Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Gallia-]

It will be like 4 prototypes and retired to museums.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Not that it will come to this but the USAF would happily cut into is its F-35 order if it meant saving the B-21. With how stupid the B-2 cancellation looks in hindsight it's extremely doubtful that the raider gets axed, its role in extending American nuclear deterrence and strategic airpower are unique and can't be duplicated or replaced by any other system. It's also going to be keeping northrup affloat for the forseeable future. If anything is going to get axed it's going to be LRSO and/or the new ICBM, not the B-21.

[Allanea]

Perhaps we can sacrifice A-10s to the Dark Gods to keep the B-52 going.

[EsToVnIa]

So I've done some reading around the Eurofighter and the proposed navalised variant for it was planned to be STOBAR instead of CATOBAR due to weight concerns

Disadvantages of STOBAR aside, would there be any problem going through with the navalised Eurofighter as opposed to adopting Super Hornet, MiG-29K, Rafale, etc.

[Laritaia]

Perhaps we can sacrifice A-10s to the Dark Gods to keep the B-52 going.

why keep either?

So I've done some reading around the Eurofighter and the proposed navalised variant for it was planned to be STOBAR instead of CATOBAR due to weight concerns

Disadvantages of STOBAR aside, would there be any problem going through with the navalised Eurofighter as opposed to adopting Super Hornet, MiG-29K, Rafale, etc.

The Eurofighter is fairly pigeon holed into the air superiority mission due to it's pylon layout being terrible for the A2G mission.

it's just not well suited to the multi-role concept.

[Taihei Tengoku]

B-52 costs less to maintain even in their aged state and they are good JASSM trucks

[Laritaia]

B-52 costs less to maintain even in their aged state and they are good JASSM trucks

The B-1B has a higher mission ready rate and costs less per flight hour then the B-52.

There are disadvantages to keeping an aircraft in service for 50 years, the engine on the B-52 are thoroughly ancient.

[Gallia-]

B-52 costs less to maintain even in their aged state and they are good JASSM trucks

The B-1B has a higher mission ready rate and costs less per flight hour then the B-52.

More to the point:

1) It's low supersonic (~M2) and isn't VLO. This is the worst possible combination of survivability traits. It has a high IR signature at its operational speed and can be detected at long distances.
2) Its entire purpose is obsolete, more so than B-52 which has been relegated to "far distance cruise missile bus". The method of attack B-1 was built for (low altitude high speed dashes) isn't really sustainable compared to B-2's low speed VLO penetration or B-52's long range gunslinging. I doubt B-2 will be detected by the single 1980s vintage A-50 Russia might have flying and I doubt B-52 will be intercepted when it releases cruise missiles from well within the DEW Line. B-1 can be readily detected and attacked by the MiG-31 or Su-27 without much issue. It's basically a slightly faster B-52.
3) It isn't nuclear capable. Part of the reason B-1 has been around since the end of WW3 without any serious beneficial traits is precisely because its been turned into a very niche conventional bomber. Costs were cut (marginally, B-1 is still the most expensive USAF bomber) by reducing B-1 wings to mere conventional attack roles, and the cost of re-implementing the nuclear attack mission would be prohibitive.
4) B-52 is a cheap and fuel efficient bomber. Its been around and is going to stay around precisely because it has low operating costs because it has a low speed. It can be reengined with more efficient engines if the USAF feels the need, this has been proposed in the past and is being explored today. This will make it cheaper to operate. B-1's shitty lift-to-drag ratio brought on by its speed regime cannot be engineered out. Any improvements in fuel efficient would be better utilized by putting the same engines in B-52s and keeping with that.

It costs more than the B-2s, is the least survivable of the bombers, and isn't even nuclear-capable.

Maybe if it were >M3 like XB-70 it would be able to stay around. Even then, you'd still need to factor in costs of nuclear certification, which might push the cost of the B-1 above B-2 in CPFH as well as total cost.

B-52:
+ Very fuel efficient
+ Can be re-engined
+ Big armaments for cruise missile bus
+ Low threat of interception because it can attack targets without leaving North America
- Slow
- Big signatures
- Spare parts are getting rarer
- Engines are getting old

B-2:
+ Very small signatures
+ Can loiter above Siberia
+ Can attack dispersed TELs
+ Fuel efficient because Big Wing Lift
- Highest CPFH in fleet
- Slow
- Old stealth technology

B-1:
+ Fast
+ Can be places quickly
+ Can carry lots of JDAMs and Paveways
- No nuclear weapons
- Least fuel efficient because supersonic
- Variable geometry means maintenance
- Most expensive bombers in fleet
- Fast means re-engining is better utilized on B-52 or B-2
- Nuclear attack mission would require lots of money being dumped into it
- Least survivable because it would need to overfly targets in an atomic war without VLO

[The Wyoming Peoples Front]

B-21's dead. Trump is already screaming for a "cheaper" F-35 without anybody knowing what he actually means.

Paper airplanes with slot machines in them built by contractors that he doesn't intend to pay.

[The Kievan People]

The F-35 and the B-21 will be fine.

They need to be built so President Trump can "accidentally" ship some to Russia.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

snip

The B-1B is limited to M1.2 at high altitude. Operationally they never really go supersonic because it massively increases fuel consumption and cuts into range without doing much for survivability. The VG intakes of the B-1A that would have let it get to ~M2.2 were deleted and replaced with radar blockers in the B-1B. Compared to a B-52 the B-1B has 1/10-1/100th the frontal RCS and can carry significantly more JDAMS and paveways (the B-52 cannot currently carry PGMs in its internal weapons bay). In every war since desert storm B-1Bs have dropped the most amount of ordnance relative to their sortie rate. B-1Bs have dropped ~70% of the JDAMs in Afghanistan despite flying only a fraction of the total sorties. In any serious shooting war the Lancer would be used as a JASSM truck the same way the B-52 was used as a CALCM truck during desert storm. The JASSM-ER and CALCM have about the same range but the CALCM has a warhead three times bigger. On the other hand the JASSM is VLO while the CALCM is not so a JASSM is probably more likely to penetrate an IADS that's using AWACS and other look-down/shoot-down radars that can counter the CALCM's low altitude flight path. B-1 was originally supposed to be a SRAM truck, in the mid 90s they removed the PAL hardware and eliminated its ability to carry nuclear weapons in compliance with START. They could probably reinstall the PAL hardware and re-certify it to carry nukes but it would cost a lot of money and the Russians would probably throw a hissy fit.

The USAF is probably going to replace the B-1Bs with the B-21s as they enter service and keep B-52s until 2040+ to use as (relatively) cheap cruise missile trucks until the airframes reach the end of their already extended service lives and they start literally falling apart and have to be retired. The B-52 is already nuclear-capable and thus could be used to carry LRSO to fulfill the nuclear deterrence mission. Retooling its bomb bay to carry JDAMS also wouldn't be that hard and is something the USAF has been punting on for quite some time (ditto for the engine upgrade).

[Gallia-]

In every war the B-1 has fought, the wars have been so meaningless that they never really prompt any serious discussion or thought about the future of the nuclear triad. Or the future of much of anything. They're kind of irrelevant wars, they're more like political science sandboxes or thought experiments made reality.

B-1 should have never been built, but Reagan had to waste defense dollars that could be better spent on ATB or F-15s or turning the SR-71s into reconnaissance-strike aircraft.

It's just a dumb plane. Its only selling point is that it carries a large number of bombs, which is worthless because it can't carry nuclear weapons and it carries less cruise missiles than B-52.

B-2 is the current optimum and epitome of bomber aircraft.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

In every war the B-1 has fought, the wars have been so meaningless that they never really prompt any serious discussion or thought about the future of the nuclear triad. Or the future of much of anything. They're kind of irrelevant wars, they're more like political science sandboxes or thought experiments made reality.

B-1 should have never been built, but Reagan had to waste defense dollars that could be better spent on ATB or F-15s or turning the SR-71s into reconnaissance-strike aircraft.

It's just a dumb plane. Its only selling point is that it carries a large number of bombs, which is worthless because it can't carry nuclear weapons and it carries less cruise missiles than B-52.

B-2 is the current optimum and epitome of bomber aircraft.

No complaints here. The B-1 as originally envisioned was basically a supersized F-111. It even had the same M1.2 low altitude requirement until it was relaxed to M0.85 to make the structure less heavy. If the B-70 had been kept there are arguments that its speed/altitude combination, like the SR-71, would let it punch through heavily defended airspace to carry out strike missions. Speed is also useful when you're dealing with time critical targets, something only a B-70 (specifically the RS-70) or strike SR-71 could effectively prosecute. With the B-1 you can't really say any of that. It isn't stealthy and it isn't nearly fast enough to enjoy the operational advantages of high supersonic aircraft like the Valkyrie or Blackbird.

The B-2, and the future B-21, is invaluable because it's the only current bomber which can do more than just be a cruise missile truck like a B-52 or Tu-160.

[United Earthlings]

Beside restating what others have said, additional weight to contend with, the possibility of mechanical failure and finally one disadvantage of a rotary launcher is a slower release of stores.

Doesn't seem to be slow. This is Tu-160 and it use pretty much similar rotary launcher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZA22mQO7I8

Maybe it slow if the selected store is in the far side of the launcher. But for A2A application.. doubt you would have more than 2 kinds of A2A missiles to select from.

Slower, not slow. From the link I provided, "The rotary launcher of the B-1 for example requires 7 seconds until the next store is rotated into release position." From the video you provided I would say from the looks of it the Tu-160 is about the same.

Comparison when just dropping bombs from a rack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_wXTuLAFgk

In the grand scheme of things, probably not a big difference, but a difference none-the-less exists.

[Gallia-]

The F-35 and the B-21 will be fine.

They need to be built so President Trump can "accidentally" ship some to Russia.

We can only hope.

Mod 12 better be accurate enough to land 150 kilotons at Putin's desk. Mod 11 better be able to demolish Yamantau.

Let's hope Rick Perry doesn't dismantle the DoE.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Slower, not slow. From the link I provided, "The rotary launcher of the B-1 for example requires 7 seconds until the next store is rotated into release position." From the video you provided I would say from the looks of it the Tu-160 is about the same.

Comparison when just dropping bombs from a rack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_wXTuLAFgk

In the grand scheme of things, probably not a big difference, but a difference none-the-less exists.

It's definitely faster than 7 seconds. Here' the rotary launcher of a B-52 that carries eight ALCMs. It's like 1-2 seconds to rotate the next store in position.

It's still slower than a conventional rack but a rotary launcher has the advantage of being able to select what munition you want to drop, a useful feature for a B-1 or B-2 carrying say a mix of JASSMs, JSOWs, and GBU-32s.

[Pavelania]

So I've done some reading around the Eurofighter and the proposed navalised variant for it was planned to be STOBAR instead of CATOBAR due to weight concerns

Disadvantages of STOBAR aside, would there be any problem going through with the navalised Eurofighter as opposed to adopting Super Hornet, MiG-29K, Rafale, etc.

I don't think the Eurofighter is worth navalising because I read somewhere that Dassault recently did STOBAR simulations with the Rafale M and it showed that the Rafale M is capable of STOBAR ops.

Also, a guy made a simulator/calculator where you input aircraft data and it will show if the aircraft is STOBAR capable and he said the F-18 can do STOBAR. I am kinda skeptical on the F-18A/B/C/D being STOBAR but I can see the F-18F ASM (advanced Super Hornet) being STOBAR capable because the F-18 ASH has 20% max thrust increase compared to a standard Super Hornet.

[Dostanuot Loj]

So I've done some reading around the Eurofighter and the proposed navalised variant for it was planned to be STOBAR instead of CATOBAR due to weight concerns

Disadvantages of STOBAR aside, would there be any problem going through with the navalised Eurofighter as opposed to adopting Super Hornet, MiG-29K, Rafale, etc.

I don't think the Eurofighter is worth navalising because I read somewhere that Dassault recently did STOBAR simulations with the Rafale M and it showed that the Rafale M is capable of STOBAR ops.

Also, a guy made a simulator/calculator where you input aircraft data and it will show if the aircraft is STOBAR capable and he said the F-18 can do STOBAR. I am kinda skeptical on the F-18A/B/C/D being STOBAR but I can see the F-18F ASM (advanced Super Hornet) being STOBAR capable because the F-18 ASH has 20% max thrust increase compared to a standard Super Hornet.

USN (Or USMC? But I think USN) did ski-jump tests with F/A-18 in the 1980s. France did the same thing with the Rafale in the 1990s.

We know they are both STOBAR capable.

The issue is generally whether or not the losses incurred from STOBAR operation are worth the minor gains in a few areas.

[Kouralia]

For a reconnaissance helicopter, is it better to...

• Build something in the vein of the Kiowa (side-by-side)
• Build something in the vein of the OH-1 (behind one another)
• Use a Reconnaissance version of my utility helicopter (not!Lynx Wildcat)?

I don't know the advantages/disadvantages of the first two in relation to eachother. I guess the main advantage of the latter is costs and commonality at the expense of not being quite as good at its job as a purpose-built frame.

[The Akasha Colony]

For a reconnaissance helicopter, is it better to...

• Build something in the vein of the Kiowa (side-by-side)
• Build something in the vein of the OH-1 (behind one another)
• Use a Reconnaissance version of my utility helicopter (not!Lynx Wildcat)?

I don't know the advantages/disadvantages of the first two in relation to eachother. I guess the main advantage of the latter is costs and commonality at the expense of not being quite as good at its job as a purpose-built frame.

The middle option.

Any helicopter that expects combat or really any role except transportation to be its primary mission would be wise to reduce its frontal width as much as possible to reduce the chances of being hit as much as possible. Kiowa uses a side-by-side layout because it's based on a civilian helicopter, whereas the OH-1 was designed from the beginning as a combat helicopter.

The usual advantage to a side-by-side arrangement is that it reduces the need to duplicate instrument panels and displays for the pilot and copilot. Because they are seated next to each other, they can share a lot of this equipment between them, looking at the same displays and using the same interfaces. A tandem arrangement as in OH-1 requires all of these instruments and displays to be duplicated as they cannot be shared between pilot and copilot. This obviously increases cost and may push up weight as well.

The last option is basically Kiowa, since it's based on a civilian design converted to the military role.

[Gallia-]

I don't think the Eurofighter is worth navalising because I read somewhere that Dassault recently did STOBAR simulations with the Rafale M and it showed that the Rafale M is capable of STOBAR ops.

Also, a guy made a simulator/calculator where you input aircraft data and it will show if the aircraft is STOBAR capable and he said the F-18 can do STOBAR. I am kinda skeptical on the F-18A/B/C/D being STOBAR but I can see the F-18F ASM (advanced Super Hornet) being STOBAR capable because the F-18 ASH has 20% max thrust increase compared to a standard Super Hornet.

USN (Or USMC? But I think USN) did ski-jump tests with F/A-18 in the 1980s. France did the same thing with the Rafale in the 1990s.

We know they are both STOBAR capable.

The issue is generally whether or not the losses incurred from STOBAR operation are worth the minor gains in a few areas.

The RN will probably pick F-18E/F when Trump cancels F-35.

AvPro drew all those pictures anyway??? It will become RN Ministry of Art.

[Pavelania]

We can't cancel the F-35 because we invested sooooo much money and now so many nations are involved in JSF now too! Japan and Israel just received their first F-35s and they can't cancel the JSF F-35 when your starting to deliver the F-35 to the customer. We have gone past the point-of-no-return a long time ago and can't just cancel it.

I do also have to say that Israel I think will have the most unique F-35, because their F-35s have sort of a "plug-and-play" system that can hook up any Israeli weapon or smart bomb or missile to their F-35.

Also aren't we supposed to be posting about our nation's air force/aircraft?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Trump's realization that the professional state exists for a reason will save the F-35. If anything he will be able to extract concessions (for free!) from LM like he did Boeing.

Which Eurocanard has the best onboard EW suite? I've heard Gripens are quite squirrely when it comes to getting a radar fix on them.

[Gallia-]

Probably Rafale?

[IceBuddha]

Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!

What he needs to do is to get Pierre Sprey in there to design an F-35 killer! He needs to get Sparky working on those Aero-Gavins too.

We can't cancel the F-35 because we invested sooooo much money and now so many nations are involved in JSF now too! Japan and Israel just received their first F-35s and they can't cancel the JSF F-35 when your starting to deliver the F-35 to the customer. We have gone past the point-of-no-return a long time ago and can't just cancel it.

I do also have to say that Israel I think will have the most unique F-35, because their F-35s have sort of a "plug-and-play" system that can hook up any Israeli weapon or smart bomb or missile to their F-35.

Also aren't we supposed to be posting about our nation's air force/aircraft?

He's not going to be able to kill the F-35 on his own. It's not like he controls defense appropriations or procurement, that is mainly the job of Congress. Congressional Republicans have already said that they're going to oppose key pieces of his agenda, like protectionist tariffs. I'm sure they'll block this retarded shit as well.