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

[The Akasha Colony]

"Desertic" sounds rather goofy IMO. Historically, the term "tropical" has been used sometimes but that might not adequately describe your super-desert.

What? Tropical is rather the opposite of desert: deserts are defined by their aridity while tropical climates are defined by their non-aridity, with high levels of moisture and generally high annual rainfall totals.

The adjective form of "desert" is simply "desert" in any event, which is why "desertic" sounds odd.

[Iltica]

Tropical just means in the area near the equator, like say, Northern Africa.

[Triplebaconation]

Desertic is a perfectly cromulent word.

In any case desert modifications for aircraft were generally referred to as "tropical" when they were a thing.

It's kind of hard to put a sand filter on a jet engine, though, and even a scheme like on the MiG-29 doesn't do much to protect against sand and dust.

[The Akasha Colony]

Tropical just means in the area near the equator, like say, Northern Africa.

The equator happens to pass through a number of climate zones, and doesn't even come that close to North Africa (most of which lies outside the tropics anyway).

It is more likely that Isilanka was referring to the climate type (arid desert) rather than the specific latitude band (since the equator also passes through both the Amazon and the Congo basins, which are definitely not deserts).

[Triplebaconation]

Military nomenclature MUST conform to the Köppen-Geiger system.

[Gallia-]

The whole point of "A-12 does everything" is that the A-12 actually does everything

A12. I'm gonna look more into that and NATF for my navy. I'm in need of a "Hi" fighter for my Hi-Lo mix.

A-12 was the high.

The "lo" was F-18.

[Kassaran]

Arid
Tropic
Arctic

These are the three major classifications I think I'd use in trying to determine color schemes for camo and whatnot. I think these could carry over well enough.

Anyways, in terms of the jets, simple covers for the intakes while on the ground should do. If your jets can't get airborne in certain conditions, most certainly no one else is going to be sending any in after you.

For the oceanic variant, I'd call it a Naval or Marine variant with Marine probably being the better pick of the two to boot.

[Connori Pilgrims]

So, it looks like Britain has not yet entirely given up on homegrown military aviation. Funny that they're continuing with the "weather phenomenon" naming scheme...

So guys, think this is the beginning of a new British aviation renaissance? Or is this just a last gasp of a dying industry that's just going to get cancelled?

I want it to be the former, but the politics of the UK now makes me feel the latter is more probable. 2035 is a long ways away, and there's so many things that can go wrong...

[The Corparation]

Literally just a 20 year old model dusted off and given a fresh coat of paint. Except the people who understood what the model represented and how to build the real thing are all retired/retiring.

[The Akasha Colony]

So, it looks like Britain has not yet entirely given up on homegrown military aviation. Funny that they're continuing with the "weather phenomenon" naming scheme...

So guys, think this is the beginning of a new British aviation renaissance? Or is this just a last gasp of a dying industry that's just going to get cancelled?

I want it to be the former, but the politics of the UK now makes me feel the latter is more probable. 2035 is a long ways away, and there's so many things that can go wrong...

Brexit needs to be ironed out first. Airbus is already making noise in order to steer the negotiations toward a softer Brexit that prevents trade barriers from being imposed on British-manufactured components, and I can only imagine the reverse could be a problem in a hard Brexit scenario if BAE wants to rely on components and design services sourced from the continent. But as the recent cabinet shakeups have shown, there is still a lot of stubbornness among the hardline Brexiteers to push the UK entirely out of the single market.

Regardless of whether Britain has the technological capability, I expect one of the biggest problems is going to be finding partners. It's become pretty clear that developing a fifth generation fighter is not something that can be done except by a tiny handful of countries with strong political will and deeper pockets than the UK. But to find partners, the UK will need to lure customers away from the F-35 program, which is going to be a rather hard sell. The natural partners would be the other members of the Eurofighter coalition, but once again Brexit makes this a tricky proposition.

[Ethanialand]

I've been sitting here for awhile trying to figure out a narrower question than "is this a viable aircraft?"
(Image)
I've not had much luck. I'm still a bit behind in terms of aircraft knowledge.

For context, I'm looking for something that could fit in the late-WWI/Interwar-era as some sort of light transport. The exotic configuration appeals to me, but at the same time I understand that most aircraft look the way they do for a reason.

You should delete the front turret to make it more streamline, instead you can put a fixed machine gun in the front.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Brexit needs to be ironed out first. Airbus is already making noise in order to steer the negotiations toward a softer Brexit that prevents trade barriers from being imposed on British-manufactured components, and I can only imagine the reverse could be a problem in a hard Brexit scenario if BAE wants to rely on components and design services sourced from the continent. But as the recent cabinet shakeups have shown, there is still a lot of stubbornness among the hardline Brexiteers to push the UK entirely out of the single market.

Regardless of whether Britain has the technological capability, I expect one of the biggest problems is going to be finding partners. It's become pretty clear that developing a fifth generation fighter is not something that can be done except by a tiny handful of countries with strong political will and deeper pockets than the UK. But to find partners, the UK will need to lure customers away from the F-35 program, which is going to be a rather hard sell. The natural partners would be the other members of the Eurofighter coalition, but once again Brexit makes this a tricky proposition.

None of the Eurofighter partners seem to want something like Tempest even if Brexit wasn't a factor; Italy is with the F-35 program and as you mentioned would be hard to get them to join this program as opposed to just buying more F-35s. The Germans puportedly have already signed on with Dassault for whatever their program will be. Spain is a probable, but yeah more than likely they'll just join with the Franco-German project instead.

The comment mill on the article thinks Japan and Sweden as potential partners. Japan could be a possibility if only because they still want a fighter to presumably replace the F-15Js, for reasons of industrial sustainment (like what Britain apparently wants with this program), and there's some small precedent with the cooperation they're doing on the Meteor/AAM-4 techsharing (assuming that pushed through), although whether Japan is willing to merge the prospective F-3/Shinshin program with Tempest is another thing.

Sweden is even more unlikely, though that's because I'm unsure how serious they are about keeping Saab alive.

Commonwealth project perhaps? Australia may want something like this to replace the Super Hornets and restore the long-range capability that the F-111 gave them (if Tempest is gonna be a long-range bird that is), and Canada might want this in lieu of going back to the F-35.

But then again, it is also quite likely that this program will just die in favor of more F-35s if future British governments become weak-kneed/money-conscious again (especially if those Liberals or Greens win, heaven forbid)...

[The Akasha Colony]

None of the Eurofighter partners seem to want something like Tempest even if Brexit wasn't a factor; Italy is with the F-35 program and as you mentioned would be hard to get them to join this program as opposed to just buying more F-35s. The Germans puportedly have already signed on with Dassault for whatever their program will be. Spain is a probable, but yeah more than likely they'll just join with the Franco-German project instead.

Most of the EU will probably go with whatever the French and Germans cook up, indeed. They can promise workshare more easily and may well be pressing for EU-wide adoption as a means of strengthening the common EU defense infrastructure.

The comment mill on the article thinks Japan and Sweden as potential partners. Japan could be a possibility if only because they still want a fighter to presumably replace the F-15Js, for reasons of industrial sustainment (like what Britain apparently wants with this program), and there's some small precedent with the cooperation they're doing on the Meteor/AAM-4 techsharing (assuming that pushed through), although whether Japan is willing to merge the prospective F-3/Shinshin program with Tempest is another thing.

At least as things stand in the present, I think it's unlikely that Japan would agree to the terms the UK would be looking for. Mostly because Japan is unwilling to give up the sort of workshare that Britain would want to justify their own investment. The Japanese have a head start at this point anyway and don't seem to be very interested in squandering their lead. Not with China pushing ahead with its own fifth generation programs. Maybe they'll agree to some technology sharing and joint development of certain components, but I imagine the Japanese already have a fairly well-formed concept of what they want F-3 to be, and would rather not put up with British indecision throughout the process.

Of course, Japan's attitudes toward its defense industry have been changing rather significantly over the last decade, so who knows? But the ability to export F-3 on its own terms likely remains very attractive to the Japanese government and industry.

Sweden is even more unlikely, though that's because I'm unsure how serious they are about keeping Saab alive.

The Swedes don't really have anything to offer except some funding. Certainly nothing the UK doesn't already have in terms of industrial base.

Commonwealth project perhaps? Australia may want something like this to replace the Super Hornets and restore the long-range capability that the F-111 gave them (if Tempest is gonna be a long-range bird that is), and Canada might want this in lieu of going back to the F-35.

Is there room in the budget?

Even for cheaper programs, within the last few decades, Australia seems to be more interested in buying modified off the shelf solutions like Boxer and Shortfin Barracuda over bespoke systems like ye olde Collins-class. The Canadians are in the same boat (no pun intended). The British might be able to rope them into a replacement program, but IIRC the Canadians are looking for aircraft in the more immediate timeframe, rather than after 2035.

But then again, it is also quite likely that this program will just die in favor of more F-35s if future British governments become weak-kneed/money-conscious again (especially if those Liberals or Greens win, heaven forbid)...

I think cancellation is the most likely outcome, but it is not a foregone conclusion. I'm sure the ministry has a clear-headed view of what a fight this will be, but whether they can sustain the willpower for a long enough time period is another question. And it will probably come at the expense of other projects, just like how F-35 gobbled up a lot of the procurement budgets for the US services.

[Theodosiya]

A project for "heavy 5th gen fighter" that might involve Japan...
And KFX/IFX replace F-16...
I think I might know what fighter going to replace the Sukhoi series...

[Isilanka]

"Desertic" sounds rather goofy IMO. Historically, the term "tropical" has been used sometimes but that might not adequately describe your super-desert.

What? Tropical is rather the opposite of desert: deserts are defined by their aridity while tropical climates are defined by their non-aridity, with high levels of moisture and generally high annual rainfall totals.

The adjective form of "desert" is simply "desert" in any event, which is why "desertic" sounds odd.

I think the entire confusion boils down to me being bad at english. Desert it is.

[Spirit of Hope]

Would it be possible to launch and control a SacnEagle UAV from a modified APC? I know it can be launched from the US Navies Mark 5 SOC, but I don't know about if it is controlled there, or if that translates to being done with an APC.

[Iltica]

Does anyone have any tips on aspect ratio for modern fighters?

[New Chilokver]

Is there an optimal ratio for air superiority to multirole/ground attack fighters?

[The Akasha Colony]

Is there an optimal ratio for air superiority to multirole/ground attack fighters?

No. The needs placed on your air force in a given conflict are dependent on who you end up fighting.

It's a moot point anyway because the differences between "air superiority fighters" and "multi-role fighters" is basically gone. That's sort of the whole point of the "multi-role" name.

[Reorganized Soviet Union]

Is there an optimal ratio for air superiority to multirole/ground attack fighters?

No. The needs placed on your air force in a given conflict are dependent on who you end up fighting.

It's a moot point anyway because the differences between "air superiority fighters" and "multi-role fighters" is basically gone. That's sort of the whole point of the "multi-role" name.

I mean, there are some that are only good as ASF (F-22) but they're niche so your point still stands.

[Gallia-]

Is there an optimal ratio for air superiority to multirole/ground attack fighters?

0 F-22
1 F-35

So infinite ratio to F-35.

No. The needs placed on your air force in a given conflict are dependent on who you end up fighting.

It's a moot point anyway because the differences between "air superiority fighters" and "multi-role fighters" is basically gone. That's sort of the whole point of the "multi-role" name.

I mean, there are some that are only good as ASF (F-22) but they're niche so your point still stands.

F-22 is the TACAIR equivalent of a miscarriage.

You have all the bits and pieces of what they wanted but it came out in a mess that isn't quite right and can never be put back together.

[The Akasha Colony]

I mean, there are some that are only good as ASF (F-22) but they're niche so your point still stands.

F-22 has been regularly bombing targets in Syria. By all accounts, it has been excellent in this role.

F-22 was supposed to have additional sensors that would have further improved its capabilities but these got cut due to ever-expanding cost issues and then the programs that were supposed to add some of these features back after it entered service also got cut or are stuck in development hell.

Which is one of the reasons why the services dug their heels in a bit more for F-35 and rammed it through both their own budgeting process and Congress without as many features cut.

[The Akasha Colony]

The year is After Colony 195...



Full size is linked in the image.

I was planning to draw up a heavy airlifter and decided on a whim to base it on the jet transport in Gundam Wing, with various details and scaling taken from C-5 or An-124 (mostly C-5). It's a rather comically large aircraft to use upper surface blowing, admittedly.

Maximum rated payload is ~120 tonnes at entry into service and later improved to ~160 tonnes at present, with the original specifications requiring the ability to carry 80 tonnes of cargo a minimum distance of 7,000 km, allowing cargo to be carried non-stop across the Atlantic. Another early expected use was the deployment of heavy construction equipment and ballistic missiles to missile sites in the Sahara.

The design isn't rated for true rough field capability but can operate safely from 1,500 m runways at up to 50% payload and from runways as short as 900 meters with a further reduced payload. These estimates are probably a bit conservative given they are roughly the same as C-5A/B, as I don't have quite the same breadth of information available about C-5M or C-X. The higher placement of the engines allows for more effective use during ground maneuvering without a significant FOD risk or danger to nearby aircraft.

[The Manticoran Empire]

So transferring fixed wing attack aircraft and strategic airlifters from the Air Force to the Army: Good Idea or Bad Idea and why?

[Austrasien]

So transferring fixed wing attack aircraft and strategic airlifters from the Air Force to the Army: Good Idea or Bad Idea and why?

No point.

1. Lanchester square is still a valid high-level approximation for air warfare. This favors the concentration of aircraft under central direction (AKA an Air Force or functional equivalent).
2. Airlift is important to all branches, it is not primarily or exclusively an army concern.
3. There is nothing fundamental about inter-arm rivalry. Failures to co-operate can occur at just about any level. This has been a feature of modern US military history, but it isn't a law of physics.