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

[Gallia-]

>F-35
>"Less" capable than a 50 year old shitplane

Ok.tiff.

Making a multirole aircraft inevitably means that it won't be perfect at any role. A purpose built fighter will be a better fighter than a multi-role aircraft. A purpose built strike plane will be a better strike plane than a multi-role aircraft. It doesn't make the plane bad. It's just how the cards fall.

Do you even know what you're talking about? [No.]

F-35 is probably the most capable air superiority fighter ever made, even if that's only because F-22 never got the intended block upgrades, it's still worth a dozen Su-37-69Xs or F-16XYZs or whatever 4.5++++ fighter you can think of.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Making a multirole aircraft inevitably means that it won't be perfect at any role. A purpose built fighter will be a better fighter than a multi-role aircraft. A purpose built strike plane will be a better strike plane than a multi-role aircraft. It doesn't make the plane bad. It's just how the cards fall.

Do you even know what you're talking about? [No.]

F-35 is probably the most capable air superiority fighter ever made, even if that's only because F-22 never got the intended block upgrades, it's still worth a dozen Su-37-69Xs or F-16XYZs or whatever 4.5++++ fighter you can think of.

It's capabilities are largely due to stealth and the advanced technologies used in the F-35. It's more capable, yes, but mainly because you can't kill what you can't see. Su-37 and F-16 can't see F-35 or F-22. F-22 and F-35 CAN see Su-37 and F-16. When you can see the enemy, you can kill the enemy. When the enemy can't see you, then you can't be killed. As a result, the F-35 is superior, particularly are long range. At shorter range, however, the F-35s near-invisibility to radar disappears as it enters the effective range of heat-seeking missiles and the visual range of the enemy pilot. It is at these shorter ranges that the maneuverability of an aircraft is important and here, the F-35 does suffer. It is not quite as maneuverable as the F-22 but is potentially more maneuverable than 4th gen fighters.

[Gallia-]

>ultra-modern 1980s superjet
>"maneuvering"

lmao.bmp

Even ATF's titanium superstructure is for BVR. In WVR they both just shoot AIM-9Xs all over the place and kill everything within half a dozen miles. More than likely they run away though.

[The Akasha Colony]

Making a multirole aircraft inevitably means that it won't be perfect at any role. A purpose built fighter will be a better fighter than a multi-role aircraft. A purpose built strike plane will be a better strike plane than a multi-role aircraft. It doesn't make the plane bad. It's just how the cards fall.

This is nice video game logic but it's no longer actually true and hasn't been since multi-function sensors became a thing. Which is to say, it hasn't been true for decades.

Back in the day when electronics needed to have specialized modes for ground attack and for air-to-air search, different aircraft types made sense. But now the same radar can be used for both GMTI against ground targets and air search/track against aerial targets at the press of a button, and the processing systems are good enough to weed out the clutter that used to require a lot of manual attention by a back-seater. They don't need to be built differently to support low-altitude operations since stand-off smart munitions can be dropped at cruise altitude just fine.

Even "dedicated fighters" like F-22 have been used as ground-attack planes with great success. Just ask ISIS.

It's like complaining that modern "main battle tanks" must obviously be worse in some way than the separate "medium" and "heavy" tanks of old because... video game balance? Technology improved sufficiently that the old trade offs that had to be made between tank classes disappeared as all of the benefits of both could be combined in a single vehicle.

It's capabilities are largely due to stealth and the advanced technologies used in the F-35. It's more capable, yes, but mainly because you can't kill what you can't see. Su-37 and F-16 can't see F-35 or F-22. F-22 and F-35 CAN see Su-37 and F-16. When you can see the enemy, you can kill the enemy. When the enemy can't see you, then you can't be killed. As a result, the F-35 is superior, particularly are long range. At shorter range, however, the F-35s near-invisibility to radar disappears as it enters the effective range of heat-seeking missiles and the visual range of the enemy pilot. It is at these shorter ranges that the maneuverability of an aircraft is important and here, the F-35 does suffer. It is not quite as maneuverable as the F-22 but is potentially more maneuverable than 4th gen fighters.

Not really. It is impossible for a manned aircraft, no matter how agile, to effectively evade a modern IR-guided SRAAM. Mostly because fighters are limited to 9 gs due to their human pilots while SRAAMs can easily pull 50+ gs. And they'd only need about 30 gs to reliably chase down a target. This is especially true now that HOBS missiles are increasingly common so even the IR seeker's field of regard is no longer a serious limitation, and with the advent of HMDs + HOBs means that there is no longer any need to line up the attacker's nose with the defender's engine, which is what dogfights used to revolve around. A fighter pilot with an HMD flying a plane equipped with HOBs LOAL SRAAMs can fire on and kill a target just by looking in their direction. This is why there is so much emphasis on BVR: in WVR, everyone dies.

[Theodosiya]

Anyway, would it still be viable to maintain two main 5th gen fighters? Sort of like F-22 and F-35. The latter is the workhorse like F-16, the former would've been the high capability "aerial superiority" (Multirole, but with heavier emphasis on aerial superiority mission).

[Connori Pilgrims]

Anyway, would it still be viable to maintain two main 5th gen fighters? Sort of like F-22 and F-35. The latter is the workhorse like F-16, the former would've been the high capability "aerial superiority" (Multirole, but with heavier emphasis on aerial superiority mission).

That is what the US is doing, and what the PRC would like to try with J-20 and J-31. Although take note, those two are the biggest economies on the planet, and are the only ones who could even attempt it.

The min-max ideal though is to just make a 5th gen heavy fighter and mass produce that, instead of diverging resources to a "workhorse" that in the end doesn't save you much money anyway since it still needs the high-value electronics and sensor capabilities that are one of the biggest cost drivers.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

but m-muh loss to F-16 engagement

The F-16 was designed as an air-superiority platform. The F-35 was designed as a strike fighter. The need for a larger bomb load naturally results in less air-to-air capability.

>F-16A
>No Sparrows
>Terrible radar
>Air superiority

[The Manticoran Empire]

The F-16 was designed as an air-superiority platform. The F-35 was designed as a strike fighter. The need for a larger bomb load naturally results in less air-to-air capability.

>F-16A
>No Sparrows
>Terrible radar
>Air superiority

Never said it was a GOOD air-superiority platform.

[Theodosiya]

>F-16A
>No Sparrows
>Terrible radar
>Air superiority

Never said it was a GOOD air-superiority platform.

F-14/15 is the better aerial superiority. F-16, as good as it is, are more of a workhorse to fill bulk of air force, while F-15 is in the aerial superiority business(Mainly. Can do other), except the SE, which is multirole.

[The Akasha Colony]

Never said it was a GOOD air-superiority platform.

F-16 was an air superiority platform back when Sprey was a thing. But by the time it was intended to be a multi-role fighter from fairly early in its development.

F-14/15 is the better aerial superiority. F-16, as good as it is, are more of a workhorse to fill bulk of air force, while F-15 is in the aerial superiority business(Mainly. Can do other), except the SE, which is multirole.

Most of the current F-15 variants are multi-role fighters. Only a handful of countries bought the original air superiority F-15 (US, Israel, Japan, and Saudi Arabia). And all of those except Japan bought multi-role F-15 variants later to further supplement their air forces, while South Korea, Qatar, and Singapore bought only multi-role Eagles.

F-14 and F-15 are "better" than F-16 because they are heavy twin-engine fighters. Which makes them better at just about everything because they're bigger, faster, have a longer range, can carry a heavier payload, and have a larger avionics suite. They're also more expensive, so this should hardly be surprising.

[Iltica]

Not really. It is impossible for a manned aircraft, no matter how agile, to effectively evade a modern IR-guided SRAAM. Mostly because fighters are limited to 9 gs due to their human pilots while SRAAMs can easily pull 50+ gs. And they'd only need about 30 gs to reliably chase down a target. This is especially true now that HOBS missiles are increasingly common so even the IR seeker's field of regard is no longer a serious limitation, and with the advent of HMDs + HOBs means that there is no longer any need to line up the attacker's nose with the defender's engine, which is what dogfights used to revolve around. A fighter pilot with an HMD flying a plane equipped with HOBs LOAL SRAAMs can fire on and kill a target just by looking in their direction. This is why there is so much emphasis on BVR: in WVR, everyone dies.

No countermeasures? If modern WVR missiles are impossible to avoid why even bother with all this maneuverability fuss in the first place?

[Purpelia]

Not really. It is impossible for a manned aircraft, no matter how agile, to effectively evade a modern IR-guided SRAAM. Mostly because fighters are limited to 9 gs due to their human pilots while SRAAMs can easily pull 50+ gs. And they'd only need about 30 gs to reliably chase down a target. This is especially true now that HOBS missiles are increasingly common so even the IR seeker's field of regard is no longer a serious limitation, and with the advent of HMDs + HOBs means that there is no longer any need to line up the attacker's nose with the defender's engine, which is what dogfights used to revolve around. A fighter pilot with an HMD flying a plane equipped with HOBs LOAL SRAAMs can fire on and kill a target just by looking in their direction. This is why there is so much emphasis on BVR: in WVR, everyone dies.

No countermeasures? If modern WVR missiles are impossible to avoid why even bother with all this maneuverability fuss in the first place?

Because it lets you more easily dodge BVR missiles. Plus every bit of extra counts WVR. Having a 5% chance of living beats having a 0% chance any day.

[The Akasha Colony]

No countermeasures? If modern WVR missiles are impossible to avoid why even bother with all this maneuverability fuss in the first place?

DIRCM is the only countermeasure, since imaging focal plane array seekers are immune to flares and such. AFAIK, no fighter in mass production at the moment has it presently, although it's been marketed for helicopters.

Maneuverability remains important because it allows a fighter to set up more favorable combat conditions from the start. A fifth generation fighter like F-22 can use its combination of stealth, speed, and sensors to detect the enemy at great range (without being detected itself) and then move to an advantageous position (e.g higher altitude to gain a greater energy advantage, attack from the flanks to stay out of the enemy's radar/IRST cone, etc.). A fast, stealthy, but unmaneuverable fighter like a fifth generation MiG-31 would have limited ability to use its advantages if it cannot maneuver to a more advantageous position.

There are still lots of legacy non-HOBS, non-HMD fighters out there. In fact, these are probably the majority of fighters in service since only a small handful of countries can afford these new missiles and many have not upgraded their fighters or purchased new builds. Ironically, even F-22 does not yet have an HMD and has not been fully certified to use AIM-9X, so it has to use older, non-HOBS AIM-9s.

And lastly, while it is impossible to out-maneuver a modern WVR or BVR missile, it might be possible to evade long enough that the missile simply runs out of fuel. The real shortcoming with missiles is that by their nature they have much less potential energy than their targets. Against a missile fired at the edge of its range, it is possible that a bit of maneuvering might be the difference between life and death. This is why missile ranges have continued increasing and why there is such interest in ramjet missiles like Meteor. If one side has a missile that can reliably kill at 50 km and the other has a missile that can only do it at 30 km, the side with the 50 km missile has a clear advantage. Ramjet missiles in particular significantly increase a missiles no-escape zone because their jets can keep burning for a much longer period than a simple rocket motor.

[Post War America]

I've been working on a composition for the air force of a puppet of mine, and was wondering if, using the following design parameters this layout of craft used wasn't too off the mark.

The Design Parameters:
1) The nation was formed in its current state in the equivalent of the 1990s and a large part of its air force was purchased or built during that time, though some modernization has occurred since then.
2) Relatively low budget and somewhat behind the curve by NS standards, and/or mid-high range air force by RL. This is by design, the puppet in question is not extremely wealthy and industrialized, and the air force isn't a budget priority in comparison to the navy (the nation is an island).
3) Doctrinally orientated towards primarily air defense, and air support for the army, no doctrinal need for strategic bombing capability nor a particularly robust transport fleet.
4) Primarily required to have the ability to operate from short, oft underdeveloped runways, or from sections of interstate-type highway, though there are some good military airfields to operate from.
5) Is not responsible for the operation of rotary wing combat aircraft or maritime patrol, which are handled by the army, naval infantry, and navy respectively.
6) Has a population of a little over 220 million people, a conscripted military, and an air force budget of about $19bn dollars.

Now for the Aircraft List

Aircraft in Service
72 Rafale C - Air Superiority/Multirole
252 Gripen C - Multirole/Advanced Fighter Trainer
120 Super Tucano - Ground Support/Advanced Prop Trainer
72 C-130 - Transport
48 T-35 Pilan - Trainer
12 E2D Hawkeye - AWACS
4 E-767 - AWACS
12 KC-130 - Air Refueling
12 Bombardier CL-215 - VIP Transport
20 MQ-9 Reaper - Airborne Reconnaissance
36 Eurocopter Cougar - Short Range Transport/SAR/Rotary Trainer
42 Westland Lynx - Short Range Transport/SAR

I think I covered most of the important roles given my doctrine, but I'm not entirely sure. If you would like to discuss particular craft to fill a role, I would note that I am looking for RL only suggestions for craft and have the following order in terms of national origin. Western Europe/Latin America - US - Russia - China - Other.

[Crookfur]

I've been working on a composition for the air force of a puppet of mine, and was wondering if, using the following design parameters this layout of craft used wasn't too off the mark.

The Design Parameters:
1) The nation was formed in its current state in the equivalent of the 1990s and a large part of its air force was purchased or built during that time, though some modernization has occurred since then.
2) Relatively low budget and somewhat behind the curve by NS standards, and/or mid-high range air force by RL. This is by design, the puppet in question is not extremely wealthy and industrialized, and the air force isn't a budget priority in comparison to the navy (the nation is an island).
3) Doctrinally orientated towards primarily air defense, and air support for the army, no doctrinal need for strategic bombing capability nor a particularly robust transport fleet.
4) Primarily required to have the ability to operate from short, oft underdeveloped runways, or from sections of interstate-type highway, though there are some good military airfields to operate from.
5) Is not responsible for the operation of rotary wing combat aircraft or maritime patrol, which are handled by the army, naval infantry, and navy respectively.
6) Has a population of a little over 220 million people, a conscripted military, and an air force budget of about $19bn dollars.

Now for the Aircraft List

Aircraft in Service
72 Rafale C - Air Superiority/Multirole
252 Gripen C - Multirole/Advanced Fighter Trainer
120 Super Tucano - Ground Support/Advanced Prop Trainer
72 C-130 - Transport
48 T-35 Pilan - Trainer
12 E2D Hawkeye - AWACS
4 E-767 - AWACS
12 KC-130 - Air Refueling
12 Bombardier CL-215 - VIP Transport
20 MQ-9 Reaper - Airborne Reconnaissance
36 Eurocopter Cougar - Short Range Transport/SAR/Rotary Trainer
42 Westland Lynx - Short Range Transport/SAR

I think I covered most of the important roles given my doctrine, but I'm not entirely sure. If you would like to discuss particular craft to fill a role, I would note that I am looking for RL only suggestions for craft and have the following order in terms of national origin. Western Europe/Latin America - US - Russia - China - Other.

Your fighter choice isn't ideal, a force of this would only operate a mixed fleet like this if one type was more or less a dedicated strike fighter. You also have the issue that neither of your choices were available in the 90s. You might have ordered gripens then but would be unlikely to have started received airframes until the mid 2000s unless you were willing to take converted Swedish a models until new production could catch up.
An actual 90s fighter order would be f-16s/18s or mirage 2000s. Having a mixed fleet of mirage 2k types with a gradual replacement of the oldest models (which might have included some original c models to tide you over) with rafales would certainly make sense though.
You seem to have an oddly huge number of hers for no apparent reason, the mixed awacs fleet is darned odd and you really need some proper tankers.
You have no use for the lynx, cougars would do all your sar work. But for rotary wing training and liaison you probably want some cheaper twin engines like the a109 or the ec-135

[Post War America]

I've been working on a composition for the air force of a puppet of mine, and was wondering if, using the following design parameters this layout of craft used wasn't too off the mark.

The Design Parameters:
1) The nation was formed in its current state in the equivalent of the 1990s and a large part of its air force was purchased or built during that time, though some modernization has occurred since then.
2) Relatively low budget and somewhat behind the curve by NS standards, and/or mid-high range air force by RL. This is by design, the puppet in question is not extremely wealthy and industrialized, and the air force isn't a budget priority in comparison to the navy (the nation is an island).
3) Doctrinally orientated towards primarily air defense, and air support for the army, no doctrinal need for strategic bombing capability nor a particularly robust transport fleet.
4) Primarily required to have the ability to operate from short, oft underdeveloped runways, or from sections of interstate-type highway, though there are some good military airfields to operate from.
5) Is not responsible for the operation of rotary wing combat aircraft or maritime patrol, which are handled by the army, naval infantry, and navy respectively.
6) Has a population of a little over 220 million people, a conscripted military, and an air force budget of about $19bn dollars.

Now for the Aircraft List

Aircraft in Service
72 Rafale C - Air Superiority/Multirole
252 Gripen C - Multirole/Advanced Fighter Trainer
120 Super Tucano - Ground Support/Advanced Prop Trainer
72 C-130 - Transport
48 T-35 Pilan - Trainer
12 E2D Hawkeye - AWACS
4 E-767 - AWACS
12 KC-130 - Air Refueling
12 Bombardier CL-215 - VIP Transport
20 MQ-9 Reaper - Airborne Reconnaissance
36 Eurocopter Cougar - Short Range Transport/SAR/Rotary Trainer
42 Westland Lynx - Short Range Transport/SAR

I think I covered most of the important roles given my doctrine, but I'm not entirely sure. If you would like to discuss particular craft to fill a role, I would note that I am looking for RL only suggestions for craft and have the following order in terms of national origin. Western Europe/Latin America - US - Russia - China - Other.

Your fighter choice isn't ideal, a force of this would only operate a mixed fleet like this if one type was more or less a dedicated strike fighter. You also have the issue that neither of your choices were available in the 90s. You might have ordered gripens then but would be unlikely to have started received airframes until the mid 2000s unless you were willing to take converted Swedish a models until new production could catch up.
An actual 90s fighter order would be f-16s/18s or mirage 2000s. Having a mixed fleet of mirage 2k types with a gradual replacement of the oldest models (which might have included some original c models to tide you over) with rafales would certainly make sense though.
You seem to have an oddly huge number of hers for no apparent reason, the mixed awacs fleet is darned odd and you really need some proper tankers.
You have no use for the lynx, cougars would do all your sar work. But for rotary wing training and liaison you probably want some cheaper twin engines like the a109 or the ec-135

In regards to fighter choice, the Gripens are intended to be in-universe domestically produced, and possibly modernized in the early 2010s. Given that they were not imports would they sill not be in service yet?

hers?

The mixed AWACS, the E-2D is particular is intended to operate off of subpar airfields where the E-767 can't. Question is given that go with just E-2D or just E-767?

KC-130 isn't proper tanker?

Noted on the helicopters.

[Crookfur]

Your fighter choice isn't ideal, a force of this would only operate a mixed fleet like this if one type was more or less a dedicated strike fighter. You also have the issue that neither of your choices were available in the 90s. You might have ordered gripens then but would be unlikely to have started received airframes until the mid 2000s unless you were willing to take converted Swedish a models until new production could catch up.
An actual 90s fighter order would be f-16s/18s or mirage 2000s. Having a mixed fleet of mirage 2k types with a gradual replacement of the oldest models (which might have included some original c models to tide you over) with rafales would certainly make sense though.
You seem to have an oddly huge number of hers for no apparent reason, the mixed awacs fleet is darned odd and you really need some proper tankers.
You have no use for the lynx, cougars would do all your sar work. But for rotary wing training and liaison you probably want some cheaper twin engines like the a109 or the ec-135

In regards to fighter choice, the Gripens are intended to be in-universe domestically produced, and possibly modernized in the early 2010s. Given that they were not imports would they sill not be in service yet?

hers?

The mixed AWACS, the E-2D is particular is intended to operate off of subpar airfields where the E-767 can't. Question is given that go with just E-2D or just E-767?

KC-130 isn't proper tanker?

Noted on the helicopters.

Even for license production you probably aren't getting any into service until about 2003-2005 and if you are producing gripens there is no real reason to buy rafales.

Hers=Hercs (bloody auto correct), you have a huge number of them particularly if you claim to have no need for much of a transport fleet. I would probably max them out at 24 or and add the same again in C-160/C-295/C-27 sized aircraft.

KC-130s are fine for refuelling other hercs and helicopters and whilst they can service fighters they aren't ideal. You would maybe want to keep 6 of them for special operations/SAR and get about 12 jetliner based tankers/tanker-transports

As for the AWACs i would probably go with a fleet of 8-10 E-767s. Whilst the E-2s might be able to take off from smaller airfields they will still need similar support infrastructure.

Finally I would proabably want a advanced jet trainer/LIFT between the tucanos and any twin seat gripen. Hawk or alphajet, its up to you.

[Post War America]

In regards to fighter choice, the Gripens are intended to be in-universe domestically produced, and possibly modernized in the early 2010s. Given that they were not imports would they sill not be in service yet?

hers?

The mixed AWACS, the E-2D is particular is intended to operate off of subpar airfields where the E-767 can't. Question is given that go with just E-2D or just E-767?

KC-130 isn't proper tanker?

Noted on the helicopters.

Even for license production you probably aren't getting any into service until about 2003-2005 and if you are producing gripens there is no real reason to buy rafales.

Hers=Hercs (bloody auto correct), you have a huge number of them particularly if you claim to have no need for much of a transport fleet. I would probably max them out at 24 or and add the same again in C-160/C-295/C-27 sized aircraft.

KC-130s are fine for refuelling other hercs and helicopters and whilst they can service fighters they aren't ideal. You would maybe want to keep 6 of them for special operations/SAR and get about 12 jetliner based tankers/tanker-transports

As for the AWACs i would probably go with a fleet of 8-10 E-767s. Whilst the E-2s might be able to take off from smaller airfields they will still need similar support infrastructure.

Finally I would proabably want a advanced jet trainer/LIFT between the tucanos and any twin seat gripen. Hawk or alphajet, its up to you.

Noted

[Iltica]

Reexamining compound sweep wings again to fix the elevon reversal problem. Iirc you guys said they had structural problems, but how bad is it? Some of the early EF Typhoon designs used them so they must not have been too worried about it?

[Purpelia]

Reexamining compound sweep wings again to fix the elevon reversal problem. Iirc you guys said they had structural problems, but how bad is it? Some of the early EF Typhoon designs used them so they must not have been too worried about it?

I have no idea. But my instinct tells me that if they tested the concept and rejected it they probably had good reasons to do so.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Making a multirole aircraft inevitably means that it won't be perfect at any role. A purpose built fighter will be a better fighter than a multi-role aircraft. A purpose built strike plane will be a better strike plane than a multi-role aircraft. It doesn't make the plane bad. It's just how the cards fall.

This is nice video game logic but it's no longer actually true and hasn't been since multi-function sensors became a thing. Which is to say, it hasn't been true for decades.

Back in the day when electronics needed to have specialized modes for ground attack and for air-to-air search, different aircraft types made sense. But now the same radar can be used for both GMTI against ground targets and air search/track against aerial targets at the press of a button, and the processing systems are good enough to weed out the clutter that used to require a lot of manual attention by a back-seater. They don't need to be built differently to support low-altitude operations since stand-off smart munitions can be dropped at cruise altitude just fine.

Even "dedicated fighters" like F-22 have been used as ground-attack planes with great success. Just ask ISIS.

It's like complaining that modern "main battle tanks" must obviously be worse in some way than the separate "medium" and "heavy" tanks of old because... video game balance? Technology improved sufficiently that the old trade offs that had to be made between tank classes disappeared as all of the benefits of both could be combined in a single vehicle.

It's capabilities are largely due to stealth and the advanced technologies used in the F-35. It's more capable, yes, but mainly because you can't kill what you can't see. Su-37 and F-16 can't see F-35 or F-22. F-22 and F-35 CAN see Su-37 and F-16. When you can see the enemy, you can kill the enemy. When the enemy can't see you, then you can't be killed. As a result, the F-35 is superior, particularly are long range. At shorter range, however, the F-35s near-invisibility to radar disappears as it enters the effective range of heat-seeking missiles and the visual range of the enemy pilot. It is at these shorter ranges that the maneuverability of an aircraft is important and here, the F-35 does suffer. It is not quite as maneuverable as the F-22 but is potentially more maneuverable than 4th gen fighters.

Not really. It is impossible for a manned aircraft, no matter how agile, to effectively evade a modern IR-guided SRAAM. Mostly because fighters are limited to 9 gs due to their human pilots while SRAAMs can easily pull 50+ gs. And they'd only need about 30 gs to reliably chase down a target. This is especially true now that HOBS missiles are increasingly common so even the IR seeker's field of regard is no longer a serious limitation, and with the advent of HMDs + HOBs means that there is no longer any need to line up the attacker's nose with the defender's engine, which is what dogfights used to revolve around. A fighter pilot with an HMD flying a plane equipped with HOBs LOAL SRAAMs can fire on and kill a target just by looking in their direction. This is why there is so much emphasis on BVR: in WVR, everyone dies.

The more maneuverable plane is harder to lock on to.

[Gallia-]

[Iltica]

This is insufferable.

[Theodosiya]

Planning to do redetailing of Air Force
22 Fighter squadron (5 Heavy Fighters Squadron (1 Squadron = 8 Su-30SME & 16 Su-27SM2+ or Su-35S combo), 10 Medium Fighters Squadron (F-16V, 16 G / 8 H [Designation for Single/Double seater]) , 2 Strike Squadron (16 Su-34 & 8 Su-30SME), 5 CAS Squadron (16 Su-25KM & 8 Su-24M2)
3 Bomber Squadron (2 Squadron of 16 Tu-95MS16 and a squadron of 16 Tu-22M3)
8 LIFT/Advanced Trainer Squadron, each with 16 KAI TA-50 and 8 FA-50
8 Basic/COIN Squadron, with 24 EMB 314 SuTuc each.
8 Training Squadron, each with 24 SR20 G6.
2 Tactical Airlift squadron, each with 16 A400M
1 Strategic Airlift squadron, with 16 An 124 210
1 Aerial Refueling Squadron with 16 Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport
1 Electronics Warfare Squadron operating four E-8, four RC-135 and 8 A330 based AEW&C

Still WIP, need advice for a "rounded" complete Air Force ala USAF/RAF/Luftwaffe

[The Akasha Colony]

Planning to do redetailing of Air Force
36 Fighter squadron (8 Heavy Fighters Squadron (1 Squadron = 8 Su-30SME & 16 Su-27SM2+ or Su-35S combo), 16 Medium Fighters Squadron (F-16V, 16 G / 8 H [Designation for Single/Double seater]) , 4 Strike Squadron (16 Su-34 & 8 Su-30SME), 8 CAS Squadron (16 Su-25KM & 8 Su-24M2)
3 Bomber Squadron (2 Squadron of Tu-95MS16 and a Tu-22M3)
16 LIFT/Advanced Trainer Squadron, each with 16 KAI TA-50 and 8 FA-50
16 Basic/COIN Squadron, with 24 EMB 314 SuTuc each.
16 Training Squadron, each with 24 SR20 G6.
4 Tactical Airlift squadron, each with 16 A400M
2 Strategic Airlift squadron, each with 16 An 124 210
2 Aerial Refueling Squadron with 16 A400M Tanker configuration.
WIP

This is a gigantic air force for your size and economy, given that the UK operates half as many fighter squadrons in total. It also has no bomber squadrons and less than half the number of airlifters and tankers (including nothing even remotely the size of An-124). The RAF has just 8 C-17s and 19 A400Ms (with three more on order), for a total of 30 transports when everything is delivered. You have 96.

In fact, under the sequester, the USAF was set to shrink to just 39 fighter squadrons, and you are trying to field 36.