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

[Gallia-]

It will have reduced takeoff weight, due to hydrogen being lighter than air. However, the nature of hydrogen requires that it be stored in the fuselage, requiring a longer fuselage that results in a loss in performance. I would say just stick with normal aviation fuel.

Hmm. I'll need to use a flying wing design.

No, you would want a long fuselage, not a wide wing. This is what the ideal hydrogen powered aircraft looks like:



You can have something that "looks" conventional with cryogenic fuels, but cryogenic fuel storage makes ground handling annoying. At least as annoying as hydrazine, but all the time and for everything. It's not practical for civil aviation and probably not for military either, since it increases gross weight by needing cryogenic systems.

Kerosene based fuels are simply too good to replace with anything that is practical right now. Metals or some extremely high pressure forms of hydrogen (metallic hydrogen) might work in the future since they are low volume, though they are nothing close to practical and are only interesting thought experiments today.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

*can't match the resolution and FOV of an OBC

Honestly it's a very niche need which is why imo the reusable, reconfigurable spaceplane makes more sense since you could swap out the OBC for SAR, EW gear, etc. Also a KH-11/12 type satellite with a 2-3m diameter mirror which can provide virtually on-demand high-resolution imagery makes the KH-9 mostly obsolete as a spy satellite which is probably (unless there's some secret black world stuff I'm unaware of) why we stopped building them

[The Manticoran Empire]

Hmm. I'll need to use a flying wing design.

No, you would want a long fuselage, not a wide wing. This is what the ideal hydrogen powered aircraft looks like:



You can have something that "looks" conventional with cryogenic fuels, but cryogenic fuel storage makes ground handling annoying. At least as annoying as hydrazine, but all the time and for everything. It's not practical for civil aviation and probably not for military either, since it increases gross weight by needing cryogenic systems.

Kerosene based fuels are simply too good to replace with anything that is practical right now. Metals or some extremely high pressure forms of hydrogen (metallic hydrogen) might work in the future since they are low volume, though they are nothing close to practical and are only interesting thought experiments today.

Estimates by some people put practicality post 2040.

[The Manticoran Empire]

It will have reduced takeoff weight, due to hydrogen being lighter than air. However, the nature of hydrogen requires that it be stored in the fuselage, requiring a longer fuselage that results in a loss in performance. I would say just stick with normal aviation fuel.

Hmm. I'll need to use a flying wing design.

No. The reason why you need to extend the fuselage is to prevent boil-off of the hydrogen. Increasing wing area won't solve that problem, instead making it worse.

Maybe hydrogen will only be used for crafts that require complex logistical support to begin with, to merit the construction of hydrolysis facilities. Can't find information on the performance loss of hydrogen versus kerosene though, so maybe it is a 60% loss in range. Would only be good for high-altitude interceptors or surveillance craft then.

Not likely. In order to maintain liquid hydrogen at high enough pressures to provide sufficient stores to justify usage, you would need a vast logistical complex to accomplish that. Cryogenic storage, high pressure fuel tanks, not to mention the massive safety risks inherent with hydrogen.
On top of that, a 60% loss in range basically makes interceptor and surveillance aircraft useless.

Fig. 20. High-altitude, subsonic reconnaissance airplane using liquid hydrogen as fuel. The liquid hydrogen tanks are in both fuselage and wings. Flight Mach number, 0.75; altitude 24400 m. From Silverstein and Hall, "Liquid Hydrogen as a Jet Fuel," 1955.
Source: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch6-3.htm

High altitude, subsonic recon planes are easy to shoot down by interceptor aircraft. Further, the wing tanks would have a greater risk of the hydrogen boiling off and it's subsonic speed will mean that it can't escape from enemy aircraft once it is spotted.

Just stick with kerosene based fuels. They work right now and they work very well.

[Gallia-]

No, you would want a long fuselage, not a wide wing. This is what the ideal hydrogen powered aircraft looks like:

(Image)

You can have something that "looks" conventional with cryogenic fuels, but cryogenic fuel storage makes ground handling annoying. At least as annoying as hydrazine, but all the time and for everything. It's not practical for civil aviation and probably not for military either, since it increases gross weight by needing cryogenic systems.

Kerosene based fuels are simply too good to replace with anything that is practical right now. Metals or some extremely high pressure forms of hydrogen (metallic hydrogen) might work in the future since they are low volume, though they are nothing close to practical and are only interesting thought experiments today.

Estimates by some people put practicality post 2040.

Gaseous hydrogen will never be practical for aviation. Liquid hydrogen is only practical for a few type of rockets. It isn't practical for airbreathing aircraft because of the need for volume constraint. Volume constrained rockets, naturally, use solid propellants. Metallic hydrogen is ideal for all forms of burning propulsion, but it is impossible to create outside of Jupiter or Saturn or some other large gas giant core.

Naturally, everything old is new again, and if you want to see what a state-of-the-art hydrogen fueled aircraft would look like, you need look no further than the Soviet Union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka

LOX is easier to store and handle than LH2, though, so it's a bit optimistic on the performance of a highly advanced liquid hydrogen aircraft, its ability to maintained in a flyable state, and its readiness to be fueled. Most military liquid fuel rockets use, what else, kerosene as their primary propellant, because it's fairly easy to handle, store, and operate at atmospheric temperatures and pressures.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Estimates by some people put practicality post 2040.

Gaseous hydrogen will never be practical for aviation. Liquid hydrogen is only practical for a few type of rockets. It isn't practical for airbreathing aircraft because of the need for volume constraint. Volume constrained rockets, naturally, use solid propellants. Metallic hydrogen is ideal for all forms of burning propulsion, but it is impossible to create outside of Jupiter or Saturn or some other large gas giant core.

Naturally, everything old is new again, and if you want to see what a state-of-the-art hydrogen fueled aircraft would look like, you need look no further than the Soviet Union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka

LOX is easier to store and handle than LH2, though, so it's a bit optimistic on the performance of a highly advanced liquid hydrogen aircraft, its ability to maintained in a flyable state, and its readiness to be fueled. Most military liquid fuel rockets use, what else, kerosene as their primary propellant, because it's fairly easy to handle, store, and operate at atmospheric temperatures and pressures.

Which is why I say just stick with normal Jet Fuel.

[Austrasien]

If a modern replacement to KH-9 Hexagon with similar wide-area surveillance capabilities were to be developed, would conventional film still be required?

Given the tremendous data bandwidth, storage volumes, and power required to handle such data digitally, I imagine that a film setup might still be simpler and a faster way to downlink the data (with little chance of jamming or cyberattack). But the cost of more advanced modern optics would also increase the preference toward extended endurance over the four or five return capsules KH-9 carried.

Improvements in computer analysis seems to have advanced enough to make processing such large volumes of imagery reasonably feasible on a more regular and ongoing basis which would also encourage more regular use which might also encourage the development of a more reusable digital solution.

Perhaps a better solution might be to use a larger number of smaller satellites each with more limited coverage but also needing less bandwidth and storage to operate?

A film camera isn't a great match for a satellites capabilities because a satellite can orbit for years without problems. But if it was going to come back anyway...

[Austrasien]

is 8 meter diameter mirror practical for spy satellite ?

Apparently for 0.1 m resolution from 750 km at visible light wavelength. That's the required size. But i guess we dont really have rocket that big yet. except the unbuilt Energia-Vulkan.

James Webb only has a 6.5m diameter meter mirror array and this is absolutely state of the art.

Worth reading/watching:
https://satelliteobservation.net/2016/1 ... veillance/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEPF0QzbtQI

[The Akasha Colony]

*can't match the resolution and FOV of an OBC

Honestly it's a very niche need which is why imo the reusable, reconfigurable spaceplane makes more sense since you could swap out the OBC for SAR, EW gear, etc. Also a KH-11/12 type satellite with a 2-3m diameter mirror which can provide virtually on-demand high-resolution imagery makes the KH-9 mostly obsolete as a spy satellite which is probably (unless there's some secret black world stuff I'm unaware of) why we stopped building them

(Image)

A film camera isn't a great match for a satellites capabilities because a satellite can orbit for years without problems. But if it was going to come back anyway...

The idea is that with the development of modern computer processing algorithms and object recognition it would potentially be possible to get better use out of the tremendous volumes of data a wide-area surveillance satellite could generate. Which in turn would allow it to be used on a regular basis. For things such as imaging an entire theater of war on a recurring basis or monitoring activity across a wide area like Siberia. It would also supply regularly-updated imagery to pair with radar altimeter data for maintaining an up-to-date mapping database for military use.

So far as I can tell the biggest problems with KH-9 were the limited lifespan in terms of the amount of film carried and return capsules available, the latency inherent in recovering and developing the film, and the huge effort required to analyze the many thousands of images from each capsule. These factors drove up costs especially compared to the amount of unneeded data collected. KH-11 solved the first two issues technologically and the last issue by simply providing less data overall (albeit more focused data).

So the origin of my question then is if we assume the analysis bottleneck has been solved (and I don't really know if it has been solved to an acceptable degree, but that is the fiat assumption of the question), have we yet reached the point where the other two issues could be solved to an acceptable degree?

It presently seems like it isn't quite feasible: digital solutions are still affected by bandwidth limitations and while reusable spacecraft like X-37 can save costs over simply disposing of the optics after the film is expended they still don't provide the combination of operational longevity and readiness that an all-digital satellite provides.

[The Manticoran Empire]

If a modern replacement to KH-9 Hexagon with similar wide-area surveillance capabilities were to be developed, would conventional film still be required?

Given the tremendous data bandwidth, storage volumes, and power required to handle such data digitally, I imagine that a film setup might still be simpler and a faster way to downlink the data (with little chance of jamming or cyberattack). But the cost of more advanced modern optics would also increase the preference toward extended endurance over the four or five return capsules KH-9 carried.

Improvements in computer analysis seems to have advanced enough to make processing such large volumes of imagery reasonably feasible on a more regular and ongoing basis which would also encourage more regular use which might also encourage the development of a more reusable digital solution.

Perhaps a better solution might be to use a larger number of smaller satellites each with more limited coverage but also needing less bandwidth and storage to operate?

A film camera isn't a great match for a satellites capabilities because a satellite can orbit for years without problems. But if it was going to come back anyway...

Well the Space Shuttle does have that huge payload bay that can be used to house various intelligence gathering nonsense.

[New Vihenia]

James Webb only has a 6.5m diameter meter mirror array and this is absolutely state of the art.

Worth reading/watching:
https://satelliteobservation.net/2016/1 ... veillance/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEPF0QzbtQI

So ASBM targeting from GEO i guess ?

[Danternoust]

Well the Space Shuttle does have that huge payload bay that can be used to house various intelligence gathering nonsense.

Too much obsession over total information awareness. Usually the excuse is that there's too much information and not enough staff while simultaneously getting criticized for having several times the capacity of the Stasi for surveillance.

If the Snowden leaks are anything to go by, the US government has lengthy dossiers on low level aides in order to...???

If high level officials aren't good at dealing with other without supplemental reading material, or at least good at knowing what typically goes on in a foreign country, I'm not sure why have a high level official?

For things such as imaging an entire theater of war on a recurring basis

How were previous wars won?

they still don't provide the combination of operational longevity and readiness that an all-digital satellite provides.

longevity
readiness

choose one

[The Manticoran Empire]

Well the Space Shuttle does have that huge payload bay that can be used to house various intelligence gathering nonsense.

Too much obsession over total information awareness. Usually the excuse is that there's too much information and not enough staff while simultaneously getting criticized for having several times the capacity of the Stasi for surveillance.

If the Snowden leaks are anything to go by, the US government has lengthy dossiers on low level aides in order to...???

If high level officials aren't good at dealing with other without supplemental reading material, or at least good at knowing what typically goes on in a foreign country, I'm not sure why have a high level official?

For things such as imaging an entire theater of war on a recurring basis

How were previous wars won?

they still don't provide the combination of operational longevity and readiness that an all-digital satellite provides.

longevity
readiness

choose one

Accurate information is vital to ensuring victory. If you don't know the strength and disposition of the enemy, how can you engage them on your terms and ensure a victory? Every war in human history has depended on intelligence gathering and scouting. The army with the most effective scouts and the most effective commanders generally won.

[Danternoust]

The Columbidae Fighter is a unique aircraft, it is the only operational jet fighter in the world made with a steel frame and skin. Meant to be easily repaired in the field without specialized equipment, it meets the unique requirements of the Home Guard Air Corps. Powered a single turbojet engine, it is meant only to be a short-range interceptor, only able to stay in flight for forty-five minutes at loitering speed, and can only reach speeds of Mach 0.9. It lacks a pressurized cabin, designed for low altitude operation.
It is armed with a pair of 23mm autocannons, and can carry 4x short range Air-to-Air missiles, 2x medium range Air-to-Air missiles, 2x medium range anti-radar missiles, or a 2x 250 kg bombs.
Empty weight of 4 tonnes.
Design decisions informed based on the Emergency Fighter Program. Based on HAL Ajeet, except airframe is designed to fly low, carry less weight on hard points, and is specifically modified to use low quality fuel in low temperature conditions.
Most counties in Danternoust have their own air force made up of these fighters.


The Flying Pig Strike Aircraft is somewhat similar to the Columbidae aircraft, it has a steel skin, but titanium frame and armor.
Design based on BAE Systems Hawk, it is meant as a light multirole fighter and trainer. Used by Home Guard Air Corps and Army Air Corps.
Uses the 30mm DEFA cannon instead of the ADEN cannon.

The Army Air Corps uses the Atlas Cheetah for a multirole fighter, an aircraft based on an aircraft introduced in 1967 (Mirage III), and re-introduced in 1973 and 1986.
The Army Air Corps uses the Super Tucano for surveillance, training, and ground attack purposes.

The Navy Air Corps uses the Blackburn Buccaneer for a multirole fighter, despite Danternoust not owning any carriers (besides a single converted fuel tanker with a hangar that can only hold a single wing of aircraft), it was decided it would be useful to have a fighter that could land on other nation's carriers to contribute as an expeditionary force.

The PZL TS-11 Iskra is used as a trainer and close air support aircraft, although it is being phased out, to be replaced by the Flying Pig and the Super Tucano.

The CASA C-212 Aviocar is used for transport, electronic warfare, patrol, and surveillance by the Army and Navy.


The military only uses jets for trainers.

[Gallia-]

A Cessna Caravan is vastly a superior aircraft.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The Columbidae Fighter is a unique aircraft, it is the only operational jet fighter in the world made with a steel frame and skin. Meant to be easily repaired in the field without specialized equipment, it meets the unique requirements of the Home Guard Air Corps. Powered a single turbojet engine, it is meant only to be a short-range interceptor, only able to stay in flight for forty-five minutes at loitering speed, and can only reach speeds of Mach 0.9. It lacks a pressurized cabin, designed for low altitude operation.
It is armed with a pair of 23mm autocannons, and can carry 4x short range Air-to-Air missiles, 2x medium range Air-to-Air missiles, 2x medium range anti-radar missiles, or a 2x 250 kg bombs.
Empty weight of 4 tonnes.
Design decisions informed based on the Emergency Fighter Program. Based on HAL Ajeet, except airframe is designed to fly low, carry less weight on hard points, and is specifically modified to use low quality fuel in low temperature conditions.
Most counties in Danternoust have their own air force made up of these fighters.


The Flying Pig Strike Aircraft is somewhat similar to the Columbidae aircraft, it has a steel skin, but titanium frame and armor.
Design based on BAE Systems Hawk, it is meant as a light multirole fighter and trainer. Used by Home Guard Air Corps and Army Air Corps.
Uses the 30mm DEFA cannon instead of the ADEN cannon.

The Army Air Corps uses the Atlas Cheetah for a multirole fighter, an aircraft based on an aircraft introduced in 1967 (Mirage III), and re-introduced in 1973 and 1986.
The Army Air Corps uses the Super Tucano for surveillance, training, and ground attack purposes.

The Navy Air Corps uses the Blackburn Buccaneer for a multirole fighter, despite Danternoust not owning any carriers (besides a single converted fuel tanker with a hangar that can only hold a single wing of aircraft), it was decided it would be useful to have a fighter that could land on other nation's carriers to contribute as an expeditionary force.

The PZL TS-11 Iskra is used as a trainer and close air support aircraft, although it is being phased out, to be replaced by the Flying Pig and the Super Tucano.

The CASA C-212 Aviocar is used for transport, electronic warfare, patrol, and surveillance by the Army and Navy.


The military only uses jets for trainers.

If you fly prop planes, why have jet trainers? And why employ a fighter that will not be able to beat 3rd generation jet fighters, let alone the 4th and 5th generation fighters that most nations are sure to employ?

[Danternoust]

why have jet trainers

Interchangeable pilots and simplification of training curriculum at expense of cost.

why employ a fighter that will not be able to beat 3rd generation jet fighters, let alone the 4th and 5th generation fighters that most nations are sure to employ?

An awful lot of entries that say, "-Present"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-gen ... terceptors
It is a cheaper airframe, while steel reduces range, it has less thermal expansion, allowing for faster speeds at war emergency power. It is meant for short-range engagements, to be produced in large volumes (fitting in the globally adopted hi-low mix of aircraft), and essentially serves as the back bone for the integrated air defense system. More than half of a fighter jet is in the air-to-air missile, so not much is lost.

Probably has a fly away cost of $3 million USD or slightly above the MiG-21, but with vastly reduced maintenance costs. Danternoust could maintain as many of these steel fighters as Iraq maintained MiG-21s. Quantity has a quality of its own.

Airframe can also be reused as a decoy drone. Certainly indistinguishable to advanced radars.


I'll have the Buccaneer and Atlas Cheetah being phased out and replaced by the Sea Harrier. Although the Cheetah will be kept in storage, since you can not have enough aircraft.


The world seems to be moving away from increasingly fast aircraft, probably because of improvements in SAM, encouraging low flying aircraft. The majority of likely modern engagements might not even necessitate pressurized cabins.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Quantity has a quality of its own.

Lavochkin is that you?

[The Akasha Colony]

why have jet trainers

Interchangeable pilots and simplification of training curriculum at expense of cost.

why employ a fighter that will not be able to beat 3rd generation jet fighters, let alone the 4th and 5th generation fighters that most nations are sure to employ?

An awful lot of entries that say, "-Present"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-gen ... terceptors
It is a cheaper airframe, while steel reduces range, it has less thermal expansion, allowing for faster speeds at war emergency power. It is meant for short-range engagements, to be produced in large volumes (fitting in the globally adopted hi-low mix of aircraft), and essentially serves as the back bone for the integrated air defense system. More than half of a fighter jet is in the air-to-air missile, so not much is lost.

Probably has a fly away cost of $3 million USD or slightly above the MiG-21, but with vastly reduced maintenance costs. Danternoust could maintain as many of these steel fighters as Iraq maintained MiG-21s. Quantity has a quality of its own.

Airframe can also be reused as a decoy drone. Certainly indistinguishable to advanced radars.


I'll have the Buccaneer and Atlas Cheetah being phased out and replaced by the Sea Harrier. Although the Cheetah will be kept in storage, since you can not have enough aircraft.


The world seems to be moving away from increasingly fast aircraft, probably because of improvements in SAM, encouraging low flying aircraft. The majority of likely modern engagements might not even necessitate pressurized cabins.

Picard578 is that you?

[The Manticoran Empire]

why have jet trainers

Interchangeable pilots and simplification of training curriculum at expense of cost.

...The majority of your pilots fly prop planes and you have subsonic jet aircraft. I ask again, why the hell bother with 1950s era jet aircraft?

why employ a fighter that will not be able to beat 3rd generation jet fighters, let alone the 4th and 5th generation fighters that most nations are sure to employ?

An awful lot of entries that say, "-Present"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-gen ... terceptors[/quote]
All of those 3rd generation jet fighters will be sufficient to entirely crush your air force in a day. You are too weak to fight and too slow to flee.

It is a cheaper airframe, while steel reduces range, it has less thermal expansion, allowing for faster speeds at war emergency power. It is meant for short-range engagements, to be produced in large volumes (fitting in the globally adopted hi-low mix of aircraft), and essentially serves as the back bone for the integrated air defense system. More than half of a fighter jet is in the air-to-air missile, so not much is lost.

Except none of that is relevant. Air Superiority fighters rely on speed and maneuverability. Getting the most out of your missile involves spending the money on getting the most out of your aircraft. One of the best air superiority fighters ever built is the F-15 and it boasts better speed, maneuverability, and firepower than yours. It has the speed to evade your own missiles, the armament to destroy your air force, and the range to operate from a safe distance. You aircraft doesn't fit the Hi-Low mix since it is neither a high performance aircraft nor is it a remotely capable low performance aircraft.

Probably has a fly away cost of $3 million USD or slightly above the MiG-21, but with vastly reduced maintenance costs. Danternoust could maintain as many of these steel fighters as Iraq maintained MiG-21s. Quantity has a quality of its own.

Iraq's air force was completely wiped out in a matter of hours by F-15s. Your quantity of airframes is outweighed by the enemies ability to bring more missiles.

Airframe can also be reused as a decoy drone. Certainly indistinguishable to advanced radars.

Target drone is all that airframe is good for. It can't fight. It can't flee. It's a steel target for any 3rd generation and beyond fighter out there.

I'll have the Buccaneer and Atlas Cheetah being phased out and replaced by the Sea Harrier. Although the Cheetah will be kept in storage, since you can not have enough aircraft.

A better option is to buy or build a proper fighter, like an Su-35, F-15, F-16, Typhoon, or Mirage 2000. Hell any 3rd or 4th Generation fighter will be an improvement over your MiG-21 knock off.

The world seems to be moving away from increasingly fast aircraft, probably because of improvements in SAM, encouraging low flying aircraft. The majority of likely modern engagements might not even necessitate pressurized cabins.

Improvements in Surface to Air missiles are not driving the slight reduction in aircraft speed. That is being driven by other factors. Aircraft are still being built for high altitude combat operations. Further, when it comes to air-superiority fighters and multi-role strike fighters, a key part of the design phase is ENEMY fighters. Enemy fighters aren't likely to hug the deck as it would hamper their ability to open the throttle and throw around the stick. Modern fighter engagements will involve BVR missiles and a hide and seek game between fighters and the AWACs and tankers supporting them. The existence of SAMs is not going to result in making aircraft lower flying and slower. That would just make them more vulnerable to SHORAD (A big reason for why the A-10 is being replaced and should have been replaced a while ago). The answer to enemy air defenses isn't Low, Slow, and Close. It is High, Fast, and Far. Stand-off range munitions paired with high speed, low-observable aircraft is what the future or air warfare will be. Every country that plans for major conflicts IRL, being the US, UK, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Iran, Israel, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and several others, are looking into stealth aircraft. The US and China have domestic stealth aircraft in serial production, Russia has a limited run of stealth planes. Japan, South Korea, and the UK are ordering US fighters or designing their own. Iran, Israel, and India are designing stealth fighters. If the answer to SAMs was Low and Slow, then nations would be designing fighters that way. They aren't. Your idea has no evidence to support it and is based on a misunderstanding of air combat.

[Danternoust]

Picard578 is that you?

No, Picard578 is focused on interdiction when landing, so requires longer range.

I think steel skins have advantage of being radar absorbant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

High technology and the focus on "higher, faster, and farther" increases costs and decreases effectiveness. The mafia argued for cheaper and better planes.

So no, Picard is wrong.

https://defenseissues.net/2014/02/15/ai ... roposal-4/

Canopy will be opened and closed completely manually, which will save 10 kg on actuators. Aerodynamics will be optimized for maneuverability; check the previous version of the article for details since there won’t be many changes.

https://defenseissues.net/2013/12/28/cl ... roposal-3/

As EJ-230 turned out to be too expensive for estimated cost of aircraft, I have decided to replace it with commercial engine.

Picard must be an elaborate parody. He leads with the worst possible idea, I shall save 1% of weight to increase difficulty in getting in and out (and prevent ejection).

In any case, it is the most appropriate theory that air forces, lacking volume, will be too hesitant to risk air frames, removing the advantage of more advanced technology.
I think ultimately, nations think with offensive realism, but defensive realism is most efficient. Modern technology has shifted the 3:1 ratio into a 4:1 ratio, the defender will almost certainly win, although since third-world nations have inferior equipment, ammunition, and training, each Western vehicle is 3x as good, and superior communication allows for better concentration of forces, doubling the quality of each Western vehicle to 6x as good, against foes who only have a 3:1 ratio.

Air Superiority fighters rely on speed and maneuverability.

Of course this is just an alternative doctrine where the only way to counter low flying aircraft is other aircraft, and thus what one needs is flying air-defence sites because SEAD will cause ground platforms to be attritted eventually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

If the answer to SAMs was Low and Slow, then nations would be designing fighters that way.

The answer to tactical SAMs is SEAD. The answer to MANPADs is Low and Slow. The answer to SEAD is dispersal and mobile radar vehicles, and a large quantity of planes.

A better option is to buy or build a proper fighter, like an Su-35, F-15, F-16, Typhoon, or Mirage 2000.

The answer to SEAD and interdiction isn't faster aircraft, but aircraft that can land on shorter runways.

Improvements in Surface to Air missiles are not driving the slight reduction in aircraft speed.

Aircraft simply haven't gotten faster because they can't be flown faster. Modern aircraft are slower than the MiG-25's top speed, therefore... they are inferior?

The Syrians responded by launching about 100 fighter aircraft to stop the attacks.^[3]

If they had 300 aircraft, they would have won. The value of fixed fortifications have diminished, one should use mobile fortifications.

Discussing the Syrian response to the attacks, Eitan said: "The first reaction of the Syrians when we attacked their missiles was to scramble their air forces... any [Syrian fighter pilots] who crossed an imaginary line in the direction of our forces was destroyed, shot down. The imaginary line was actually the range of the missile batteries in Syria proper. The basic tactic of the Syrian air force is to take to the air and to cross this imaginary line, which brings them outside the protective range of their home-based missiles. They do what they can, then run back for cover."

Although they would have won if they use proper combined arms.

[Gallia-]

When you're incapable of intercepting a MiG-15 because it can fly higher than you then you've already lost. The Pigeon would be an excellent fighter in 1949, I'm sure. Sadly a WW2/Korea fighter's performance today approximates a target drone. Except target drones don't need to worry about cabin pressurization or oxygen storage lol.

Cheap-to-make aircraft isn't a terrible idea but the driving cost isn't bleeding turbine air to pressurize the cabin: F-16 is still cheap to operate and still wholly obsolete. Aircraft are simply in a bad spot between the "Arab Dhow" and "Maximum Battleship" paradoxes. Good enough tactical fighters ("maximum battleships") are too expensive to be employed in the numbers required that taxpayers are (typically) willing to support, and cheap enough fighters ("dhows") are too poor performing to be effective in combat against even equivalent aircraft.

F-15E is much closer to solving the paradox than a warmed over Grumman Panther, though.

In general it's more akin to willingness to spend on national defense that determines the effectiveness of an air force, since the majority of world air forces outside of dilapidated communist countries have comparable aircraft: F-16s, F-15s, Gripens, MiG-29s, and Su-27s. Given that the aircraft are all broadly similar, it'll come down to willingness to spend money on training flight hours, the natural/innate talents of the population you're drawing pilots from (i.e. the selection method), and the raw quantity of fighters and pilots you can put in the air.

Severely handicapped aircraft like Panthers and Sabers are effectively target drones but with the downside of needing humans. If someone wants to have a massive air force, but doesn't have the money to afford a good number of pilots or fighters, it's better off eschewing the manned pilot altogether and acquiring a large quantity of XQ-222s or EADS Barracudas. Robotic aircraft will be cheaper per unit and per flight hour to operate because they have basic systems and are essentially cruise missiles that drop JDAMs on S-300s. Pretty much any air force worth its salt has an innate ability to operate them, since they will have a special training unit dedicated to the operation and deployment of target drones, and the functional operation of a robotic strike aircraft is pretty much the same as that of a target drone. The difference is the strike robot comes back while the target drone doesn't.

It's not like this is a particularly new or exciting field of warfare, though.

Improvements in Surface to Air missiles are not driving the slight reduction in aircraft speed.

It's improvement in their sensors instead.

Fast aircraft are visible from from high altitude, as in orbit, while slow aircraft are harder to detect.

Slow war era.

The ideal aircraft flies as high as possible somewhere in M0.5-0.7 cruise range, with VLO shaping, and a big radar. This is objectively the most difficult target to attack because it requires high performance missiles and powerful sensors to intercept. Things flying lower can be attacked by small arms or man portable missiles when flying over targets, and things flying faster can be spotted and tracked further away, to a point. You could fly really fast and be visible to everything, of course, but then you attract the ire of the air defense ballistic missile.

[Danternoust]

Except target drones don't need to worry about cabin pressurization or oxygen storage lol.

Neither do ground platforms.
Well, technically they do, but for different reasons.

I'm unclear on the diffusion rates of air through aircraft skin, but I'm pretty sure oxygen storage is needed, at least to improve pilot consciousness.


It is debateable if we can agree on the quality of the aircraft, the resulting value, and how it could be used tactically.

Defensive fighters have never been built recently.

Edit:

Severely handicapped aircraft like Panthers and Sabers are effectively target drones but with the downside of needing humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-G ... al_history

The American fighter community was shocked in 1965 when elderly, subsonic MiG-17s downed sophisticated Mach-2-class F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers over North Vietnam. As a result of these experiences the U.S. Air Force initiated project "Feather Duster" aimed at developing tactics that would enable the heavier American fighters to deal with smaller and more agile opponents like the MiG-17. To simulate the MiG-17 the U.S. Air Force chose the F-86H Sabre. One pilot who participated in the project remarked that "In any envelope except nose down and full throttle", either the F-100 or F-105 was inferior to the F-86H in a dogfight.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Air Superiority fighters rely on speed and maneuverability.

Of course this is just an alternative doctrine where the only way to counter low flying aircraft is other aircraft, and thus what one needs is flying air-defence sites because SEAD will cause ground platforms to be attritted eventually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses or SEAD is an important role for multi-role strike aircraft. Anti-radiation missiles have been designed for this exact purpose and all that is required is forcing the enemy SAM to shut off its radars. SEAD does not require destroying the site, just forcing it to cease operation or be destroyed.

If the answer to SAMs was Low and Slow, then nations would be designing fighters that way.

The answer to tactical SAMs is SEAD. The answer to MANPADs is Low and Slow. The answer to SEAD is dispersal and mobile radar vehicles, and a large quantity of planes.[/quote]
MANPADs are designed to kill low and slow aircraft. SEAD is an answer to all air defenses and simply requires that the radar vehicles that find and lock onto aircraft be forced to turn off their radars. This doesn't necessarily require a large number of planes but rather a sufficient number of aircraft equipped with anti-radiation missiles.

A better option is to buy or build a proper fighter, like an Su-35, F-15, F-16, Typhoon, or Mirage 2000.

The answer to SEAD and interdiction isn't faster aircraft, but aircraft that can land on shorter runways.[/quote]
...What does landing have to do with intercepting enemy aircraft? Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) involves enemy aircraft attacking your air defense systems and forcing your SAM sites to go silent, which renders them useless. Interdiction involves enemy aircraft engage your strike aircraft. Defeating enemy SEAD and interdiction forces require aircraft that have the range, speed, armament, and sensors to find, reach, and engage the enemy well short of their targets.

Improvements in Surface to Air missiles are not driving the slight reduction in aircraft speed.

Aircraft simply haven't gotten faster because they can't be flown faster. Modern aircraft are slower than the MiG-25's top speed, therefore... they are inferior?[/quote]
What kind of comparison is that? The MiG-25 is a high altitude interceptor. US High Altitude recon planes and strategic bombers led the Soviets to develop high altitude interceptors and that led to the MiG-25, which is an excellent aircraft for its intended role: High altitude interception of other high altitude targets.

Also, it should be noted that the Soviets used steel in the MiG-25 because the aircraft was such a fast aircraft. They would have used titanium but there were other complications so they settled for steel. Steel is far from an ideal material for an aircraft since it is quite heavy.

The Syrians responded by launching about 100 fighter aircraft to stop the attacks.^[3]

If they had 300 aircraft, they would have won. The value of fixed fortifications have diminished, one should use mobile fortifications.[/quote]
I fail to see what fortifications have to do with Syrian fighter aircraft. Further, simply having more planes isn't what wins the fight. Seeing the enemy first and being able to engage the enemy first is what is going to win air battles. An enemy that is killed before he can fire is an enemy that can't hurt you.

Discussing the Syrian response to the attacks, Eitan said: "The first reaction of the Syrians when we attacked their missiles was to scramble their air forces... any [Syrian fighter pilots] who crossed an imaginary line in the direction of our forces was destroyed, shot down. The imaginary line was actually the range of the missile batteries in Syria proper. The basic tactic of the Syrian air force is to take to the air and to cross this imaginary line, which brings them outside the protective range of their home-based missiles. They do what they can, then run back for cover."

Although they would have won if they use proper combined arms.[/quote]
Not necessarily. Simply employing proper combined arms tactics is not sufficient to ensure victory. A force must also be able to maximize its opponents weaknesses while minimizing its own and have commanders with the flexibility and confidence to seize opportunities to knock the enemy off balance and keep them off balance. An unbalanced foe is a foe that cannot gather the strength to properly counter attack or even defend itself.

In regards to Operation Mole Cricket, the issue was less Syria's numbers, as they had parity in numbers with the Israelis. The problem with the Syrians was that their aircraft were obsolete. The MiG-21, MiG-23, and Su-20 were going up against F-15 and F-16 fighters equipped with the latest weapons and sensors. Hell, the MiG-21 was a 30 year old airframe in 1982 and was just barely supersonic. Against F-15 and F-16 fighters flying almost twice as fast and carrying more modern avionics and weapons, they didn't stand a chance. None of the Syrian fighter could reach Mach 2. On the other hand, ALL of the Israeli fighters involved could. The Israeli fighters were also equipped with more modern avionics and weapons. In that battle, it wasn't a battle of numbers. It was a battle of technology and the Israelis won a decisive victory. They would have won it even if there had been 300 Syrian fighters.

Except target drones don't need to worry about cabin pressurization or oxygen storage lol.

Neither do ground platforms.
Well, technically they do, but for different reasons.

I'm unclear on the diffusion rates of air through aircraft skin, but I'm pretty sure oxygen storage is needed, at least to improve pilot consciousness.


It is debateable if we can agree on the quality of the aircraft, the resulting value, and how it could be used tactically.

Defensive fighters have never been built recently.

Part of the Air Superiority Role is something known as Defensive Counter Air. In short, that is the fighter being deployed to intercept and destroy incoming enemy aircraft. A fighter doesn't need to be designed as a "Defensive Fighter" in order to conduct defensive operations. It just has to be a capable fighter. The F-15 is an EXCELLENT defensive fighter. A HAL Ajeet? Not so much. It lacks the range, speed, avionics, and armament to be an effective fighter. Anything it tries to intercept will be able to fly higher than it and, probably, much faster than it.

[Gallia-]

Except target drones don't need to worry about cabin pressurization or oxygen storage lol.

Neither do ground platforms.
Well, technically they do, but for different reasons.

Life support eats a lot of space and cost on an aircraft. It's not a massive amount compared to things like self defence jammers, RWRs, or radars, which are all super high technology, but it's a lot of mass. Thousands of pounds. You can have a pair of small diameter bombs and a goodly sized reserve tank (1,000 lbs fuel) for the mass of a life support system and associated gear in the smallest tactical fighters.

but I'm pretty sure oxygen storage is needed, at least to improve pilot consciousness.

Not really. Any tactical fighter since the Korean War (and a couple WW2 fighters, like Bf-109) will have a pressurized cabin. It was introduced on the F9F in the F9F-4 and the F-86 Saber always had a air bleed turbine. It's trivial to incorporate a bleed system into the air inlet that pulls external air from the turbine (or turboprop) engine to the cabin. Any aircraft since 1950 or so will have a pressurized cabin. Onboard oxygen generation can be done with rocks or something, like in submarines, and the F-22 has a scrubber system. Really old fashioned (MiG-21, F9F-4, F-86, Bf109) fighters used oxygen (pressurized or liquid) bottles in the wings or fuselage to supply O2 to the pilots, but nowadays it's usually an O2 bottle that lives under or next to your seat that you hook up to your mask.

Oxygen itself is necessary, though, because you need 160 mmHg of O2 to maintain ordinary consciousness and normal cognition. With 100% oxygen being breathed, this is good up to about 40,000 feet, but fighter aircraft like to have partial pressurization for altitudes above 8,000 feet because it means you can mix some nitrogen into the mask and control the amount of oxygen being delivered. For really old planes that had limited oxygen stores, or for the backup bottles, having pressurization is nice because it reduces the use of oxygen if you're breathing from a integrated system that can mix incoming (air bleed) nitrogen and onboard oxygen and conserve O2 at altitudes lower than 40,000 feet. Also since the cabin is pressurized, you can fly well above 40,000 feet: F-15 has a limit altitude of 80,000 feet to catch MiG-25s, since it operates with two pressurization levels (one is 8,000 feet, the other is some measure of differential psi). Navy fighters are 8,000 feet up to 23,000 feet and 5 psi differential from ambient; which means at around . Most pressure suits can also provide some partial pressurization in the event of decompression at high altitude, but above 50,000 feet you'd need a space suit like the U-2 or SR-71 with no pressurization.

For a fighter pilot, the best is an overpressure mask that has airtight seals on his face and feeds him 100% oxygen and a full or partial pressure suit that inflates when the cabin pressure goes to ambient above 45-50,000 feet. This is the simplest and least invasive setup. The oxygen system becomes "on" or "off" and the pressure suit gives you time to get down in the event of a O2 system failure or cabin blowout. USAF fighters have myriad settings for life support, though.

tl;dr: It's a big deal for manned aircraft. It's not for robots.