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

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Why not get the best of both worlds and have your subsonic VLO bomber carry scramjet powered M6+ cruise missiles? You can use your existing B-2/B-21 and you don't have to spend billions developing a manned, resusable hypersonic aircraft. For the hypersonic airbreathing missile you can use the same propulsion system and TPS as the X-51, you just have to develop a guidance system and warhead, a significantly easier task than designing a hypersonic airbreathing aircraft from scratch.

[Gallia-]

Because that's stupid.

For what purpose would one need an extremely expensive VLO penetrator to fling missiles from behind the DEW line?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Because that's stupid.

For what purpose would one need an extremely expensive VLO penetrator to fling missiles from behind the DEW line?

Because the missile would have a finite range? Sticking with CALCM/ACM weight/size restrictions you could get 500-700 nmi with a 250 ib warhead at M8 (a conservative estimate). So to attack a target deep into hostile territory you might have to penetrate the outer edge of their IADS, hence the launch aircraft being VLO. Launching them from an SSGN (where the missile could be bigger and thus longer ranged) could also be an option.

[Gallia-]

VLO is only useful if you intend to be a deep penetrator.

[Celibrae]

Why, may I ask? This is really quite interesting.

[Gallia-]

Because it's difficult to attack an aircraft that is a continent away from its target shooting stealthy cruise missiles.

It should be obvious.

[Celibrae]

Because it's difficult to attack an aircraft that is a continent away from its target shooting stealthy cruise missiles.

It should be obvious.

And I suppose supersonic launch speed lends the cruise missile greater range?

[Gallia-]

Because it's difficult to attack an aircraft that is a continent away from its target shooting stealthy cruise missiles.

It should be obvious.

And I suppose supersonic launch speed lends the cruise missile greater range?

A cruise missile truck is obviously going to be subsonic like B-52 because there's no real need for you to carry cruise missiles in a VLO aircraft. Just send the B-2 to bomb things with CCIP, you can afford to wait 18 hours because the missile silos aren't moving any time soon. Neither are the Russians just going to pick up Moscow and move it across the Urals.

Time critical targets are a thing, though. Things like TELs and air defense nodes are highly mobile and very elusive. They require fast response times. The old fashioned (aka disco era) solution is a high speed penetrator akin to B-70. A modern solution would be something like a platform agnostic hypersonic missile cued by GMTI satellite. A supersonic or hypersonic bomber would be an excellent killer of these targets. Whether or not it's a kamikaze matters very little TBH. Thus we arrive at the ultimate time critical bomber: the maneuvering reentry vehicle. Alternatively, Zircon or Hystrike. Or a B-70 slinging short range attack rockets.

The main point here is that high speed and high altitude can do similar things to VLO but more.

A practical hypersonic bomber is the ultimate weapon.

[Ban Pho]

Twin-boom aircraft are sexy.

[Celibrae]

And I suppose supersonic launch speed lends the cruise missile greater range?

A cruise missile truck is obviously going to be subsonic like B-52 because there's no real need for you to carry cruise missiles in a VLO aircraft. Just send the B-2 to bomb things with CCIP, you can afford to wait 18 hours because the missile silos aren't moving any time soon. Neither are the Russians just going to pick up Moscow and move it across the Urals.

Time critical targets are a thing, though. Things like TELs and air defense nodes are highly mobile and very elusive. They require fast response times. The old fashioned (aka disco era) solution is a high speed penetrator akin to B-70. A modern solution would be something like a platform agnostic hypersonic missile cued by GMTI satellite. A supersonic or hypersonic bomber would be an excellent killer of these targets. Whether or not it's a kamikaze matters very little TBH. Thus we arrive at the ultimate time critical bomber: the maneuvering reentry vehicle. Alternatively, Zircon or Hystrike. Or a B-70 slinging short range attack rockets.

The main point here is that high speed and high altitude can do similar things to VLO but more.

A practical hypersonic bomber is the ultimate weapon.

This has been enlightening. Thanks.

[Gallia-]

I guess the caveat is that hypersonics remain the realm of ballistic missiles while VLO is practically universal now. However, in the words of the Meme Master himself: "don't let your dreams be dreams".

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

I got 99 problems but a TEL ain't one

[Gallia-]

Good job on 1950s plane.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Good job on 1950s plane.

IC my !not RS-70 was supposed to enter service in 1964 with 300 airframes produced between 1961 and 1969 of which 60 are still in service upgraded with phased array radars, modern avionics, and PGM compatibility and the rest either crashed or sitting in the boneyard.

[Prosorusiya]

Turns out you can't fit CAD designed and manufactured wings to a fuselage that was hand made by communists in the 60s

for a company of supposedly smart people BAE can do some monumentally dumb things

~disco age~ technics

greatest

I guess taking hand measurements of literally 8-9 airframes was too much effort for the lazy ass Millennials involved in working the maths. Or even knowing the actual manufacturing methods of the 1960s of what is ostensibly their own company.

Interested but totally confused as to what you guys are referencing here?

[Gig em Aggies]

As before I might have posted but if not here we go:

With me rebuilding my nations history, government, and military is their a real world example or a could be possible fictional jet fighter aircraft that can fight in both atmosphere and outer space.

I don't want the Independence Day resurgence planes just because the alien engines are to bulky.

[The Corparation]

The closest RL thing would be the F-15, given that it can launch ASATs, but that's probably not what you're looking for. You're going to need to stick to fiction.

~disco age~ technics

greatest

I guess taking hand measurements of literally 8-9 airframes was too much effort for the lazy ass Millennials involved in working the maths. Or even knowing the actual manufacturing methods of the 1960s of what is ostensibly their own company.

Interested but totally confused as to what you guys are referencing here?

The clusterfuck of a program that was Nimrod MRA4

[Pavelania]

I got 99 problems but a TEL ain't one

(Image)

What program did you use to draw/design that?

[Crookfur]

As before I might have posted but if not here we go:

With me rebuilding my nations history, government, and military is their a real world example or a could be possible fictional jet fighter aircraft that can fight in both atmosphere and outer space.

I don't want the Independence Day resurgence planes just because the alien engines are to bulky.

Since that is pretty much science fiction then obviously you you will need to use something fictional.

The question then becomes how hard you want the scifi.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

I got 99 problems but a TEL ain't one

(Image)

What program did you use to draw/design that?

Solidworks

[Ban Pho]

Could carrier-based aircraft work equally good on land as on aircraft carriers?

[Free Asian Ports]

Could carrier-based aircraft work equally good on land as on aircraft carriers?

The Spanish, Swiss, Finnish, Canadian, and Malaysian air forces all operate the F/A-18 from land bases. The Taiwanese, Japanese, Singaporeans, Mexicans, Egyptians, and Israelis operated the E-2 from land bases. There is no special technical consideration that land based aircraft require that the Naval aircraft already does not. Some specialist aircraft make sacrifices for their carrier capability, but multirole fighters, in general, have no such handicaps. They work equally well, if not better in some cases, as land based aircraft.

[Pavelania]

Could carrier-based aircraft work equally good on land as on aircraft carriers?

Yes. Australia and Canada fly the F/A-18 Hornet despite they don't have any aircraft carriers. Their Air Forces fly them.

[South Atlantropa]

Tensions with my neighbor to the south North Atlantropa has caused me to reorganize my military is reliance on land based jet fighter, and bombers for maritime operations a good thing or should I get at least one small carrier. keep in mind I do have 4 F-35a models already in service with my Airforce.

[Crookfur]

Tensions with my neighbor to the south North Atlantropa has caused me to reorganize my military is reliance on land based jet fighter, and bombers for maritime operations a good thing or should I get at least one small carrier. keep in mind I do have 4 F-35a models already in service with my Airforce.

Will you need the carrier to reach any of your potential targets? Thats really the basic question you need to ask.

Hoenstly if you don;t have a carrier currently then don't plan on having one in active useful service for at least another decade providing you have a freindly carrier operating navy you can rely on to help you train up crews. If you don;t have a such a freind you are talking more like 15-20years.