?

[Britinthia]

So, Im building baby-scale models of my air force (1/144 scale), which I intend to expand to other branches within the next year or so. I need an opinion however.
The backbone of the BRAF is a license built, upgraded F-20, due to ease of production and low maintainence costs. I am torn on what my new 'best' fighter should be.
The first option is a scratch built aircraft asthetically similar to the F/A-18F. Similar to how the Super Hornet is based upon the Hornet. I will give it a blended wing, over wing fuel tanks (similar to the new SH variant), the air intakes will be brought forward like an F-22's and the bottom flattened off, leaving space for a small internal weapons bay. It will have a pair of uprated engines, about 30,000 lb thrust each which will have 2D thrust vectoring nozzles. All avionics can be considered completely new and up to date.

The second option is a two-seat Eurofighter, given the same avionics and equipment, 2D thrust vectoring nozzles and any asthetic changes required to reduce its radar signature (rule of cool and all that). Both would cost about the same, however the EF would be smaller and able to operate from smaller carrier. The downside being it wont have any internal bays, less fuel and no naval heritage to draw from. But will probably be the best of the two. Thoughts?

[Britinthia]

The second option is a two-seat Eurofighter, given the same avionics and equipment, 2D thrust vectoring nozzles and any asthetic changes required to reduce its radar signature (rule of cool and all that). Both would cost about the same, however the EF would be smaller and able to operate from smaller carrier. The downside being it wont have any internal bays, less fuel and no naval heritage to draw from. But will probably be the best of the two. Thoughts?

Hmm in my view, you must avoid reducing radar signature if you're not planning to internalize your armament. It'll incur cost and performance penalty.

Just make regular high performance typhoon like fighter, give it ECM for survivability and perhaps have some network and alternate sensors to ensure fighting chance against low observable enemy.

I may have been a bit hasty stating it wont have internal weapons. Having done a little more research it apparently has the capability to be retrofitted with an internal weapons bay and overwing fuel tanks. Guess this is the winner then.

Does reducing its radar sig really affect performance that much?

[Britinthia]

I wouldn't make my new Air Superiority fight based off an attack fighter. I would take a look at basing your design off of F-35A for ease of manufacturing and cheapness or the F-35C if you want a aircraft carrier variant. IF you want a 2 seater then your Eurofighter isn't a bad idea except for the internal bays. Also, the biggest area is your radar signature so I would make sure all weapons are stored internally. Also the Israeli AF is looking at producing their own F-35 variant that is a two-seater so you could make the F-35 a two-seater if you wanted.

Well it will have to be a strong multirole fighter, not dedicated air superiority. Both the SH and EF are pretty good as multiroles. I don't want to go down the F-35 route, partly because it seems to be aimed primarily as a strike fighter and not a true multirole and partly because its overused and generic. The F-18 was my first choice but I just cant seem to justify its use given its lacking performance, even rebuult from scratch.

[Britinthia]

[
Well, there are also other 4.5 gen and 5th gen fighters that you could base your design off of. The F-15/F-16 are good multirole fighters. The Typhoon is another 4.5 gen. Other 5th gen fighters that would be good are the F-22, the in-testing Sukhoi PAK FA which fits the bill nicely just like the F-22. It depends on the type of role you want it for. THe F-22 is the best fighter currently in service so that is a good platform to base your fighter off of thought it is primarily considered a air superiority fighter. Is it a VTOL fighter that you want or a S/VTOL? Or a more conventional take-off/landing pattern?

Honestly, the two I picked because they are my favourite aircraft and dont get alot of love around here. my reasons for not choosing the above are:
F-16 - i have the F20 instead
F-15 - same issue as the F-18, nearing the end of its life and any major rebuild would just be a poor mans F-22
F-22 - Way beyond anything I need, the biggest threat I face are SU-27 deviratives.
PAK FA - same as the above, and I am using western tech.

Honestly I have made up my mind as far as base aircraft go, just cant decide on which one I want and figured it might make fora half decent conversation.

Im looking for a conventional aircraft, jointly operated by air force and navy so needs to be fully navalised and be able to be launched from a CATOBAR carrier, albiet a small one.
For clarity I only expect to operate about 90+ of these fighters, about 150 F-20s and maybe a handful of Harriers. So its got to excel at any mission thrown at it. Yet at the same time I am trying to keep the desicion somewhat grounded in reality. I.E. RL militaries make bad choices all the time and the 'will just about do' tends to win out over the bestest ever aircraft when the budget is taken into account.

Oh and it has to be interesting for me to build.

[Britinthia]

Im looking for a conventional aircraft, jointly operated by air force and navy so needs to be fully navalised and be able to be launched from a CATOBAR carrier, albiet a small one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale

Blasphemey!

Well, the Eurofighter is strictly a conventional fighter as far as I know but if you plan on modifying it then it could work. I think that is the best choice for your fighter since it can be used as your air superiority fighter which it appears to be lacking in your AF.

Agreed, I do lack major air superiority capabilities. The new Britinthian Eurofighter+ will fix that mostly.

[Britinthia]

Blasphemey!

Well it's either that or Soviet birds. There really is not much to chose from that's not american and the Fail-35.

Which is why I'm being true to NS and modifying a current fighter to suit my purposes using RL proposals as a base to work from.

As for the F-35 I dont dislike it, but its the go-to fighter these days and thats boring.

[Britinthia]

I don't get the hate on the F-35, personally. Yeah it has plenty of development issues but most of them stem from government bureaucracy.

The main problem is that it is still not in service and no one knows when it will be. And even if it had been given a magically perfect development cycle it's doubtful that it would have been done today since it's as others have said three different but related aircraft as a result of trying to do too much in a single platform.

Had they seperated the B variant and developed it seperately then the A and C versions wouldnt have faced so many problems and could very well be in service already. Not to mention the RN may have stuck with the C variant for their new carriers and wouldnt have to hang their collective heads in shame of soon to be having two carriers with no fighters.

[Britinthia]

Why is the chinese J31 apparently so much better at being a fighter than the F-35? The J31 seems to be so heavily based upon the JSF, and surely the twin engines cant produce more thrust than the massive F135. I just dont get how a copy can apparently be so muh better tham the original, and all of the sites I have found regarding it are so anti-JSF they cant be trustedimo.

[Britinthia]

Why is the chinese J31 apparently so much better at being a fighter than the F-35? The J31 seems to be so heavily based upon the JSF, and surely the twin engines cant produce more thrust than the massive F135. I just dont get how a copy can apparently be so muh better tham the original, and all of the sites I have found regarding it are so anti-JSF they cant be trustedimo.

Ones a multi-role and the other is an air superiority fighter. Though I can't understand why you would say that though, the J31 doesn't even exist yet.

The internet told me there was a prototype or three.
I also understand the differences in their roles, what I dont get is that surely it would take an entirely different or at least heavily modified airframe? On face value it apears very similar in design and so must have similar limitations?

[Britinthia]

One seat vs. Two seat fighters.
The main pros and cons seem to be sacrificing fuel capacity for an extra pair of eyes and hands in the cockpit. Personally I think this is a fair trade, however the latest generation of fighters are largely single seat. I understand that modern aircraft can take over much of the workload of the pilot but surely the extra help in the cockpit would always be a bonus? Is there any reason I couldnt field solely two seat fighters?

[Britinthia]

See, coming to this thread always crushes my hopes.

[Britinthia]

Thanks Purp. XD

I see what you mean about strike fighters needing the extra seat, however I was thinking along the lines of the F-14. A high performance inteceptor, meant to engage multiple threats from afar, protect fleets and less capable strike fighters. The stike fighter being derived from an early lockheed FCBA concept, something ike an F-35 with some of the fat trimmmed off to make it move a bit better. I suppose I have just described the F-22 though, and therefore have defeated my own argument.

[Britinthia]

Thanks Purp. XD

I see what you mean about strike fighters needing the extra seat, however I was thinking along the lines of the F-14. A high performance inteceptor, meant to engage multiple threats from afar, protect fleets and less capable strike fighters. The stike fighter being derived from an early lockheed FCBA concept, something ike an F-35 with some of the fat trimmmed off to make it move a bit better. I suppose I have just described the F-22 though, and therefore have defeated my own argument.

Trimming the fat from old concepts probably goes so far as removing a dedicated radar operator and his seat's space requirement from their aircraft.

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines to slimming out the fuselage seeing as it doesnt have to leave space for a lift fan, or indeed a second seat. As well as making more efficient use of available space as it doesnt need to have commonality between airframes.

That said the option of a second seat would 'future proof' it. I envision the future being 2 or 4 of these two seater air superiority fighters, each with two drones slaved to them. The drones being the strike package while the escorting fighters take care of enemy aircraft and maybe air defenses too. The drones could even just be mobile armouries with no targetting capabilities themselves, relying on the manned aircraft to do that.

To do any of that a second person in the cockpit would be absolutely required.

Edit: my tablet posted before I had finished typing.

[Britinthia]

Why?

Well it will create a whole new workload which the pilot would not previously have been required to do. Seems like it would be asking for trouble to pile controlling UCAVs on top of trying to mot get shot down.

[Britinthia]

Well it will create a whole new workload which the pilot would not previously have been required to do. Seems like it would be asking for trouble to pile controlling UCAVs on top of trying to mot get shot down.

And these UCAVs could not be remotely controlled from a base because...?

Or perhaps even better, why could these armaments could not already be mounted on a conventional manned aircraft? The normal benefit of protection of air crew that UCAVs enjoy is somewhat negated if the pilot is flying alongside in another aircraft, as are most cost advantages if the drones have to be sufficiently high-performance to keep up with a modern fighter.

The main reason they cant be controlled from base is the slow speed of communications over long distance and lack of awareness of surroundings. Both of which were arguments given to me on here as to why I couldnt field UAVs from base if I wanted them to take the place of manned aircraft like I am suggesting.

I honestly dont know all that much about this field, as is clearly evident from my posts Im sure.
My argument therefore is based upon a number of assumptions I have made, from various posts I have seen here as well as some google searches.
They are:
Manned and unmanned aircraft will have a transition period where they will fly alongside each other and the invention of a fully autonomous UCAV that can out-fly a real pilot wont happen for a long while.
Lives lost will be a more important factor in future wars than cost. I.e. the public wont mind as much if you spend $2billion if it saves the lives of a few pilots.
The general idea that western air forces will use high performance air superiority fighters to protect lesser capable strike fighters as part of a combined package, aka the F-22/F-35 relationship, is a viable tactic.

So instead of sending up 4 F-22s and 16 F-35s, I can send 4 two seater fighters and 16 UCAVs, possibly even 12 UCAVs as the extra space and weight loss should mean higher payload.

The second idea being an arsenal ship in the sky. Whereby instead of sending say 12 fighters on a patrol or strike mission or whatever, you can send 6 and a couple of UCAVs whos sole purpose is to carry extra missiles. Now obviously in the second senario not every manned fighter will be two seater, else the cost would be far too great, but one or two could be and you shouldnt lose any capability.

[Britinthia]

[
Hmm... this reminds me of my revolutionary pioneering of the "air-to-air kamikaze UAV" concept. [warning: must read entire post including linked source to get the point]

On a serious note, it's worth asking what advantages these linked UCAVs would have over, say, standoff air-to-air missiles. A plane which is carrying a smaller plane which is carrying a missile seems a tad redundant, and will greatly reduce your payload in space and weight. And many of the tasks you're trying to accomplish could be done similarly well by having a group of low-RCS (read: stealth) fighters hang back and pick off the enemy from a safe distance.

Hahaha, I read that first time round actually. Suppose I should learn from others mistakes.
They would have no advantage in air-to-air. Exactly the opposite in fact, it seems clear that A2A combat is out of a UCAVs reach for now. As you say a missile will always perform better.

The point I am failing to make is that A2A should be left to the manned aircraft, but the ground attack/strike missions can be largely handed over to unmanned platforms, with a manned fighter present as command and control, and if required to prorect the UCAVs from air threats. In this senario the manned aircraft, the A2A fighters, are performing the same mission regardless of whether it is alongside manned or unmanned platforms. The only difference is if they have one or two crewmembers.

Maybe my logic is fatally flawed and I just cant see it. Im happy to gracefully admit defeat anyway.

[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.

[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*"

[Britinthia]

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.

The role you want to use them in (ground attack) doesn't require human-like reactions. That's why it's a bit puzzling; you want these UCAVs to have human-like reactions so much as to put additional humans in harms way to control them, but then say that all these operators will be doing is something that could be done from a simulator on a distant airbase anyway. So why do you need them around?

If I didnt use UCAVs at all then dozens of pilots are at risk. If I use the UCAVs then only a few pilots are at risk. Using the F-22/35 style combination there will always be someone at risk, but it can be limited by using the UCAVs. The additional forward controller is just a bonus.

[Britinthia]

If I didnt use UCAVs at all then dozens of pilots are at risk. If I use the UCAVs then only a few pilots are at risk. Using the F-22/35 style combination there will always be someone at risk, but it can be limited by using the UCAVs. The additional forward controller is just a bonus.

Most of your pilots are still at risk. Since you need a pilot for each manned aircraft and a WSO for every two UCAVs, you only save one person between three aircraft. So if you sent 8 fighters and 16 UCAVs, you'd still have 16 crew, rather than the 24 you'd have if you just sent single-seaters.

You've also made it easier for the enemy to engage and thwart your attack relative to the cost involved. Your UCAVs will cost as much if not more than your actual fighters based on what you mentioned (that they are fighters, just without a crew), yet all of their maneuverability will be wasted. Put pilots in them and the survivability of the formation as a whole increases; now rather than just 8 fighters capable of engaging in air-to-air combat escorting 16 that cannot, you have a full 24 fighters all capable of contributing to the formation's defense, and the loss of a fighter means the loss of only one crewman, rather than two.

You're correct of course. I guess by the time UCAV technology progresses to the point of matching a pilot, and therefore requireing a command and control aircraft, the bandwidth and timelag problem will be solved also. So really my future-proofed aircraft is not at all.

Not that I personally want UCAVs in that setting. Im happy with my future-eurofighters and supersonic harriers. XD

[Britinthia]

Why not have the UCAVs acting as an 'extension' of the fighter? Sort of like an arsenal ship. The UCAV(s) are semi autonomous, and follow the piloted aircraft (not exactly hard). They receive targeting data from the jet, allowing the pilot access to far more ordinance whilst still only having 1/2 crew at risk. If the jet needs to dog fight or some other action the drones wouldn't be very good at they can be told to wait at a location or pilot themselves back to base.

I brought up a similar idea a little while ago. The only problem is defending the drone, maintaining stealth if you are using 5th gen manned aircraft and keeping the drone close enough to be effective when you need it.
To be effective it would have to be carried bombs while the mothership carries a2a weapons and then the same arguments that shot down my UCAVs.

[Britinthia]

Im not the first and I probably wont be the last to bring this idea up, a 'Super-Harrier'.

Larger 'big wing SHAR' type wing,
Larger tail,
More powerful engine, Pegasus 16 based with PCB. Hopefully 35,000lbs of thrust with PCB.
Lengthened forward and rear fuselage,
New intakes to allow supersonic performance, something like a cross between an F-4 and F-35 in appearance,
All brand new avionics, AESA radar,
Large use of composites,
Tricycle landing gear with the rear centre landing gear removed.

I would like to sell it for less than the F-35 and market it to nations who want to replace Harriers or just want a cheaper alternative to the F-35. On this note could a Harrier be catapult launched? This would allow it to compete in nations who already have conventional carriers. If not I may have a problem selling it to my own Navy.

[Britinthia]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Saab_Sea_Fox

Surely it's in there somewhere.

Surely whats in there? A similar concept with vaguely similar aims.