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

[The Akasha Colony]

We’ve got a Force-wide datalink on our newer kit (SLAMRAAMS, late-model older aircraft and newer aircraft, etc) but it’s not present on all equipment. So it’s mainly a software issue (my nation loves when software is the issue because we let software developers do their mandatory service by writing software for us on the cheap)?

I remain unconvinced that young, fairly inexperienced, and short-term draftees are a remotely good idea to have working on key defense software development. Especially when the software in question involves something as absurdly complicated as a "force-wide" network. Unless the entire force is like ten dudes with some Motorola radios from the local Best Buy.

It's like saying your nation's main battle tanks are also designed by fresh-faced high school graduates, and its warships by alumni of the local sailing team.

It’s not worse, it’s just that like every other nations airforce we’re replacing them in the aviation role with AIM-120s. We put on a new, far more capable, radar from our indigenous fighter and it’s not AIM-7 capable (the Uber Tigershark is meant to be cheap, changing up the radar to work with AIM-7s is too expensive)

I'm not sure why you would remove this capability in the first place. There is no particular reason an AESA would somehow be unable to illuminate targets for a missile that older model radars had no problem supporting.

We also have plenty of AIM-120s than are better than perfectly fine. I’m not talking about completely eliminating the AIM-7 capable aircraft, it’s just once I’ve gotten rid of a few hundred aircraft you don’t want to have to store enough AIM-7s for 800 airplanes when you’ve only got 200, and they’re reserve.

What actually makes a radar capable of launching a specific missile anyways? Is it software or hardware? If it’s software I might just let the fuckers work

As Crookfur said, you'd probably just continue expending the existing AIM-7 stocks in training missions using legacy fighters until all those fighters are finally replaced, and at the end you probably wouldn't have many left. Stockpiles don't last forever, they are constantly expended over time in training and age out of service after a certain period if not used, replaced, or refurbished.

It's hardly worth developing a brand new weapon system including launcher, electronics, and new software just to recycle some old missiles. If you are too cheap to write some extra software for your fancy new AESA-equipped fighters, I find it rather odd to say the least that you are willing to spend even more money trying to squeeze some other use out of them.

The cheapest option (since that's what you seem to be most interested in) is to just scrap them or sell them off to some other power that still operates F-4s or something. Everything else costs money, and most of them cost more money than the idea you already dismissed (which is continuing to use them in the air-to-air role).

[Kanugues Wed]

We’ve got a Force-wide datalink on our newer kit (SLAMRAAMS, late-model older aircraft and newer aircraft, etc) but it’s not present on all equipment. So it’s mainly a software issue (my nation loves when software is the issue because we let software developers do their mandatory service by writing software for us on the cheap)?

I remain unconvinced that young, fairly inexperienced, and short-term draftees are a remotely good idea to have working on key defense software development. Especially when the software in question involves something as absurdly complicated as a "force-wide" network. Unless the entire force is like ten dudes with some Motorola radios from the local Best Buy.

The idea is more that the draftees are doing all the barley-classified "fix this majors home computer cause he looked at really sketchy porn" or the "make these two different radio models talk to each other" stuff leaving the actually skilled people to useful jobs.

I'm not sure why you would remove this capability in the first place. There is no particular reason an AESA would somehow be unable to illuminate targets for a missile that older model radars had no problem supporting.

Honestly after all this I think listing the fuckers as AIM-7 capable would be the most sensible way around this. Or just selling them to japan or SK for their F-4's.

[Hayo]

What was the most effective means of killing vehicles (AFVs, soft skinned vehicles, trains, etc.) with WW2 era aircraft?

Rockets? Cannons? Lots of small shaped-charge bombs?

[The Akasha Colony]

The idea is more that the draftees are doing all the barley-classified "fix this majors home computer cause he looked at really sketchy porn" or the "make these two different radio models talk to each other" stuff leaving the actually skilled people to useful jobs.

This wouldn't have required specialized labor anyway. Basic troubleshooting and software resets are extremely easy. It doesn't actually save you any time or money.

Honestly after all this I think listing the fuckers as AIM-7 capable would be the most sensible way around this. Or just selling them to japan or SK for their F-4's.

I wonder why you even need a way "around" this given that it is an obstacle entirely of your own making.

AFAIK all of the remaining JASDF F-4s are reconnaissance or EW versions, not combat models. The Japanese don't have any great need for more AIM-7s because their newer jets use Japanese-produced missiles and the F-4s will be retired in favor of F-35.

[Kanugues Wed]

Yeah I kinda played myself saying that.

[Kampala-]

If AIM-7R had been made it would still be in production TBH.

[Kampala-]

What would you do to them anyways to make a SAM? What’s different between the AMRAAM and SLAMRAAM missiles?

Mostly I’m thinking of sticking them on M113s and maybe BMPs to give infantry some long-range organic air defense.

At the most basic,

Nothing. A suitable fire control radar and a fixture similar to Crotale would be sufficient if Sparrow is fired into the beam.

This is literally how BPDMS got built.

[Connori Pilgrims]

What was the most effective means of killing vehicles (AFVs, soft skinned vehicles, trains, etc.) with WW2 era aircraft?

Rockets? Cannons? Lots of small shaped-charge bombs?

Blowing up trains and soft skins is easily done with any WW2 aircraft weapon readily available. massed batteries of 0.50cals or 20mm Mk II/V cannons will do the job nicely, and rockets and bombs of any class even more so.

Actually killing tanks with aircraft is a bit trickier. The USSR and Germany went with loading their Shturmovik and Stuka and other aircraft with heavy cannon of 37mm calibre or more, to mixed results. The USSR also tried mass deployment of shaped charge bombs, although they needed to expend a lot since they were small bombs. Shturmoviks also carried 82mm and 132mm rockets, although they had rather appalling accuracy for hitting point targets, and theo 132mm was only effective against medium panzers with direct hits. The US and UK went with regular 250-1000lb bombs and either HVAR and RP-3 rockets, although their hit rates weren’t exactly inspiring (the RP-3s particularly were rather abysmal), rockets can have disproportionate morale effects on the enemy.

[Austrasien]

What was the most effective means of killing vehicles (AFVs, soft skinned vehicles, trains, etc.) with WW2 era aircraft?

Rockets? Cannons? Lots of small shaped-charge bombs?

There wasn't one really. It was extremely rare for AFVs to be destroyed by aircraft in WWII. Usually, they only succeeded in temporarily immobilizing them (at best) and panicking the crews.

[Corindia]

What was the most effective means of killing vehicles (AFVs, soft skinned vehicles, trains, etc.) with WW2 era aircraft?

Rockets? Cannons? Lots of small shaped-charge bombs?

probably reporting their position accurately so something else could deal with them tbh
or maybe something meta like attacking fuel depots and supply lines from the air

[Kampala-]

What was the most effective means of killing vehicles (AFVs, soft skinned vehicles, trains, etc.) with WW2 era aircraft?

Rockets? Cannons? Lots of small shaped-charge bombs?

Anti tank gun and mine.

But take them off the plane and put them on wheels or in the hands of stoic dogface keen on liberating Europe from Nazis.

Save plane for bombing bridge/shooting other plane/bombing city/shooting train maybe.

[Hayo]

Hm, perhaps I should have said "least bad".

The PTAB-style bombs seem like the most practical option. Only problem is that you need to make a level pass at a low altitude for them to have a decent chance of hitting a target as small as a tank. I guess the problem of having to fly low applies to the other options too, though.

The most overrated AT weapon definitely seems to be the RP-3. You get the impression from some accounts that the Germans couldn't move armor out in the open without being pulverized by Typhoons.

[Austrasien]

The reason they weren't effective was that they almost always missed.

They didn't get better with age.

[Kanugues Wed]

I'd say small, accurate shaped charge rockets would be the best

[Gallia-]

You get the impression from some accounts that the Germans couldn't move armor out in the open without being pulverized by Typhoons.

Considering German armor survived daring mass raids by Bomber Command itself, I imagine they were more or less perfectly able to avoid being shot at by a bunch of fighter-bombers.

What harm is inflicted by aircraft came not from destroying tanks but from destroying vital railroad infrastructure needed to move tanks and supplies through France and Germany. The Allies were good at dropping bridges with dive bombers or knocking out trains or railheads with area bombing. Attacking moving point targets, like a tank, wasn't terribly viable until the 1960s or so when guided missiles appeared. Then you could steer the rocket onto the target and kill it.

[Austrasien]

Plane fear (and later helicopter fear was observed in IDF tank crews during the first Lebanon war) is a real phenomenon for tank crews. But generally it is very hard to kill a tank without some kind of guided weapon or truly fantastic quantities of ordnance, tank hunting was ineffective because pilots simply struggled to hit the tanks with anything at all.

You'd need to find a way to fit these WWII aircraft with something like a targeting pod and Brimstone missiles.

[Gallia-]

Ancient meme genre now extinct.

[Reorganized Soviet Union]

Ancient meme genre now extinct.

Amazing.

[Iltica]

How necessary would you say heavy/strategic bombers are in recent decades if they aren't carrying nuclear weapons? Can you just get by with some attackers and interdictors or is there still a need to be able to "carpet" large areas like in WWII?

[Hayo]

How necessary would you say heavy/strategic bombers are in recent decades if they aren't carrying nuclear weapons? Can you just get by with some attackers and interdictors or is there still a need to be able to "carpet" large areas like in WWII?

Non-VLO bombers in high intensity settings are basically carriers for cruise missiles. In low-intensity settings they can be used in the "bomb truck" role (basically loiter around and carry lots of PGMs).

VLO bombers can be used for opening attacks on an enemy IADS and for things like TEL hunting. They can use either guided bombs or standoff missiles to do this.

I would say that you don't need strategic bombers necessarily. Only 3 IRL countries currently use them. They do give you some novel capabilities though.

[Zhouran]

How necessary would you say heavy/strategic bombers are in recent decades if they aren't carrying nuclear weapons? Can you just get by with some attackers and interdictors or is there still a need to be able to "carpet" large areas like in WWII?

Non-VLO bombers in high intensity settings are basically carriers for cruise missiles. In low-intensity settings they can be used in the "bomb truck" role (basically loiter around and carry lots of PGMs).

VLO bombers can be used for opening attacks on an enemy IADS and for things like TEL hunting. They can use either guided bombs or standoff missiles to do this.

I would say that you don't need strategic bombers necessarily. Only 3 IRL countries currently use them. They do give you some novel capabilities though.

In the role of a tactical bomb truck, the only advantage a heavy strategic bomber such as the B-1B would have in that role compared to fighter-bombers/strike-fighters like the Su-34 and F-15E would be longer range and higher ordnance capacity. Although, a single B-1B would probably be more expensive in air interdiction than, let's say, three-to-six F-15Es.

Can you just get by with some attackers and interdictors or is there still a need to be able to "carpet" large areas like in WWII?

Carpet bombing is kinda obsolete, especially due to advancement in precision-guided munitions, as well as the threat of SAMs. Fighter-bombers and strike fighters would be a more cost-effective solution than strategic bombers if you're considering to use strategic bombers in the tactical bombing role only.

[Reorganized Soviet Union]

How necessary would you say heavy/strategic bombers are in recent decades if they aren't carrying nuclear weapons? Can you just get by with some attackers and interdictors or is there still a need to be able to "carpet" large areas like in WWII?

You could always have them carry cruise missiles (e.g Tu-95).

[The Akasha Colony]

How necessary would you say heavy/strategic bombers are in recent decades if they aren't carrying nuclear weapons? Can you just get by with some attackers and interdictors or is there still a need to be able to "carpet" large areas like in WWII?

How important is the need to carry large quantities of ordnance at long range?

Rather than looking at the platform, it's better to look at the role: is that role still necessary?

I expect this in part will depend on how likely you expect a high intensity conflict will be in which large quantities of ordnance are required.

You could always have them carry cruise missiles (e.g Tu-95).

Cruise missiles are expensive, relatively slow to respond compared to a fast jet loitering with JDAMs, and tend to have unfortunately high dud rates.

[Kanugues Wed]

I've designed a trainer version of my super tigershark and named it the Tutorshark and it is the greatest accomplishment I have made in my entire life.

[Iltica]

How necessary would you say heavy/strategic bombers are in recent decades if they aren't carrying nuclear weapons? Can you just get by with some attackers and interdictors or is there still a need to be able to "carpet" large areas like in WWII?

How important is the need to carry large quantities of ordnance at long range?

Rather than looking at the platform, it's better to look at the role: is that role still necessary?

I expect this in part will depend on how likely you expect a high intensity conflict will be in which large quantities of ordnance are required.

You could always have them carry cruise missiles (e.g Tu-95).

Cruise missiles are expensive, relatively slow to respond compared to a fast jet loitering with JDAMs, and tend to have unfortunately high dud rates.

The main reason I doubt their necessity is that if used like in the good olde days to desrupt industry, most wars lately don't seem to last long enough for manufacturing disruption to matter, you just have what you started with and that's it.

The ones that do last, seem to mostly be mostly asymmetrical conflicts where there's no factories etc to destroy in the first place. The only times I can think of they would be useful, even VLO ones, would be during or after a nuclear exchange or if you just want to level a large urban area for whatever reason.