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

[Barfleur]

I've been giving some thought to my nation's nuclear missile program. Is there a justification for investing in an air-launched cruise missile (not a ballistic missile launched from an airplane; I've taken a look at that seems not to have been widely considered) as opposed to relying on ICBMs and SLBMs as my main nuclear deterrent?

[Spirit of Hope]

I've been giving some thought to my nation's nuclear missile program. Is there a justification for investing in an air-launched cruise missile (not a ballistic missile launched from an airplane; I've taken a look at that seems not to have been widely considered) as opposed to relying on ICBMs and SLBMs as my main nuclear deterrent?

You're probably going to want air launched cruise missiles with just regulars warheads, and having the ability to mount nuclear weapons on them isn't going to make them cost any more.

The big question is how do you envision using your nuclear weapons. Having nuclear warheads on cruise missiles has its advantages and disadvantages, and some of them depend on how you are planning to use your nuclear arsenal. Is it a plus if any aircraft can carry a nuclear weapon, because it expands your deterrent capability and enhances your ability to use nuclear weapons tactically, or a minus because it inherently destabilizes the situation because you opponent doesn't know where you nuclear weapons are being deployed and you have an enhanced ability to deploy tactical nuclear weapons?

[Austrasien]

I've been giving some thought to my nation's nuclear missile program. Is there a justification for investing in an air-launched cruise missile (not a ballistic missile launched from an airplane; I've taken a look at that seems not to have been widely considered) as opposed to relying on ICBMs and SLBMs as my main nuclear deterrent?

Cruise missiles are much less likely to be detected but also much more likely to be intercepted in flight. Ballistic missiles, especially IRBMs and ICBMs, are much more certain to reach the target.

[Barfleur]

Is it a plus if any aircraft can carry a nuclear weapon, because it expands your deterrent capability and enhances your ability to use nuclear weapons tactically, or a minus because it inherently destabilizes the situation because you opponent doesn't know where you nuclear weapons are being deployed and you have an enhanced ability to deploy tactical nuclear weapons?

Good point. Equipping aircraft with nuclear missiles could very well end up limiting our ability to actually deploy them to conflict zones, as any deployment would necessarily be an escalation--and the potential enemy may not know whether we have any intention of using them, thus potentially leading to an unnecessary first strike.

I've been giving some thought to my nation's nuclear missile program. Is there a justification for investing in an air-launched cruise missile (not a ballistic missile launched from an airplane; I've taken a look at that seems not to have been widely considered) as opposed to relying on ICBMs and SLBMs as my main nuclear deterrent?

Cruise missiles are much less likely to be detected but also much more likely to be intercepted in flight. Ballistic missiles, especially IRBMs and ICBMs, are much more certain to reach the target.

How does a target nation intercept a cruise missile? I had assumed it would be easier to intercept a ballistic missile, as those have a fixed trajectory and cannot make turns or take other evasive maneuvers.

[Crookfur]

Is it a plus if any aircraft can carry a nuclear weapon, because it expands your deterrent capability and enhances your ability to use nuclear weapons tactically, or a minus because it inherently destabilizes the situation because you opponent doesn't know where you nuclear weapons are being deployed and you have an enhanced ability to deploy tactical nuclear weapons?

Good point. Equipping aircraft with nuclear missiles could very well end up limiting our ability to actually deploy them to conflict zones, as any deployment would necessarily be an escalation--and the potential enemy may not know whether we have any intention of using them, thus potentially leading to an unnecessary first strike.

Cruise missiles are much less likely to be detected but also much more likely to be intercepted in flight. Ballistic missiles, especially IRBMs and ICBMs, are much more certain to reach the target.

How does a target nation intercept a cruise missile? I had assumed it would be easier to intercept a ballistic missile, as those have a fixed trajectory and cannot make turns or take other evasive maneuvers.

If you can detect a cruise missile you can deal with it as you would any other high performance aircraft

[The Akasha Colony]

How does a target nation intercept a cruise missile? I had assumed it would be easier to intercept a ballistic missile, as those have a fixed trajectory and cannot make turns or take other evasive maneuvers.

Modern air defenses and fighters are easily capable of shooting down cruise missiles. That shouldn't be surprising since they are basically conventional aircraft, just smaller.

Ballistic missiles are hard to shoot down because they generally travel at much greater altitude and speed, to the point where specialized ballistic missile defense systems are necessary to reliably defeat them. An ICBM RV's terminal speed is several kilometers per second, well above the equivalent of Mach 10. RVs can also be made to maneuver without too much trouble, which makes them much harder to defeat.

This is why every country that has had a choice of delivery system has chosen ballistic missiles and has retained that capability even if all other delivery systems have been retired (e.g. UK). And those with multiple delivery systems have still preferred ballistic missiles to deliver most of the arsenal.

[Spirit of Hope]

Is it a plus if any aircraft can carry a nuclear weapon, because it expands your deterrent capability and enhances your ability to use nuclear weapons tactically, or a minus because it inherently destabilizes the situation because you opponent doesn't know where you nuclear weapons are being deployed and you have an enhanced ability to deploy tactical nuclear weapons?

Good point. Equipping aircraft with nuclear missiles could very well end up limiting our ability to actually deploy them to conflict zones, as any deployment would necessarily be an escalation--and the potential enemy may not know whether we have any intention of using them, thus potentially leading to an unnecessary first strike.

Again the big question is what do you want your nuclear arsenal to do. Ballistic missiles, as others have mentioned and I talk about later, are incredibly hard to intercept and basically guaranteed to get though if launched in even moderate numbers. However they are not a very responsive weapons system and can generally only target strategic targets. However a cruise missile, or aircraft delivered bomb, while less likely to get through could be targeted at more tactical targets, such as enemy formations or ships.

How does a target nation intercept a cruise missile? I had assumed it would be easier to intercept a ballistic missile, as those have a fixed trajectory and cannot make turns or take other evasive maneuvers.

As previously noted a cruise missile is essentially a conventional aircraft and can be targeted like one. Most cruise missiles can't preform high G evasive maneuvers, so they aren't going to be dodging incoming missiles.

A ballistic missile is incredibly hard to intercept. While their trajectory is somewhat fixed, the target doesn't get to know anything about it until it launches and finishes it's initial burn and even for a distant ICBM the time from launch to impact is less than an hour. After the initial boost phase you will have a good idea of the trajectory and where they are going to impact, but as already noted they are going incredibly fast, can preform some limited maneuvers, are small targets, and are relatively hard targets.
The best time to intercept a ballistic missile is in the initial boost phase, but since you control when and where that happens it is hard for anyone to intercept during that phase. Depending on where you launch from and the targets detection abilities they might not even know you launched until the boost phase is done.

[HarYan]

-> Fighter jets and attack and CAS planes: JAS 39C Gripen variant, AV-8B Harrier II Plus variant, EMB-314B Super Tucano variant.
-> Helicopters: LAH variants, CH-47F/D Chinook variants, AS565 AA Panther variant and AS565 SA Panther variant, S-70B/MH-60S Seahawk variants and S-70A/UH-60M/L Black Hawk variants, EC725 Caracal/Super Cougar H225M variants, AS532 UL Cougar/H215M variant, UH-1H-II Huey II variant, AW159 Wildcat variant, H145M variant.
-> Drones and loitering munitions: Heron TP, Harop, Harpy, Searcher Mk II, Hermes 900, Hermes 450, Green Dragon, Rotem L, Orbiter-2B, Orbiter 1K "Kingfisher", Skylark I-LEX, KnX, KnX2, KUS-HD.
-> Transport, cargo, utility and tanker planes: C-390 Millennium, C-130J-30 Super Hercules, C-295M, ERJ 145LR, Global 6000 and Global 6500.
-> AWACS and maritime patrol: C-295 AEW&C, C-295 MPA/Persuader, GlobalEye, EMB 145SA.
-> Dedicated MEDEVAC: Phenom 300MED.
-> Trainer helicopters and planes: R44 Raven II, G 120A, EMB-314B Super Tucano variant, JAS 39D Gripen variant, TAV-8B Harrier II, Phenom 100 MEPT.
-> Air defense artillery and anti-aircraft infantry weapons: Barak MX variants, L-SAM variants, KM-SAM variants, C-Dome Mission Module, L/70 REMO variant, Iron Beam, M167A2 VADS, Piorun NG and Piorun, and Grom.

This all includes not only the aircrafts and air defense of the Imperial Air Defense and Space Force, but also of the Imperial Land Army, Imperial Armada, National Guard, Imperial Guard and of the Imperial Federal Police and Imperial Intelligence Agency. The country generally seeks deals involving local construction and maintenance in partnership with local companies, and technological transferences, open architeture, etc. Because the country seeks for maximum autonomy as possible.

[Barfleur]

-> Fighter jets: F-39 Gripen E/F/M and SU-30MKH (both personalized and upgraded versions, locally made in partnership with local companies. For example, SU-30MKH can carry some western and locally made weaponry).
-> Attack and CAS planes: AMX A-1 and A-29 Super Tucano, both made locally.
-> Helicopters: MI-35 Super Hind, AH-1Z Viper, Black Hawk, UH-1 Huey, H225M Caracal, HM-1 Pantera, HM-3 Cougar, AS 350L1 Fennec, Super Lynx, HM-4 Jaguar, and other smaller helicopters.
-> Cargo planes: EMB-110 Bandeirante, EMB-120 Brasília, EMB-121 Xingu, ERJ, Phenom 100, C-130 Hercules, KC-390, C-23 Sherpa.
-> AWACS and maritime patrol: E/R-99, E/R-99M, P-3 Orion, TU-142 Bear F/J.
-> Bombers: BM-335 Lindwurm, B-390 (KC-390 with adaptations to carry bombs and launch them from the cargo bay), AC-130 Gunship.
-> Many types of drones, most of local and israeli origin.

This all includes not only the aircrafts of the Haryanish Imperial Air Defense Force, Haryanish Imperial Land Army and Haryanish Imperial Armada. There's no worries about the origin of the equipment as long there's local maintenance in partnership with local companies, and technological transferences, open architeture, e.t.c. Because the country seeks for maximum autonomy as possible.

These are all good aircraft, but there’s no need for the repetition. For example, you don’t need an AMX and a Super Tucano. They can perform the same roles, and having 2 airframes means 2 different sets of supplies, 2 pilot training pipelines, etc. The flip side is the more contracts your nation has, the more opportunities for your leader to enrich themself.

[TPFII]

-snip-

This all includes not only the aircrafts of the Haryanish Imperial Air Defense Force, Haryanish Imperial Land Army and Haryanish Imperial Armada. There's no worries about the origin of the equipment as long there's local maintenance in partnership with local companies, and technological transferences, open architeture, e.t.c. Because the country seeks for maximum autonomy as possible.

Realistically, I have my doubts that a nation would be able to secure production rights to aircraft manufactured by so many different countries. If you're an imperialistic nation NATO likely wouldn't even share technical knowledge with you.

[Batea del Nord]

Probably then you will have to use Russian or Chinese equipment as they are more prone to sell in spite of you being a bully.

[Occentia]

In your opinions, would a BrahMos-style high altitude, supersonic AShM or a LRASM-style low observable, low speed missile be more effective?

[New Vihenia]

In your opinions, would a BrahMos-style high altitude, supersonic AShM or a LRASM-style low observable, low speed missile be more effective?

Both can be effective. It's now down to what kind of target you are aiming for.

High speed ? time critical ? You may find Brahmos to be more effective.

Low speed ? or buildings ? You can allow half an hour flight time, you may find Subsonic stealthy LRASM to fit the bill nicely.

[Occentia]

In your opinions, would a BrahMos-style high altitude, supersonic AShM or a LRASM-style low observable, low speed missile be more effective?

Both can be effective. It's now down to what kind of target you are aiming for.

High speed ? time critical ? You may find Brahmos to be more effective.

Low speed ? or buildings ? You can allow half an hour flight time, you may find Subsonic stealthy LRASM to fit the bill nicely.

Specifically an anti-ship missile.

[New Vihenia]

Specifically an anti-ship missile.

Both can be effective.

More consideration would be what kind of planes you equipping it... smol planes ? want long range ? Then Subsonic.
You have bigger planes, heavily defended targets, e.g Carriers that steams fast, not wanting to expose your Mid course platform for too long or reducing chance of enemy ECM's. the Brahmos or anything faster would be nice.

[Azelmurta]

Greetings,
It seems to me that with counter insurgency wars being pretty common RPs on NS, this article would be worth a look:

https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logis ... le-hearts/

Here are the main points:
#0.5 Note that article focuses on COIN operations, not modern conventional combat.
#1 Frontline, jet powered combat aircraft consume huge amounts of fuel
#2 These need to be refueled by many vulnerable convoys. In fact, most of convoys in Iraq and Ahganistan are delivering jet fuel.
#3 This leads to more convoys being attacked and more casualties.
#4 Sending jet planes from distant bases or refueling them from tankers works.
#5 But this puts a lot of strain on all assets deployed. Plus it cost a pretty buck.
#6 Rather than use frontline jet fighters to support ground troops, use turboprop COIN aircraft.
#7. They use a fraction of the fuel that jets use. But they can deploy the weapons useful for COIN (One is not launching a AshM from them.)
#8. Thus significantly less convoys are needed. This translates into less casualties.
#9. Turboprops can loiter for hours without tanker support. This equals less strain on tankers.
#10. Turboprops could even be completely resupplied by C-130s. Thus no convoys would be necessary to operate them. This greatly reduces amount of convoys and consequently casualties.
#11. Moral of the story is use turboprop COIN planes to reduce costs in blood and treasure while maintaining airpower in COIN campaigns.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Greetings,
It seems to me that with counter insurgency wars being pretty common RPs on NS, this article would be worth a look:

https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logis ... le-hearts/

Here are the main points:
#2 These need to be refueled by many vulnerable convoys. In fact, most of convoys in Iraq and Ahganistan are delivering jet fuel.

This is misleading. JP-8 is jet fuel, yes, but it is not solely used by NATO to fuel jet aircraft. It fuels basically anything with a diesel engine. Heaters, generators, stoves, tanks, trucks, tractors, APCs, everything. Switching to a turboprop aircraft will not significantly reduce the need to transport JP-8 by convoys unless the introduction of turboprop aircraft is accompanied by a decrease in overall troop presence and patrol frequency. Otherwise, the hundreds of other pieces of equipment that rely on JP-8 for fuel will still be consuming fuel.

[Gallia-]

Greetings,
It seems to me that with counter insurgency wars being pretty common RPs on NS, this article would be worth a look:

https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logis ... le-hearts/

Here are the main points:
#0.5 Note that article focuses on COIN operations, not modern conventional combat.
#1 Frontline, jet powered combat aircraft consume huge amounts of fuel
#2 These need to be refueled by many vulnerable convoys. In fact, most of convoys in Iraq and Ahganistan are delivering jet fuel.
#3 This leads to more convoys being attacked and more casualties.
#4 Sending jet planes from distant bases or refueling them from tankers works.
#5 But this puts a lot of strain on all assets deployed. Plus it cost a pretty buck.
#6 Rather than use frontline jet fighters to support ground troops, use turboprop COIN aircraft.
#7. They use a fraction of the fuel that jets use. But they can deploy the weapons useful for COIN (One is not launching a AshM from them.)
#8. Thus significantly less convoys are needed. This translates into less casualties.
#9. Turboprops can loiter for hours without tanker support. This equals less strain on tankers.
#10. Turboprops could even be completely resupplied by C-130s. Thus no convoys would be necessary to operate them. This greatly reduces amount of convoys and consequently casualties.
#11. Moral of the story is use turboprop COIN planes to reduce costs in blood and treasure while maintaining airpower in COIN campaigns.

Lol.

Just use B-2s or something.

There's no one ambushing convoys in Kansas or whatever.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Greetings,
It seems to me that with counter insurgency wars being pretty common RPs on NS, this article would be worth a look:

https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logis ... le-hearts/

Here are the main points:
#0.5 Note that article focuses on COIN operations, not modern conventional combat.
#1 Frontline, jet powered combat aircraft consume huge amounts of fuel
#2 These need to be refueled by many vulnerable convoys. In fact, most of convoys in Iraq and Ahganistan are delivering jet fuel.
#3 This leads to more convoys being attacked and more casualties.
#4 Sending jet planes from distant bases or refueling them from tankers works.
#5 But this puts a lot of strain on all assets deployed. Plus it cost a pretty buck.
#6 Rather than use frontline jet fighters to support ground troops, use turboprop COIN aircraft.
#7. They use a fraction of the fuel that jets use. But they can deploy the weapons useful for COIN (One is not launching a AshM from them.)
#8. Thus significantly less convoys are needed. This translates into less casualties.
#9. Turboprops can loiter for hours without tanker support. This equals less strain on tankers.
#10. Turboprops could even be completely resupplied by C-130s. Thus no convoys would be necessary to operate them. This greatly reduces amount of convoys and consequently casualties.
#11. Moral of the story is use turboprop COIN planes to reduce costs in blood and treasure while maintaining airpower in COIN campaigns.

Lol.

Just use B-2s or something.

There's no one ambushing convoys in Kansas or whatever.

Missouri.

[Austrasien]

Greetings,
It seems to me that with counter insurgency wars being pretty common RPs on NS, this article would be worth a look:

https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logis ... le-hearts/

Here are the main points:
#0.5 Note that article focuses on COIN operations, not modern conventional combat.
#1 Frontline, jet powered combat aircraft consume huge amounts of fuel
#2 These need to be refueled by many vulnerable convoys. In fact, most of convoys in Iraq and Ahganistan are delivering jet fuel.
#3 This leads to more convoys being attacked and more casualties.
#4 Sending jet planes from distant bases or refueling them from tankers works.
#5 But this puts a lot of strain on all assets deployed. Plus it cost a pretty buck.
#6 Rather than use frontline jet fighters to support ground troops, use turboprop COIN aircraft.
#7. They use a fraction of the fuel that jets use. But they can deploy the weapons useful for COIN (One is not launching a AshM from them.)
#8. Thus significantly less convoys are needed. This translates into less casualties.
#9. Turboprops can loiter for hours without tanker support. This equals less strain on tankers.
#10. Turboprops could even be completely resupplied by C-130s. Thus no convoys would be necessary to operate them. This greatly reduces amount of convoys and consequently casualties.
#11. Moral of the story is use turboprop COIN planes to reduce costs in blood and treasure while maintaining airpower in COIN campaigns.

If only there was some kind of long-endurance aircraft which could dab on jihadis and armenians without burning much fuel...

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Imagine being some colonel flying yo A-37 only to be yeeted by some half-educated 18 year old with a Strela-2. Obviously if the plane being yeeted by a Strela-2 is an MQ-9 the colonel doesn't die and he gets to probs fly another MQ-9 next week. Even more obviously if the MQ-9 is up at 20,000 feet it doesn't get yeeted by a Strela-2 at all.

[Triplebaconation]

Yes, in NS everyone has a missile hidden under tarps or something in a nearby Toyota ready to spring into action whenever ominous music plays so only high-end aircraft flying in the stratosphere are safe.

In reality there's no single best solution for close-air support so manned turboprops may have a niche role, but they're generally so slow and low-capacity that replacing jets entirely due to fuel consumption would be a false economy.

[Kassaran]

Weird bit I came across on the Tom Scott YouTube channel... Inogon leading light indicators. They show someone exactly which direction to guide their vehicle in a two-dimensional space, to be, well, on-line. I know aircraft carriers have something similar, but I was thinking about something like this for the original guiding aircraft in bomber formations back in WW2. Was wondering if anyone thought there'd be an interesting bit of aviation history behind the Inogon light they personally had incorporated into their nation's history, or if they were interested in doing so and how they'd go about it. Anyways, cheers lads!