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

[Prosorusiya]

OK. I will have to research the nearest equivalent to an FAC the Soviets had, since Nonna runs on Soviet doctrine. I think they were "air liaison" officers, and didn't have so much control of aircraft as a true FAC would have, so much as they could make suggestions to ground commanders of how to best make use of aircraft during permission planning, and presumably also advise pilots as to air-ground weapons to make use of depending on the mission. I will need to do more research...

[Iltica]

Suppose for a moment its ~ 1950 and you're making a twin boom fighter similar to the DH Vampire/Venom, but want to give it swept wings. What do you do with the tailplane? Some sort of V- shape or something or would it be okay to leave it unswept?

(Yes I'm aware the Venom has a small amount of sweep on its leading edge, this is much steeper, closer to 45 degrees.)

[Connori Pilgrims]

Suppose for a moment its ~ 1950 and you're making a twin boom fighter similar to the DH Vampire/Venom, but want to give it swept wings. What do you do with the tailplane? Some sort of V- shape or something or would it be okay to leave it unswept?

(Yes I'm aware the Venom has a small amount of sweep on its leading edge, this is much steeper, closer to 45 degrees.)

You mean like this:



The Sea Vixen (from the same firm, de Haviland) more or less is what you described, although its a missile-flinging interceptor/fighter-bomber.

[Iltica]

Yes and no. That's very much along the lines of what it would look like, but I was talking about the horizontal portion of the tail which is still unswept on the Vixen... Along with seemingly every other twin-boom design.
The closest thing I can find to a swept horizontal tail is this Chinese UAV and it's only about 10-15 degrees or so.

[Alteran Republics]

Just going to leave our dispatch here ...
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=975634

Our air force is centred around the domestically produced P.117 Pochard (a development of the RL EAP fighter programme by BAe in the 1980s) to produce a light-weight, single seat multi-role fighter. We also import a few aircraft from other regional nations and are moving towards a near-total stealth combat fleet.

https://i.imgur.com/mEeQZgy.png
P.117 Pochard

https://i.imgur.com/P55NmBu.png
Gaelfighter Tempest (a joint-commercially owned technology testbed)

https://i.imgur.com/Mgq4Ga5.png
F.123 Falcon

https://i.imgur.com/eSuJCtz.png
AAe Osprey

[Connori Pilgrims]

Yes and no. That's very much along the lines of what it would look like, but I was talking about the horizontal portion of the tail which is still unswept on the Vixen... Along with seemingly every other twin-boom design.
The closest thing I can find to a swept horizontal tail is this Chinese UAV and it's only about 10-15 degrees or so.
(Image)

What point would there be to make the horizontal stabilizers (which are in between the booms) swept in a twin-boom design? Sweeping them wont make them any faster or more maneuverable.

[Iltica]

I'm concerned that the elevator will lose effectiveness at high speeds or even breaking off. Perhaps an all moving elevator could solve the former, but that would be even more structurally demanding.

[New Vihenia]

A new AEW


Shateya Labiria


An attempt of our design bureau to enter VHF band. Given the impracticality of installing rotodome or "fin" Type antenna on conventional airframe. It is decided to purpose built an airframe around the radar.

The radar, "Labiria" is a VHF band radar operating at 140-170 MHz. It consist of 44 Yagi-uda type radiating element supported by 2 KW peak power TRM. The radar is capable of detecting conventional fighter type target at high altitude in range of 1000 Km. Stealth aircraft can be detected at tactically useful distance of 200-300 Km. The radar have no altitude beam steering ability due to broad beamwidth in elevation. As a result the operating altitude is constrained to allow multipath heightfinding.

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

Anyone have any resources about the PLAAF and its inventory in the early to mid 80s that I can browse?

[Covenant of Man]

A rather slow Air-to-Ground Fighter/Bomber with stealth capabilities rarely found in other planes. Missiles are guided.

Infantry squads that need air support can have their engineer input a set of exact coordinates of their location plus a distance of up to 3 miles in any direction (based on what distance their visors measure from perceived enemy activity) on a machine that communicates those input values to the fighter jet. This provides an exact location for the missiles to target enemy positions.




The assault helicopters are crewed by 3 men. Two pilots with one being a gunner as well, and an engineer.



Prototype for our next generation of main fighters.



Since our air force and navy are merged. We have air carriers. They're slow hunks that are heavily armored. They require tons of mid-air refueling as they have to stay in the air for several days at a time. Refueling is done via drones.
The carriers carry 4 fighters each, which are slingshot into the air at around 40,000 feet at roughly twice the speed of a sea carrier's catapult. Said fighters then dive down to increase speed before going back up to the battle zone.

[Post War America]

-Snip for space-

But how do any of this actually fly? Those designs look frankly like they'll just fall out of the sky. The carrier especially wouldn't work given that there's no way in hell that thing is generating any lift enough to stay airborne.

[Isilanka]

Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.

[Gwrachbyd]

introducing the current pride of the gwrachbyd aero-space force the BF-1 hammerhead endo-exo atmospheric attack jet

a multi role combat interceptor/attack jet the BF-1 is the most advanced fighter craft we've developed to date. powered by two JN-404 duel feed direct cycle nuclear turbojets (the heating for the air passed through the jets is through nuclear decay rather than conventional combustion of fuel) giving the craft unlimited range with a top speed (recorded in prototype testing) in excess of mach 10 (prototype 001 suffered catastrophic airframe failure due to frictional heating of the airframe at mach 8.8+ resulting in new material developments and speed governors for atmospheric flight) allowing the craft to enter low earth orbit for a short time thanks to the closed cycle feed system using stored air to fuel the craft when at altitudes where the thinning atmosphere can not support the engines, refulling of the closed feed system is done automatically when the aircraft enters an atmosphere thick enough to provide the intake pump with air

technical details

cruising speed mach 3.8
ever exceed speed mach 8
stall speed 270kph
climb rate 600m/s
thrust to weight4.669
rated G-force 13G (test flights have pulled 16+G with some instability problems primary engine intake airflow problems causing flame out but pilots have reported a work around for this *classified for security reasons*)

crew 1
length 10.8m
wingspan 14.4m
height 3.9m

empty weight 10.2 tons
loaded weight 13.1 tons
fuel capacity 2900kg (internal)
powerplant 2X J-404N dual feed direct cycle nuclear turbojets (with close cycle switching for high altitudes and vacuum flight)
thrust 300KN each

armament (modular and changed based on mission and unit role)
gun
1x30mm gargoyle gattling (30x145mm explosive fragmenting warhead with a light armour penetrating core on a gyrorocket round)
1x30mm rapid coil gun (primary CAS and anti shipping weapon)

hardpoints
6 under wing hardpoints
3 centreline hardpoins
2 wing tip hardpoints (dedicated air to air missile system)

weapon loadouts
unguided rocket pods
air to air guided missile systems
air to ground guided missile systems

avionics
AESA radar system
IRST electro-optics system
IFF transponder

key features of the BF-1 include networking sensor systems allowing craft to utilise sensor data from other sources including satellites, other aircraft in the squad or ground based radar arrays inproving the craft's stealth capabilities by allowing it to operate without the need of active radar systems.
swing role programing systems allowing the craft to change operational roles at the press of a button switching flight and operational programing with ease.
programmable flight systems allowing the craft software to be updated throughout the craft's operational life time
modular systems allowing for upgrade and easy swapout in the field of all major systems with ease. allowing the craft to go from air to air interceptor to search and rescue to ground attack in a fraction of the time required to adapt most current aircraft
computer assisted flight system to help compensate for pilot black out during high G maneuvers (allowing the craft to finish maneuvers or continue to track a target in the event that the pilot blacks out due to high G maneuvers) meaning that the craft continues limited fly without pilot input.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.

Dirigibles had a habit of blowing away in the wind. Almost every zeppelin the Germans made were destroyed because of high winds. While a flying aircraft carrier is useful, they wouldn't be practical. Not unless you can make something like the Shield Helicarrier or that flying airbase from Ace Combat work?

Or you could use the CL1201.

[The Corparation]

Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.

The idea for the Akron was to use the aircraft to scout ahead with their findings being relayed to the conventional naval fleet. This would be a perfectly reasonable job except for the fact that battleships were capable of carrying their own scout aircraft and conventional aircraft carriers were rapidly becoming a thing. The ability for a naval fleet to carry its own scouting aircraft makes a large slow moving and vulnerable airship like the Akron redundant.

Also since "realistic" airborne aircraft carriers have come up I am legally obligated to shill my not CL-1201 clone.

Fr "realistic" flying aircraft carriers there's the 747 AAC with microfighters.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.

The idea for the Akron was to use the aircraft to scout ahead with their findings being relayed to the conventional naval fleet. This would be a perfectly reasonable job except for the fact that battleships were capable of carrying their own scout aircraft and conventional aircraft carriers were rapidly becoming a thing. The ability for a naval fleet to carry its own scouting aircraft makes a large slow moving and vulnerable airship like the Akron redundant.

Also since "realistic" airborne aircraft carriers have come up I am legally obligated to shill my not CL-1201 clone.

Fr "realistic" flying aircraft carriers there's the 747 AAC with microfighters.

The CL-1201 clone is such a cool looking thing!

Also, how much for the space ships?

[New Chilokver]

Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.

The idea for the Akron was to use the aircraft to scout ahead with their findings being relayed to the conventional naval fleet. This would be a perfectly reasonable job except for the fact that battleships were capable of carrying their own scout aircraft and conventional aircraft carriers were rapidly becoming a thing. The ability for a naval fleet to carry its own scouting aircraft makes a large slow moving and vulnerable airship like the Akron redundant.

Also since "realistic" airborne aircraft carriers have come up I am legally obligated to shill my not CL-1201 clone.

Fr "realistic" flying aircraft carriers there's the 747 AAC with microfighters.

"Technically it's a f*cking Hybrid so pro-environment hippies can suck it."

Beautiful.

[Covenant of Man]

-Snip for space-

But how do any of this actually fly? Those designs look frankly like they'll just fall out of the sky. The carrier especially wouldn't work given that there's no way in hell that thing is generating any lift enough to stay airborne.

Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.

Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.

What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?

[Post War America]

But how do any of this actually fly? Those designs look frankly like they'll just fall out of the sky. The carrier especially wouldn't work given that there's no way in hell that thing is generating any lift enough to stay airborne.

Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.

Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.

What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?

That doesn't solve your problem though. Unless you're flying really low to the ground, those rotors aren't keeping the skyship up, and even then its doubtful.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.

Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.

What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?

That doesn't solve your problem though. Unless you're flying really low to the ground, those rotors aren't keeping the skyship up, and even then its doubtful.

What about if you make them rockets?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

That doesn't solve your problem though. Unless you're flying really low to the ground, those rotors aren't keeping the skyship up, and even then its doubtful.

What about if you make them rockets?

Then you would consume an insane amount of fuel. How much exactly depends on how heavy the carrier is more than anything else, but getting
a several thousand ton (minimum) machine airborne using rockets is difficult if not impossible, even ignoring the fact that it's a big dumb object that any modern fighter could kill with no effort.
Wouldn't you be better off just figuring out how to give your planes a longer range?

[The Corparation]

Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.

Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.

What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?

That doesn't solve your problem though. Unless you're flying really low to the ground, those rotors aren't keeping the skyship up, and even then its doubtful.

Those rotors would also be a making down wash with the force of a fucking hurricane.


It's all fine to use the Shield helicarrier for NS* but it's airworthiness does not deserve the benefit of a doubt anymore than a Nimitz Class does.


* (Assuming RP mates are fine with it)

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

Well if my last question didn't get much traction, anyone got much clue about the state of the PLAAF in the eary-to-mid 80's?

It seems like their fighter force woul've been mostly MiG-21/19 knockoffs. How well did they compare to equivalent era soviet versions? I've heard that at least the 21's were until their redesign were equivalent to older variants partly because of the length of the cultural revolution and the aircraft industry was still getting back on its feet.

[Gwrachbyd]

Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.

Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.

What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?

(Image)

as others have said you'd have a hard job just getting that thing off the ground, the structural stresses alone would cause it to fold in on itself and snap due to the weight without some magical material that is a lot stronger, lighter and stiffer than anything we currently have. to get the required stiffness using conventional materials (or even some of the newest materials under research) you'd need a lot of mass which then means you'll need more thrust to get it airbourne, resulting in more fuel needed resulting in even greater mass. basically the bigger you make it the harder it is to get it in the air.
that said if you were able to get it in the air it would handle like a brick, worse it would handle like a drunken brick, hard to move, very unsteady, and would basically be a sitting duck to any infantry guy with a MANPAD system such as a stinger (one of those engines go and the whole thing comes crashing down)

(OOC: now if you're dealing with FT nation then you can handwave this with super advanced alloys and antigravity propulsion or something but not with anything modern or even post modern tech)

your best bet to make an airbourne aircraft carrier would be a hybrid airship with a VTOL landing pad on the top but this would suffer badly from lack of storage space, and slow speed (you're talking enough supplies for maybe a squadron of fighters at best)
a better option would be to look into long range aircraft technology such as nuclear jets (as were planned during the cold war but were replaced with ICBMs because they were cheaper)

[Connori Pilgrims]

Well if my last question didn't get much traction, anyone got much clue about the state of the PLAAF in the eary-to-mid 80's?

It seems like their fighter force woul've been mostly MiG-21/19 knockoffs. How well did they compare to equivalent era soviet versions? I've heard that at least the 21's were until their redesign were equivalent to older variants partly because of the length of the cultural revolution and the aircraft industry was still getting back on its feet.

The PLAAF's tactical airpower was indeed mostly built around the Shenyang J-6/MiG-19 and Chengdu J-7/MiG-21 at the start of the 1980s. The J-8 was just entering service (if at all) at this time. The MiG-19-derived Nanchang Q-5 being its tactical strike and the Xian H-6/Tu-16 being its main long-range strike capability.

The vast majority of PLAAF tactical aircraft were mostly close-range fighters with SRAAMs and cannon as their sole armament; BVRAAM capability would have to wait for the J-8II, although the BVR capable versions of the J-8II would only start flying in the 1990s; attempts to get them off the ground earlier were dashed by the fallout from the Tienanmen Massacre, although that is from 1989 onward, before that, the Chinese were trying hard to get various Western systems onto J-7 and J-8.

Had the PLAAF joined a hypothetical World in Conflict/Wargame-style World War III in the late 1980s, they would have struggled to harm either the Soviet Air Forces or the USAF and Japanese ASDF due to their lack of BVR capability; they would also be reliant heavily on ground-control-interception as they had no meaningful AEW&C to speak of at the time, making them largely defensive in operations.