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

[Pavelania]

Also all P7s and P8s with a T afterward like P7T and P8T are turbo prop variants.

Reason why we still operate the B-07 and B-08 is because no other bomber was available for export after WWII for us.

[Pavelania]

Only reason I want the SU-34 is the side-by-side seating, armor plating it has (I think the SU-34 is armor plated), very rugged and can take-off and land from unprepared airstrips, and it seems like it has a bigger bomb load than the F-15SE.

The Su-34's armor is less useful than the F-15's greater speed, agility, lower wing-loading, and especially the newer avionics and lower radar signature in the F-15SE. Modern ground attack and air support missions are rapidly moving away from A-10-style low-and-slow operations toward higher-altitude flight profiles relying on precision guidance and more advanced sensors for accuracy. This is because it's simply a much safer method and is less taxing on both the aircraft and the pilots. F-15SE is much better at these altitudes and in these roles than Su-34.

There are lots of short-range, low-altitude threats that exponentially increase the dangers to aircraft operating in these ranges, and it is more or less impossible to make an aircraft armored against them. The best way to avoid these is to simply fly a bit higher and operate out of their range. Su-34's armored tub makes it only marginally more survivable against modern SPAAGs or short-range SAMs but hampers its its capabilities in other flight regimes by significantly increasing its weight. The large cabin only makes this worse. The significant increase in weight (nearly 50% greater than the basic Su-27) without a commensurate increase in wing area and thrust means it has an unfavorable T:W ratio and poor maneuverability.

This in turn means that it will likely require a fighter escort if operating in contested airspace, unlike the F-15E derivatives which are designed not to need them and retain the F-15C's air combat performance. This is incidentally also what F-35 is also designed to do.

The rest of them aren't really notable advantages. F-15E has been used across the globe in all sorts of situations, it has worked well on runways of various quality from Europe to the Americas to the Middle East to Southeast Asia. Unprepared airstrip capability isn't a big deal given the widespread availability of existing facilities practically everywhere and the speed at which they can be repaired by a trained airfield crew. Su-34's advertised capabilities are a result of Russia's poor infrastructure, not some secret decisive advantage that NATO somehow totally missed (F-15 isn't helpless in a field either).

Yea guess your right. I do favor the quality of western fighter much better then eastern (russian) fighters. I don't know if the SU-27 series is like this, but the Mig-29 has a very very short air frame life compared to western aircraft. Service life for western fighters like the F-16, F-18, and F-15s were 6,000, while the Mig-29s were at just 2,500!

Elemordale operate some Mig-29s in their air force, but just retired them this year due to the short service life.

[Pavelania]

We bought 14 Mig-29Ms (Mig-33) in 2004 and only 2 squadrons operate the migs. We love the excellent maneuverability, and the heat seeking missiles that fire off bore-sight, but it all stops right there. The short service life and the possibility of us operating the AIM-9X by 2020, kills these advantages and our Migs may retire by 2020.

We had interest in the Mig-35 and SU-35, but considering we can afford new F-15s and F-16s, I think we're gonna go back to operating full western aircraft. By 2025 we'll retire our old Flankers too (yes we had 14 SU-27s as well to see how well they work for us). Currently we have on order F-16Es, F-15SE Silent Eagles, and F/A-18F Advanced Super Hornets to replace some of our older fighters. And for the FB-06A Lion and Canberra bombers, they'll be replaced by the F-15SE.

[Pavelania]

Also do you guys think the F/A-18F ASH can operate from a STOBAR carrier? I'm thinking of ordering some hornets for our Navy.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Can you guys tell me how my Aircorp is doing?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... /id=710697

[The Corparation]

Also do you guys think the F/A-18F ASH can operate from a STOBAR carrier? I'm thinking of ordering some hornets for our Navy.

I've seen references to the original hornet being looked at for use with a Ski-jump. From what I've seen it appeared that it was possible. With the more powerful thrust of the Super Hornet, I'd think it might be plausible. You'd be seriously cutting back on the weapons load though.

[Pavelania]

Can you guys tell me how my Aircorp is doing?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... /id=710697

Looks good.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Can you guys tell me how my Aircorp is doing?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... /id=710697

Looks good.

thanks

[Pavelania]

Also do you guys think the F/A-18F ASH can operate from a STOBAR carrier? I'm thinking of ordering some hornets for our Navy.

I've seen references to the original hornet being looked at for use with a Ski-jump. From what I've seen it appeared that it was possible. With the more powerful thrust of the Super Hornet, I'd think it might be plausible. You'd be seriously cutting back on the weapons load though.

Well we already decided to order the F/A-18F Advanced Super Hornet for our Air Force, and we'll do the same for the navy more than likely. The F/A-18F Advanced Super Hornet which has 20% more thrust than a Stock Super Hornet, so I think it should have plenty of power for ski-jump launches.

We began operating new Mig-29Ks in 2012 and were pretty good the first 3 years, but later started having some issues and considering the Mig-29's extremely short service life, we're retiring our Mig-29Ks probably by 2030. Current contenders to replace our Mig-29Ks are the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet, as mention earlier, the Rafale M, and the JAS-39 Sea Gripen, not in production yet, so it's really between the F-18 ASH and the Rafale M.

Considering the F-18 production line will be closing soon, I think our navy we'll order F-18s from Boeing before Boeing decides to shutdown production.

[Pavelania]

Looks good.

thanks

By the way is your A-7 "Sky King" a license built F-35 or is it your military designation for your F-35s?

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

thanks

By the way is your A-7 "Sky King" a license built F-35 or is it your military designation for your F-35s?

Its an F-35 but my nations aviation history since our civil war we named our fights like sky [insert x]. First we had the A-2 sky prince in the 40s the A1- Sky raider cold war era, A5- Sky marauder, ect. So we named it that just out of tradition just like the DE production line of tanks

[Pavelania]

By the way is your A-7 "Sky King" a license built F-35 or is it your military designation for your F-35s?

Its an F-35 but my nations aviation history since our civil war we named our fights like sky [insert x]. First we had the A-2 sky prince in the 40s the A1- Sky raider cold war era, A5- Sky marauder, ect. So we named it that just out of tradition just like the DE production line of tanks

Nice. We sort of have our own designation for certain aircraft. For example we operate 747-200F, 300F,s and 400Fs as our heavy air lifters, which are modified with radar, missile warning systems, rear cargo ramp for air drops, opening nose, and flare/chaff dispensers. The 747-200Fs are called "C-742", while our 747-300Fs are called "C-743", and our 747-400Fs are called "C-744". The C-742s are being replaced by our new C-17s in by 2018 and 2020, and our C-743s and C-744s are being replaced by the 747-8F, or a westernised An-124.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Its an F-35 but my nations aviation history since our civil war we named our fights like sky [insert x]. First we had the A-2 sky prince in the 40s the A1- Sky raider cold war era, A5- Sky marauder, ect. So we named it that just out of tradition just like the DE production line of tanks

Nice. We sort of have our own designation for certain aircraft. For example we operate 747-200F, 300F,s and 400Fs as our heavy air lifters, which are modified with radar, missile warning systems, rear cargo ramp for air drops, opening nose, and flare/chaff dispensers. The 747-200Fs are called "C-742", while our 747-300Fs are called "C-743", and our 747-400Fs are called "C-744". The C-742s are being replaced by our new C-17s in by 2018 and 2020, and our C-743s and C-744s are being replaced by the 747-8F, or a westernised An-124.

What do you think of my flying carriers?

[Pavelania]

We also operate heavily modified F-4Es, designated as "ASF-4E Hunter", and are operated by our famed "Spitfires" Strafing Attack Squadron. Currently The ASF-4Es are heavily modified with armor plating, reinforced wing, ECM pods for radar jamming and for electronic defense or the Hunter, and can carry up to 5 20mm fast RoF cannon pods, or 3 30mm fast RoF cannon pods for strafing. The ASF-4E can also carry a huge bomb load and rocket pods, but the Spitfires have been well famed for their Gatling 20mm and 30mm gun pods. We modified these ASF-4E Hunters when the US would not give us A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, and because of this a funny meme in our country compares the A-10 and our ASF-4E, and says "When the US wont give us A-10s, we make our own".

Boeing recently proposed modernized A-10s for export, which we're showing great interest for and would be a perfect fit for the Spitfire squadron. We're just waiting to see if the US government would allow us to purchase A-10s, since the A-10 is banned from export. If our A-10 plan fails, PAC has proposed the A-X program, a program to build a nex-gen CAS Aircraft, with similar specs to the A-10, including a possible 30mm cannon in the nose like the A-10. the PAF hasn't decided yet, as we just cancelled our SU-34 orders, which if we purchased the SU-34 for the Spitfire squadron, we would modify them with a 30mm cannon between the engine pods, and designate it, "Su-34ASF Hunter II", but as said we just cancelled the SU-34 orders so the SU-34 is not considered. So its either Boeing's modernized A-10, or the result of our possible A-X Program.

[New Chilokver]

Also do you guys think the F/A-18F ASH can operate from a STOBAR carrier? I'm thinking of ordering some hornets for our Navy.

It should be possible? IIRC the Brits considered buying Rhinos instead of F-35Bs for the Queen Elizabeth class due to the latter's cost overruns,

Of course you'll have to deal with significantly reduced range and weapons payload, but that's sort of a given with any aircraft operated off a STOBAR carrier.

[Pavelania]

What do you think of my flying carriers?

Pretty awesome! It's the P-112 Aigion from Ace Combat 6, which looks really awesome! We had our own flying aircraft carrier, known as the Kraken-Class Flying Heavy Command Crusier, or FHCC, and only 6 were built including the prototype. The FHCC was an 8 piston engined gigantic flying boat that could ferry 20 fighters but could only carry MAX 16 into combat so there can be room for take-off and landing/recovery. It had a large hull at the front a a giant opening at the rear with a ramp/runway that extends/folds to close the opening when no one is departing or landing. It had MANY gun stations which had powerful cannons to repel enemy fighter attack and had an H-tail. It also featured air-to-air refueling capability, and could carry enough bombs to demolish airfields and level cities, which has claimed 8 air fields and 5 cities. Only 1 FHCC was lost in combat during an aerial ambush by Banolinian fighter aircraft during the North Atlantic War.

The Kraken-Class FHCC was in operation from 1951 to 1990, and was retired because of rising maintenance costs, extremely difficult to fly, lack of parts, ancient avionics and overly complex piston engines that weren't massed produced, an absolute maintenance nightmare for crews, and no modern fighter by 1990 could land in the Kraken FHCC, and thus ALL Kraken-Class FHCCs were retired. As of 2016 only one FHCC barely remains in flying condition and flies once a year during the Pavelania Grand National Air Show. The FHCC will only fly for 2 more years with 2018 being the last year the last FHCC will fly, as the aircraft is showing major wear in the airframe and finding parts is impossible.

[The Corparation]

Flying Carriers, especially those of the Ace Combat variety are primarily rule of cool. While it is true that there have been RL flying aircraft carrier proposals, and a few have even flown none of them resemble Ace Combat's monstrosity*. The only ones I can think of that ever saw service were The Akron Class of airships and the B-36 FICON*. It's important to note that both systems (And most of the other proposed systems I've read) don't use CATOBAR or subscribe to the ridiculous notion that a Flying Carrier would operate like a regular one. Instead launch is performed by dropping the aircraft from the bottom of the mother ship, and recovering the aircraft by docking it to a trapeze system that pulls it back aboard.

If you're dead set on both "realism" (Or NS's bastardized concept of realisim") and having a flying aircraft carrier. Here's a few looks here are few examples to look: The CL-1201, The 747 AAC(I'd link to a more extensivepdf, but apparently it's been taken down and as shameless plug, my own NS design, LRNSA (Long Range Nuclear Strategic Aircraft)


*(Disclaimer: I'm using Flying aircraft carrier very loosely and including anything that involves a small aircraft docking and undocking with a mothership)

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Also do you guys think the F/A-18F ASH can operate from a STOBAR carrier? I'm thinking of ordering some hornets for our Navy.

STOBAR is bad because it's the weak points of CATOBAR and STOVL without the strengths of either.

We also operate heavily modified F-4Es, designated as "ASF-4E Hunter", and are operated by our famed "Spitfires" Strafing Attack Squadron. Currently The ASF-4Es are heavily modified with armor plating, reinforced wing, ECM pods for radar jamming and for electronic defense or the Hunter, and can carry up to 5 20mm fast RoF cannon pods, or 3 30mm fast RoF cannon pods for strafing. The ASF-4E can also carry a huge bomb load and rocket pods, but the Spitfires have been well famed for their Gatling 20mm and 30mm gun pods. We modified these ASF-4E Hunters when the US would not give us A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, and because of this a funny meme in our country compares the A-10 and our ASF-4E, and says "When the US wont give us A-10s, we make our own".

Boeing recently proposed modernized A-10s for export, which we're showing great interest for and would be a perfect fit for the Spitfire squadron. We're just waiting to see if the US government would allow us to purchase A-10s, since the A-10 is banned from export. If our A-10 plan fails, PAC has proposed the A-X program, a program to build a nex-gen CAS Aircraft, with similar specs to the A-10, including a possible 30mm cannon in the nose like the A-10. the PAF hasn't decided yet, as we just cancelled our SU-34 orders, which if we purchased the SU-34 for the Spitfire squadron, we would modify them with a 30mm cannon between the engine pods, and designate it, "Su-34ASF Hunter II", but as said we just cancelled the SU-34 orders so the SU-34 is not considered. So its either Boeing's modernized A-10, or the result of our possible A-X Program.

That ASF-4E a terrible idea. Ditto for the Su-34ASF. Large amounts of armor plating and multiple large cannons on a fighter jet might as well be useless. The F-4E carrying cluster bombs and Maverick missiles is perfectly capable of conducting CAS or interdiction missions without carrying armor plating and bunch of gunpods that would make it next to useless for AtA. One of the primary advantages of a "fighter-bomber" like an F-4 or F-15E is that they can defend themselves from other fighter or interceptor aircraft and thus do not need escort. Trying to turn a fast-mover into an A-10 surrogate is only going to get you something worse than either of those aircraft.

[Pavelania]

Also do you guys think the F/A-18F ASH can operate from a STOBAR carrier? I'm thinking of ordering some hornets for our Navy.

It should be possible? IIRC the Brits considered buying Rhinos instead of F-35Bs for the Queen Elizabeth class due to the latter's cost overruns,

Of course you'll have to deal with significantly reduced range and weapons payload, but that's sort of a given with any aircraft operated off a STOBAR carrier.

For us, I doubt it. In 2018 one of our Guardian-Class CV STOBAR carrier will be undergoing major maintenance and upgrades including the installation of 2-3 steam catapults which the F/A-18F ASH can operate from. So heavily loaded Hornets would take the catapults and lightly loaded ones would take the ski-jump.

We also might invest in the Sea Gripen as a replacement for our A-4PS Skyhawks by 2020, as the Sea Gripen will operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR ships. Our AV-8B Harriers will more then likely be replaced by the F-35B Lightning II.

We currently operate 5 Aircraft carriers, all CV (Conventional Power, non-nuclear), 2 Guardian-Class STOBAR carriers, and 3 assault ships/helicopter carreirs, which those operate our F-01s, CAF-9s, and AV-8Bs.

[Pavelania]

Also do you guys think the F/A-18F ASH can operate from a STOBAR carrier? I'm thinking of ordering some hornets for our Navy.

STOBAR is bad because it's the weak points of CATOBAR and STOVL without the strengths of either.

We also operate heavily modified F-4Es, designated as "ASF-4E Hunter", and are operated by our famed "Spitfires" Strafing Attack Squadron. Currently The ASF-4Es are heavily modified with armor plating, reinforced wing, ECM pods for radar jamming and for electronic defense or the Hunter, and can carry up to 5 20mm fast RoF cannon pods, or 3 30mm fast RoF cannon pods for strafing. The ASF-4E can also carry a huge bomb load and rocket pods, but the Spitfires have been well famed for their Gatling 20mm and 30mm gun pods. We modified these ASF-4E Hunters when the US would not give us A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, and because of this a funny meme in our country compares the A-10 and our ASF-4E, and says "When the US wont give us A-10s, we make our own".

Boeing recently proposed modernized A-10s for export, which we're showing great interest for and would be a perfect fit for the Spitfire squadron. We're just waiting to see if the US government would allow us to purchase A-10s, since the A-10 is banned from export. If our A-10 plan fails, PAC has proposed the A-X program, a program to build a nex-gen CAS Aircraft, with similar specs to the A-10, including a possible 30mm cannon in the nose like the A-10. the PAF hasn't decided yet, as we just cancelled our SU-34 orders, which if we purchased the SU-34 for the Spitfire squadron, we would modify them with a 30mm cannon between the engine pods, and designate it, "Su-34ASF Hunter II", but as said we just cancelled the SU-34 orders so the SU-34 is not considered. So its either Boeing's modernized A-10, or the result of our possible A-X Program.

That ASF-4E a terrible idea. Ditto for the Su-34ASF. Large amounts of armor plating and multiple large cannons on a fighter jet might as well be useless. The F-4E carrying cluster bombs and Maverick missiles is perfectly capable of conducting CAS or interdiction missions without carrying armor plating and bunch of gunpods that would make it next to useless for AtA. One of the primary advantages of a "fighter-bomber" like an F-4 or F-15E is that they can defend themselves from other fighter or interceptor aircraft and thus do not need escort. Trying to turn a fast-mover into an A-10 surrogate is only going to get you something worse than either of those aircraft.

Which is why we put ECM on our ASF-4Es. But regardless our ASF-4Es are being retired by 2020.

And the modernized A-10 Boeing proposal includes new avionics to the A-10, re-winging, and newer more powerful engines.

[Pavelania]

Also the SU-34ASF concept is officially scrapped, as you would see in my news/dispatch that the F-15SE is officially our go-to fighter bomber/strike aircraft and we cancelled our orders for the SU-34.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The F-4 is an interceptor first and bomb truck second, and a cannon plane never. ECM won't help the big and slow-turning F-4 do gun runs.

[Pavelania]

Our F-4Es are retiring in 2018, our ASF-4E Hunters are being retired in 2020, and our F-4G Advanced Wild Weasels are being retired in 2023, while our RF-4E reconnaissance jets will be retired in 2025, making the RF-4E our last F-4 variant that will be in our inventory.

Replacements for the F-4s:

F-4E : F-15SE Silent Eagle

ASF-4E : Modernised Boeing A-10s or the result of our A-X Program

F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel : F/A-18F Advanced Super Hornet or the F-35A Lightning II

RF-4E : F/A-18F Advanced Super Hornet, the F-35A Lightning II, JAS-39F, or the proposed RF-01T Spyker recon variant of our F-01 aircraft.

[Allanea]

Hovercraft plane? Hovercraft plane.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

(Image)

Hovercraft plane? Hovercraft plane.

So A VTOL?