Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Vorkova]

My nation is an island, so it's main use would be to take out an enemy fleet before it reaches the coast. If it's optimised for cruise missiles then it should suit me well.

EDIT: Should I mix in the TU-22 as well? It looks like it's built as a cruise missile platform as well.

Definitely.
Though a note - you'll be looking for specifically the Tu-22M series.
Bizarrely, the Tu-22 and Tu-22M are practically different aircraft.

The regular TU-22 might actually make a good reserve bomber. It's supersonic and I could probably fit it with new electronics, missiles and engines.

[Vorkova]

My nation is an island, so it's main use would be to take out an enemy fleet before it reaches the coast. If it's optimised for cruise missiles then it should suit me well.

EDIT: Should I mix in the TU-22 as well? It looks like it's built as a cruise missile platform as well.

The TU-160 wasn't really built to take out enemy fleets. Also, taking out enemy fleets is not the job of strategic bombers. If you want a bomber to take out enemy fleets, use the TU-22M rather than the TU-160. TU-22M was pretty much designed for that job.

I'll keep around 60 TU-160s in service as strategic bombers then and use the TU-22M as a naval bomber.

[Swedish Democratic Republic]

This is the main fighter jet of the SDR:
The AJ/JA-37 "Viggen" ("Thunderbolt" in Swedish)

Such a beautiful aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvJRjs3DCsw

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I wonder if any of you have any opinions on the strategic use of a Mach 3 military transport?

[The Corparation]

I don't see the point of a Mach 3 transport. A transport aircraft will most likely never need to fly that fast. That extra speed is not a capability that's worth it in my view given the increased fuel consumption and reduced payload compared to a more conventional airlifter of the same price.

[Kaledy]

I wonder if any of you have any opinions on the strategic use of a Mach 3 military transport?

I don't think it is MT.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I don't see the point of a Mach 3 transport. A transport aircraft will most likely never need to fly that fast.

Is it worth having/sharing on the off-chance that the capability would be useful, do you think?

[Virana]

I don't see the point of a Mach 3 transport. A transport aircraft will most likely never need to fly that fast.

Is it worth having/sharing on the off-chance that the capability would be useful, do you think?

That capability isn't realistically that useful. It's just transporting materiel, and that's a role for which maintainability, range/fuel efficiency, and payload capacity are generally far more important than speed (and all of which are hurt by supersonic capability).

In the end, it's probably far from being worth it.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I don't see the point of a Mach 3 transport. A transport aircraft will most likely never need to fly that fast.

Is it worth having/sharing on the off-chance that the capability would be useful, do you think?

A Mach 3 transport would be a fun way to troll MiG-31s, but (even when you set realism aside) there's really no other use for it.

While there are many reasons for this, I'll put forth one at the heart of it - namely, that the gains in deployment time aren't all that great. Imagine you were originally going to send a unit across the Atlantic by ship, and then you decide to airlift it instead. There - you've just shaved a week off your deployment time. Now let's say you were originally going to cross by normal airlift, but now you decide to use your Mach 3 design. The flight that originally took 7 hours now takes 2 - a measly five-hour difference. Compared to the other time investments involved in mobilizing a task force, loading/unloading its equipment, and marching from the landing strip to the target area, that's a miniscule gain in time for a massive expense in research, development, and maintenance.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The point is that the aircraft (as a civilian aircraft) is already designed: it's just a question of the interior. But like you say, 5 hours is unlikely to make much difference, except in a crisis; and it would be very expensive to fly it around anyway.

So thank you all for your comments. Presumably a better business model is to lend them only if nations are worried that they might suddenly need to fly troops around very quickly; or only to nations which have large troublesome Empires to garrison from the air where time really does matter?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

The point is that the aircraft (as a civilian aircraft) is already designed: it's just a question of the interior. But like you say, 5 hours is unlikely to make much difference, except in a crisis; and it would be very expensive to fly it around anyway.

So thank you all for your comments. Presumably a better business model is to lend them only if nations are worried that they might suddenly need to fly troops around very quickly; or only to nations which have large troublesome Empires to garrison from the air where time really does matter?

1. And if said planes are grounded by humidity and turbulence?
-Or lack of a landing strip?

2. Garrision-maintnance is an issue of good planning.

3. If regional intel is so bad that you cannot get five hours of forewarning, you're pretty much screwed if you need more than the men already there (because it means you've allowed a massive mobilisation and buildup of men/material go uncontested).
-ADDITIONAL: The only recorded instance of using paratroops to bolster a defensive-line at the last second was the airlifting of several divisions an T-60 light tanks to Orel to counter Operation Typhoon.
**I'd like to think that Katukov spent most of the battle of Kursk pointing his bleeding middle finger into the air, and right at the German lines.

4. Time prepping a plane is not same as time prepping passengers.

5. Long-term logistics (once you get troops out, you must support them needy little whiny bastards) hinges upon more conventional, reliable, and proven methods of transportation. In a strategic sense, getting more people to a position faster is nice, but also highlights the importance of knowing the boundries to your sphere of influence.

[Southern Arkansas]

The Southern Arkansas Air Defense Forces do not operate aircraft. They only man defensive systems, and meteorological equipment.

[Anacasppia]

Speaking of that, what uses do you all imagine a high speed (Mach 6+) bomber would have? Penetration into hostile airspace to strike strategic or symbolic targets, I imagine?

[New Vihenia]

I wonder if any of you have any opinions on the strategic use of a Mach 3 military transport?

The only way i can think to use such sheer speed and faster than it (Hypersonic perhaps) Are to transport quick reaction forces like what i heard so far with "US Space Marines..usinng sub-orbital transport" etc..

[The Corparation]

Speaking of that, what uses do you all imagine a high speed (Mach 6+) bomber would have? Penetration into hostile airspace to strike strategic or symbolic targets, I imagine?

None. You don't need a bomber that travels that quickly .Flying fast ceased to be a practical protection from enemy air defenses roughly fifty years ago. In addition when penetrating enemy airspace you generally want to avoid detection. Flying at Mach 6 is one of the worst ways to go about not being detected.

[Anacasppia]

Speaking of that, what uses do you all imagine a high speed (Mach 6+) bomber would have? Penetration into hostile airspace to strike strategic or symbolic targets, I imagine?

None. You don't need a bomber that travels that quickly .Flying fast ceased to be a practical protection from enemy air defenses roughly fifty years ago. In addition when penetrating enemy airspace you generally want to avoid detection. Flying at Mach 6 is one of the worst ways to go about not being detected.

To the contrary, I was under the impression that speed is effectively a form of stealth - an aircraft traveling at Mach 6+ is far more unpredictable and than a conventional bomber traveling at Mach 2+, making it more difficult to intercept, and reducing the length of time during which it is exposed to enemy radar (and therefore air defenses), making it more difficult to engage.

Of course, wouldn't it be able to outrun some threats by sheer speed as well?

[The Corparation]

None. You don't need a bomber that travels that quickly .Flying fast ceased to be a practical protection from enemy air defenses roughly fifty years ago. In addition when penetrating enemy airspace you generally want to avoid detection. Flying at Mach 6 is one of the worst ways to go about not being detected.

To the contrary, I was under the impression that speed is effectively a form of stealth - an aircraft traveling at Mach 6+ is far more unpredictable and than a conventional bomber traveling at Mach 2+, making it more difficult to intercept, and reducing the length of time during which it is exposed to enemy radar (and therefore air defenses), making it more difficult to engage.

Of course, wouldn't it be able to outrun some threats by sheer speed as well?

Speed was a form of stealth for the radar systems of fifty years ago. Not so much anymore. And I'd say an aircraft traveling at Mach 6 would be much more predictable than a slower aircraft as a Mach 6 aircraft won't be able to perform much in the way of evasive maneuvers without subjecting the pilot and airframe to massive G-forces. The SR-71 took something like a 100 miles to turn iirc, I don't see a Mach 6 aircraft turning any quicker.

EDIT: Yes it could presumably outrun some threats, but that assumes that the threat is directly behind it. Which isn't likely to be the case if you're flying to the enemy.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

To the contrary, I was under the impression that speed is effectively a form of stealth - an aircraft traveling at Mach 6+ is far more unpredictable and than a conventional bomber traveling at Mach 2+, making it more difficult to intercept, and reducing the length of time during which it is exposed to enemy radar (and therefore air defenses), making it more difficult to engage.

Of course, wouldn't it be able to outrun some threats by sheer speed as well?

This is like the plot of Speed, with a Greyhound bus (or an armored train, lol)... up until it meets James Bond in a T-80...

Hypersonic planes don't got much manuverability, and if you're lugging nukes, most nuke-lugging nations have no problems about defending their nukes with other nukes.

[Triplebaconation]

To the contrary, I was under the impression that speed is effectively a form of stealth - an aircraft traveling at Mach 6+ is far more unpredictable and than a conventional bomber traveling at Mach 2+, making it more difficult to intercept, and reducing the length of time during which it is exposed to enemy radar (and therefore air defenses), making it more difficult to engage.

Of course, wouldn't it be able to outrun some threats by sheer speed as well?

Speed was a form of stealth for the radar systems of fifty years ago. Not so much anymore. And I'd say an aircraft traveling at Mach 6 would be much more predictable than a slower aircraft as a Mach 6 aircraft won't be able to perform much in the way of evasive maneuvers without subjecting the pilot and airframe to massive G-forces. The SR-71 took something like a 100 miles to turn iirc, I don't see a Mach 6 aircraft turning any quicker.

EDIT: Yes it could presumably outrun some threats, but that assumes that the threat is directly behind it. Which isn't likely to be the case if you're flying to the enemy.

The problem with that simplistic analysis is that even a rather sedate maneuver at Mach 6 requires massive energy expenditure from a missile to match. The more energy a missile expends, the less its range.

Stealth and very high speeds don't make an aircraft invulnerable. The point is to open up gaps in an air defense network and exploit them. Hypersonics have the added advantage of increasing the range and survivability of standoff weapons.

[Imperializt Russia]

The point is that the aircraft (as a civilian aircraft) is already designed: it's just a question of the interior. But like you say, 5 hours is unlikely to make much difference, except in a crisis; and it would be very expensive to fly it around anyway.

So thank you all for your comments. Presumably a better business model is to lend them only if nations are worried that they might suddenly need to fly troops around very quickly; or only to nations which have large troublesome Empires to garrison from the air where time really does matter?

A Stryker Brigade Combat Team requires four days to be moved in-theatre by C-130. Obviously, this is not all in flying time.
The few advantages of a high-speed transport will not significantly impact this time.
Its many disadvantages will impact this time in the negative direction, for significantly increased cost, resource consumption and reduced payload, necessitating either the maintenance of a larger (and more expensive) aircraft fleet, or significantly more hops used to transport formations.

No worth.

[Morrdh]

Too big for NS, too big for IIwiki

Costa Mejian Air Force chart, in its huge ass fucking glory.

DEAR MOTHER OF GOD. You nearly crashed my browser with that.

Anyway, would anyone be willing to inform me on an Air Force command structure and how I can organize my air force? Here's some NSTracker stats if it helps. http://www.nstracker.net/luepola&page=military

Depends on what you based your military on; was it American, Soviet/Russian or British Commonwealth practice?

[Aqabah]

Grumman F-14A Tomcat - 24 currently in service. All assigned to Northern Air Defense Command.

Dassault Mirage 2000C - 72 Currently in Service. 48 assigned to Northern Air Defense Command, 24 Assigned to Southern Air Defense Command.

Dassault Mirage 2000B - 24 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Training Command.

Panavia Tornado GR1 - 48 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Strike Command.

Panavia Tornado GR1(T) - 12 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Training Command.

AMX International AMX - 24 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Strike Command.

AMX International AMX-T - 6 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Training Command.

Yakovlev Yak-130 - 42 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Training Command.

Pilatus PC-7 - 70 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Training Command.

Transall C-160D - 28 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Transport Command.

Ilyushin Il-76MD - 18 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Transport Command.

Ilyushin Il-78M - 6 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Transport Command.

Beechcraft King Air - 14 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Training Command.

Mil Mi-26 - 18 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Transport Command.

Mil Mi-8 - 42 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Transport Command.

Eurocopter EC725 Super Cougar - 4 Currently in Service. All assigned to Central Transport Command.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Is it worth having/sharing on the off-chance that the capability would be useful, do you think?

That capability isn't realistically that useful. It's just transporting materiel, and that's a role for which maintainability, range/fuel efficiency, and payload capacity are generally far more important than speed (and all of which are hurt by supersonic capability).

In the end, it's probably far from being worth it.

Being realistic, the only thing a Mach 3 transport could usefully transport might be a paycheck or two. If you have a Mach 3 aircraft, it isn't going to be spacious enough to carry large pieces of equipment. It won't be able to be loaded easily either.

[Drakulstan]

As Drakulstan is likely a former soviet state, yet fairly technologically advanced with a large focus on the military (I mean come on, moon laser!), we are looking to currently replace our fleet of aging Su-35s with the T-50 Gen. 5 fighter.

Su-35 Gen. 4


T-50 fighter, still in testing

[Imperializt Russia]

Su-35s, a derivative of the Su-27, will have plenty of roles in an air force featuring the PAK FA.
I would suggest retaining these aircraft for a variety of purposes, even if the mainline fighter becomes the Su-50.