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

[The Corparation]

A good RC plane pilot and a Thrust-to-weight ratio > 1



Also the best way to land and take off on submarine aircraft carriers according to some dudes in the 50s.

I mean the Pogo worked. For a while.

The Pogo was built for it though, there were a couple of crazies who wanted to do it with modified F-11Fs. A plane which was never meant to land on its ass.

[Bongrovia]

I'll just throw mine in here, because why not. And, because it's allowed, I'll list the aviation sections of Bongrovia's Navy and Marine Corps. I'm definitely open to critique and/or criticism.

Bongrovian Air Force/Marine Corps: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=bon ... /id=889093
Bongrovian Navy (BGNAVAIR): https://www.nationstates.net/nation=bon ... /id=896731

I would suggest using CTRL+G and going to the aviation sections of both the BGMC and BGN lists, as well as the entirety of the BGAF list. (It's honestly just too long to list here.)

[The Manticoran Empire]

I'll just throw mine in here, because why not. And, because it's allowed, I'll list the aviation sections of Bongrovia's Navy and Marine Corps. I'm definitely open to critique and/or criticism.

Bongrovian Air Force/Marine Corps: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=bon ... /id=889093
Bongrovian Navy (BGNAVAIR): https://www.nationstates.net/nation=bon ... /id=896731

I would suggest using CTRL+G and going to the aviation sections of both the BGMC and BGN lists, as well as the entirety of the BGAF list. (It's honestly just too long to list here.)

No pictures?

[Prosorusiya]

Does anybody have suggestions for an Liason aircraft from the postwar period, especially from the Soviet Union?

I have been considering the An-14 or Yak-12 for this role, and also the Aero L-60 Brigadyr. I might also consider the Fuji LM-1 Nikko ... any other suggestions? I want an aircraft that is at least cable of carrying one stretcher, as I intend of it’s duties to be recovering downed pilots.

I’d normally pick a helicopter for these kinds of jobs, but I am trying to find a plane that would be easy for an fighter pilot who has been banned from jets for health reasons to transition to.

[Purpelia]

Does anybody have suggestions for an Liason aircraft from the postwar period, especially from the Soviet Union?

I have been considering the An-14 or Yak-12 for this role, and also the Aero L-60 Brigadyr. I might also consider the Fuji LM-1 Nikko ... any other suggestions? I want an aircraft that is at least cable of carrying one stretcher, as I intend of it’s duties to be recovering downed pilots.

I’d normally pick a helicopter for these kinds of jobs, but I am trying to find a plane that would be easy for an fighter pilot who has been banned from jets for health reasons to transition to.

Than why would you want a liaison aircraft? Wouldn't a trainer be a better choice for a former fighter pilot? That or an old prop fighter or something. Something with a more fighter style layout.

[Prosorusiya]

I did consider using a trainer, but I figured a liason aircraft would be a safer role for a pregnant woman... since Nonna would solely be in command and not some newb pilot looking to become the subject of a training film. Arguably, a trainer could also be used for liason... but might not serve as well for evacuating wounded with a tandem cockpit design, and I was also thinking that off duty Nonna might also use the aircraft to give her friends a lift to other bases, which would be better served by a four seat aircraft. I’m not a pilot though, so I can’t say how much the difference in cockpits between a trainer and a liason aircraft would matter to someone who used to fly supersonic jets.

[Crookfur]

I did consider using a trainer, but I figured a liason aircraft would be a safer role for a pregnant woman... since Nonna would solely be in command and not some newb pilot looking to become the subject of a training film. Arguably, a trainer could also be used for liason... but might not serve as well for evacuating wounded with a tandem cockpit design, and I was also thinking that off duty Nonna might also use the aircraft to give her friends a lift to other bases, which would be better served by a four seat aircraft. I’m not a pilot though, so I can’t say how much the difference in cockpits between a trainer and a liason aircraft would matter to someone who used to fly supersonic jets.

There will be very little difference other than the liason aircraft having side by side seating. Honestly having a couple of laison aircraft attached to a squadron makes more sense than a couple of trainers as they are simply more useful and allow pilots to keep flight hours up whilst carrying out actually important duties like medevac, collecting spares, flying brass around, getting the (liquid) lunch in and generally going on jollies.
It's a more common approach in the western world although the definition of laison aircraft can vary from a simple Cessna to actual bizjets (IIRC the French use falcon 20s).

[Purpelia]

I did not realize this was an official squadron thing. I thought it was just a personal joyride aircraft like the one that killed Gagarin.

[Kanugues Wed]

Can someone give me some advice on how many rounds a gunpod should carry? Especially for ones with an AGL, revolver cannon (revolver all the way, gatling get the fuck out of here) or a heavy machine gun? I want to make a gunpod that can be easily swaped between at least the automatic grenade launcher and the HMG.

[The Corparation]

As many as you can fit. Likely a few hundred rounds or so.

[Kanugues Wed]

"As many as I can fit"

True.

I'm more asking how many rounds I want so I know how big (And heavy and draggy and expensive) to make it.

Also, said automatic genade launcher is halfway to a low-velocity autocannon rather than an AGL. it's firing 45x117mm FFS.

[Zhouran]

"As many as I can fit"

True.

I'm more asking how many rounds I want so I know how big (And heavy and draggy and expensive) to make it.

Also, said automatic genade launcher is halfway to a low-velocity autocannon rather than an AGL. it's firing 45x117mm FFS.

45×117mm sounds pretty large for an AGL. I'm gonna make a guess and say that a gunpod could carry probably up to 350-400 45×117mm rounds, and I'm making this estimation from the Pave Claw/GEPOD30 gunpod which carried up to 353 30×173mm rounds.

Also, what's the muzzle velocity of the automatic grenade launcher? Since it uses a very large round and isn't too far off from an autocannon, I'm gonna guess that the muzzle velocity ranges somewhere between 500-700 m/s.

[Kanugues Wed]

The barrel is rather short, and there isn't too much propellant, so I'm going to peg the muzzle velocity at about 560-600 m/s. 45x117 is pretty damn large for an autocannon, but I wan't this thing to be able to take on light armour and destroy them without making like twenty passes just waiting for some jackass with a HMG to screw up my plane. Large rounds allow for longer range.

[Zhouran]

Large rounds allow for longer range.

Indeed.

Also, revolver cannon is best cannon

[The Manticoran Empire]

The barrel is rather short, and there isn't too much propellant, so I'm going to peg the muzzle velocity at about 560-600 m/s. 45x117 is pretty damn large for an autocannon, but I wan't this thing to be able to take on light armour and destroy them without making like twenty passes just waiting for some jackass with a HMG to screw up my plane. Large rounds allow for longer range.

Not necessarily. A 40mm grenade launcher has a shorter range than a 40mm autocannon. The size of the round does not matter near as much as propellant charge and barrel length. The longer the barrel and/or the larger the propellant charge, the further the round will go. It's also a matter of muzzle velocity and aim. That's why howitzers have long barrels, varying propellant charges, and fire at high angles. They are trying to squeeze every centimeter of range out of a mobile platform.

[Kanugues Wed]

I get that. I’m talking about a larger AGL grenade rather than swapping it for an auto cannon.

[Kanugues Wed]

Large rounds allow for longer range.

Indeed.

Also, revolver cannon is best cannon

RevolverCannonMasterRace!

[The Manticoran Empire]

I get that. I’m talking about a larger AGL grenade rather than swapping it for an auto cannon.

Again it's about propellant charge and barrel length.

[Soleanna]

[Roskian Federation]

so I have to decide on a fighter plane to operate in my air force, and my areas of access are these:

56 F-16-40s, 16 (maybe 24) F-16-50s, all with hours (i don't know how many) on their airframes, or 120 brand new Saab Gripen E/F (NG)

My current geopolitical position is directly bordering the Soviet Union, I'm a post-soviet state that had its entire military (70% equipment loss) obliterated in the war. At present, I have 10 MiG-29s and 4 Su-24s, all of which will be phased out within the next decade (all of the Su-24s will be dropped by the end of next year).

I am currently in a NATO-style organization, but I border only one ally, and they use the Gripen. We are isolated from the rest of the alliance (but we both border this USSR, and two other allies also border this state)

Another state in the alliance is offering the F-16s, and I do have the US equivalent in the region (and F-16s are extremely proliferated)

The current defence budget for FY 2018 is 11.8 billion, on automatic increases through the Military Armament Program 2014-2024 (Acquisitions from this period total to 41 billion)

The point of this air force is to push back the potential of being overrun by the USSR state in the air before reinforcements can arrive from the stronger states.

[Taihei Tengoku]

F-16

you can recondition the airframes to V standard anyways and training 80 new pilots is easier than training 120, plus you integrate with a wider alliance structure for economies of scale

[Axis Nova]

You'd need more than 80 pilots anyways.

[The Manticoran Empire]

so I have to decide on a fighter plane to operate in my air force, and my areas of access are these:

56 F-16-40s, 16 (maybe 24) F-16-50s, all with hours (i don't know how many) on their airframes, or 120 brand new Saab Gripen E/F (NG)

My current geopolitical position is directly bordering the Soviet Union, I'm a post-soviet state that had its entire military (70% equipment loss) obliterated in the war. At present, I have 10 MiG-29s and 4 Su-24s, all of which will be phased out within the next decade (all of the Su-24s will be dropped by the end of next year).

I am currently in a NATO-style organization, but I border only one ally, and they use the Gripen. We are isolated from the rest of the alliance (but we both border this USSR, and two other allies also border this state)

Another state in the alliance is offering the F-16s, and I do have the US equivalent in the region (and F-16s are extremely proliferated)

The current defence budget for FY 2018 is 11.8 billion, on automatic increases through the Military Armament Program 2014-2024 (Acquisitions from this period total to 41 billion)

The point of this air force is to push back the potential of being overrun by the USSR state in the air before reinforcements can arrive from the stronger states.

F-16. It's cheaper to purchase and operate and, given the proliferation, could also allow for joint training with allied nations. What is the overall strategic situation like? Does this NATO-equivalent organization have forward deployed troops in your part of the world (I'm assuming Europe)? What kind of ground forces do you possess? If the Alliance is intelligent, they would likely have deployed multi-national forces to you and your neighbor, seeing the two of you as the first line of defense, much like West Germany. Now, depending on how quickly you can get the F-16s and train new pilots, I would recommend maintaining the Su-24s for a while longer.

[Zhouran]

I'm interested to know how people structure their air force's combat aircraft fleet.

My air force technically follows the high-low mix, however since the end of the Cold War the production of high-performance 4th-gen fighter jets (heavy air-superiority fighters akin to those such as F-15 and Su-27/30/37) in Zhouran increased while both 3rd-gen (aircraft akin to those such as the F-4) and low-performance 4th-gen (light/medium fighters similar to that of the F-16 or F/A-18) fighter jets were pushed aside. During the 1980s, low-performance 4th-gen fighters started to replace 3rd-gen fighters as the main standard frontline fighter jets of the ZPAAF with high-performance 4th-gen fighters being assigned to "elite" units, but by the 1990s due to increase focus on expeditionary warfare, high-performance 4th-gen fighters became the main frontline fighters of the ZPAAF with low-performance 4th-gen fighters being mainly relegated to rearline reserve while 3rd-gen fighters are placed in storage reserve due to their old age.

Pretty much my air force had been placing strong emphasis on heavy multirole fighters over cheaper light fighters and even dedicated CAS aircraft during the 1990s and early 2000s. However, because the Cold War is over and the political environment has changed, my nation has only been participating in low-scale operations abroad against low-end threats such as insurgents, and basically my high-performance 4th-gen fighters have been conducting more air-to-surface duties in low-intensity combat than air-to-air duties. Like the US Air Force, my nation's air force has an overkill problem, and the problem only gets worse by the fact that my air force has a small-but-controversial group of military officers and civilian defense analysts (let's call them the Boys In Blue) that advocate for retiring the air force's fleet of light fighters and dedicated CAS aircraft in exchange for more heavy multirole fighter jets and stealth fighters. Because they strongly believe in the concepts of adaptability and flexibility, their rationale is that a) dedicated CAS aircraft are single-purpose specialized aircraft that are not survivable in a future battlefield and b) heavy fighters have greater range and ordnance payload than light fighters, therefore light fighters should be used for rearline defense of the homeland while heavy fighters are "perfect for expeditionary warfare". With a), the Boys In Blue's rationale is pretty like that of the US Air Force's rationale to retire the A-10 while with b) they simply have a hard-on for heavy fighters.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I'm interested to know how people structure their air force's combat aircraft fleet.

My air force technically follows the high-low mix, however since the end of the Cold War the production of high-performance 4th-gen fighter jets (heavy air-superiority fighters akin to those such as F-15 and Su-27/30/37) in Zhouran increased while both 3rd-gen (aircraft akin to those such as the F-4) and low-performance 4th-gen (light/medium fighters similar to that of the F-16 or F/A-18) fighter jets were pushed aside. During the 1980s, low-performance 4th-gen fighters started to replace 3rd-gen fighters as the main standard frontline fighter jets of the ZPAAF with high-performance 4th-gen fighters being assigned to "elite" units, but by the 1990s due to increase focus on expeditionary warfare, high-performance 4th-gen fighters became the main frontline fighters of the ZPAAF with low-performance 4th-gen fighters being mainly relegated to rearline reserve while 3rd-gen fighters are placed in storage reserve due to their old age.

Pretty much my air force had been placing strong emphasis on heavy multirole fighters over cheaper light fighters and even dedicated CAS aircraft during the 1990s and early 2000s. However, because the Cold War is over and the political environment has changed, my nation has only been participating in low-scale operations abroad against low-end threats such as insurgents, and basically my high-performance 4th-gen fighters have been conducting more air-to-surface duties in low-intensity combat than air-to-air duties. Like the US Air Force, my nation's air force has an overkill problem, and the problem only gets worse by the fact that my air force has a small-but-controversial group of military officers and civilian defense analysts (let's call them the Boys In Blue) that advocate for retiring the air force's fleet of light fighters and dedicated CAS aircraft in exchange for more heavy multirole fighter jets and stealth fighters. Because they strongly believe in the concepts of adaptability and flexibility, their rationale is that a) dedicated CAS aircraft are single-purpose specialized aircraft that are not survivable in a future battlefield and b) heavy fighters have greater range and ordnance payload than light fighters, therefore light fighters should be used for rearline defense of the homeland while heavy fighters are "perfect for expeditionary warfare". With a), the Boys In Blue's rationale is pretty like that of the US Air Force's rationale to retire the A-10 while with b) they simply have a hard-on for heavy fighters.

Interesting.