Riain
Banned
Interesting , but why do you think the 65 Imperial Germans would be a purely tactical force? The British, French and soviets all had medium bomber fleets and the Germans tried themselves in both wars, the Nazis built ~1100 He 177s.
Fictional inventory of modern airforces
- Thread starter Khanzeer
- Start date
Interesting , but why do you think the 65 Imperial Germans would be a purely tactical force? The British, French and soviets all had medium bomber fleets and the Germans tried themselves in both wars, the Nazis built ~1100 He 177s.
I’m struggling to understand why all the US platforms. Yes they are good, but because they are not built in the UK they are much more expensive even if the upfront cost is the same, because no local industrial or tax offsets.
Plus the loss of local design and production capability.
Thus:
Buccaneer: Replace with TSR-2 in the 1970’s and 1980’s or otherwise develop Tornado.
Jaguar: i’m unsure about this one, because you have Harrier and Jaguar in similar roles, though Jaguar is higher performance (without the STOVL capability). And later Jaguar units converted to Tornado...
So maybe don’t build Jaguar, get more Harriers then replace them with a multi role aircraft in the 1990’s.
Lightning/F-4 replacement: using the money not spent on Tornado and Jaguar develop a multi-role combat aircraft along the lines of the Typhoon to enter service in the early 1990’s replacing F-4, Harrier and lightning. If this has the legs to replace TSR, do that as well.
If F4 replacement cannot also replace TSR-2, develop a stealth tactical bomber to replace it in the mid-2000’s. Aka FOAS/BAe Replica.
F-18L or F/A-18C for the Hellenic Air Force license produced in place of the F-16C/Mirage 2000. Hornet had come actually on top in the air force evaluation and F-16 and Mirage 2000 were bought instead on purely political grounds. And while the L variant was initially preferred F/A-18 seems more likely if none else is buying L.
Then when in 1999 Greece is looking for up to 80 more aircraft in the aftermath of the Imia crisis F/A-18E looks like a logical option. Unless the US isn't very happy to sell Greece an AESA equipped fighter that early (by 2006 or so they were offering it to Athens) which seems like an excellent opening for Rafale..
Then when in 1999 Greece is looking for up to 80 more aircraft in the aftermath of the Imia crisis F/A-18E looks like a logical option. Unless the US isn't very happy to sell Greece an AESA equipped fighter that early (by 2006 or so they were offering it to Athens) which seems like an excellent opening for Rafale..
marathag
Banned
Start sooner
Development of the N-156F continued at a lower priority as a private venture by Northrop; on 25 February 1958, an order for three prototypes was issued for a prospective low-cost fighter that could be supplied under the Military Assistance Program for distribution to less-developed nations. The first N-156F flew at Edwards Air Force Base on 30 July 1959, exceeding the speed of sound on its first flight.[20] Although testing of the N-156F was successful, demonstrating unprecedented reliability and proving superior in the ground-attack role to the USAF's existing North American F-100 Super Sabres, official interest in the Northrop type waned, and by 1960 it looked as if the program was a failure. Interest revived in 1961 when the United States Army tested it, (along with the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and Fiat G.91) for reconnaissance and close-support. Although all three types proved capable during Army testing, operating fixed-wing combat aircraft was legally the responsibility of the Air Force, which would not agree to allow the Army to operate fixed-wing combat aircraft
Have Canadair jump in here in 1961, and then they do their own F-5E>F-5G>F-20 program on their own
Under 'modern airforces' I'd try and include anything post 1960s (yes, I'm old).
- ex-Yugoslavia & Romania - don't make Orao, but make a derivative of MiG-21 instead (split intakes, 'solid nose', better wing - some of thses features can be found on Chinese developments); French electronics if available. Replace also the MiG-21 & 23 with it; no MiG-23 for Romania. Version 2.0 with RD-33, HCMS, single-piece canopy, better eject seat, better electronics & missiles (cue MiG-21-93).
- India - do the same before jumping on Tejas
- CCCP - same in shape, but use more powerful engines to arrive at affordable and reliable fighter instead on the MiG-23. MiG-29 is 1-engined fighter here, powered by AL-31, more affordable and rangier.
- Europeans - make Rafale and Eurofighter 1-engined, not 2-engined = price drops down, earlier introduction, exports in many hundreds instead in dozens.
- UK - the Lightning with tailed delta wing, Spey on board = cheaper to make and operate, greater fuel capacity, much better range/radius = export success.
- ex-Yugoslavia & Romania - don't make Orao, but make a derivative of MiG-21 instead (split intakes, 'solid nose', better wing - some of thses features can be found on Chinese developments); French electronics if available. Replace also the MiG-21 & 23 with it; no MiG-23 for Romania. Version 2.0 with RD-33, HCMS, single-piece canopy, better eject seat, better electronics & missiles (cue MiG-21-93).
- India - do the same before jumping on Tejas
- CCCP - same in shape, but use more powerful engines to arrive at affordable and reliable fighter instead on the MiG-23. MiG-29 is 1-engined fighter here, powered by AL-31, more affordable and rangier.
- Europeans - make Rafale and Eurofighter 1-engined, not 2-engined = price drops down, earlier introduction, exports in many hundreds instead in dozens.
- UK - the Lightning with tailed delta wing, Spey on board = cheaper to make and operate, greater fuel capacity, much better range/radius = export success.
Last edited:
Oh well I was hoping to foster some sort of Canadair-Northrop strategic partnership (to appease my fantasy of a CF-23)
Not purely tactical but their strategic side is more "intermediate" range, think B47 versus B52. Russia is the prime threat followed by the French and UK and Italy. I admit the USA would be a threat too. But I am leaning on SLBM to cover that combined with refueling to give the bombers range. With IRBM and medium bombers Germany can hit the vital targets in Russia and all of Europe. I give them a C141 for quasi strategic airlift but forego the C5 big lift.
The AL-31 would still leave you 4,000 lbf short of the Klimovs, so the plane would have to be even smaller.
You're going to need huge, brand new engines that are going to be extraordinarily expensive on their own unless you make the planes even smaller than OTL. Both the Rafale and Eurofighter had new engines, but they were significantly based on existing technology. You would need something as big as the F119 to replace these twin engines. The French in particular already have Mirage 2000s as the light fighter so they need the heavier interceptor to handle air superiority and nuclear stroke roles.
Yes, size of F-16 (boy, how that aircraft hit the sweet spot).
Not extraordinary expensive, and nothing new. RR (Bristol, before the merge) developed Olympus in 1950s, so they knew how to make big engines. Combined military budget of Italy, Germany and UK > budget of UK.
The EJ-200 was based on a technology demonstrator XG-40 - new tech, not old.
Mirage 2000 covered nuclear strike roles and air superiority in 20th century, the 'Rafale light' (but still heavier than Mirage 2000) will up this to the new level, along with emphasis to low observabilty, new materials and super-maneuverability.
I picked the US platforms due to them already in development/developed.
This saves time and also costs.
!) Paying to license produce aircraft is always somewhat cheaper than developing your own.
2) This then allows more aircraft to be purchased and built.
3) More commonality with more NATO airforces (How many NATO or even USAF bases can service an Tonka unless they're Italian or German)
Also license production doesn't cost the UK any production capability . . . a F-16 or F-15 still takes the same amount of manpower to produce wether it's in the USA, UK or Zanzibar
The political deals that ultimately led to the selection of Jas Gripen as the replacement of MiG-21s and Saab Drakens in FAF service in 1995 formed the foundation of Swedo-Finnish defence cooperation in material and acquisition, and most likely influenced the later Norwegian decision to buy Gripen NGs to replace their F-16s.
Not really, it lacked the electronics and design for it. It was a good air-air fighter, with limited air-ground. The Jaguar beat it in low level ground support and the Tornado in payload, low level speed, range... it would be years before the F-16 became a true multipurpose tool.
This would be a day fighter for the Soviets, not a replacement for the MiG-23's BVR capability. The MiG-29 also needed much bigger and therefore heavier wings to match the increased maneuverability of the American fourth-generation fighters. Even with its size increases it was still far too small for the role it was supposed to have. Besides, the modern F-16 variants are a third heavier than they were back in the Cold War.
These are going to be some of the biggest afterburning turbofans in the world, and the Europeans don't have any big supersonic bombers with huge turbofans to base the cores on, which is how the US got the F110. It's going to be very new and very expensive.
It was already a decade old when it first flew. You would have to start development in the early 80s, like the F119. Afterburning turbofans in jet fighters were all still pretty new, and the XG-40 program was focused primarily on reliability, fuel consumption, and manufacturing technologies rather than raw performance.
That doesn't mean they were good at it.
If you're going this way, why not just upgrade the Mirage 2000 when it's less than a decade old? When everyone was going for el cheapo LWF's to save money, the F-15 reminded us why payload, range, and huge wings were still important. Besides, the French Navy is never going to accept a single-engine carrier fighter after their experience with Crusaders.
Riain
Banned
I think the British would be a good guide; V bombers and the Shorts Belfast or the Russians with the Tu 16 and 22 and Antonov An 22.
What would the KM air wings look like? Would they have the same large-small carrier debate as the British? Would they have the Buccaneer or the Etenard?
Why would it not feature BVR capability? Engine is at the back, radar in front.
Historical MiG-29 needed big wing to carry two engines, among other stuff, and it certainly was not too small.
Modern F-16 versions have no bearing on ALT 'MiG-29 light' of 1980s.
Europeans have a supersonic airliner with huge turbofan in use from 1970.
Nope, I'll start development in mid-1970s.
Says who?
F-15 reminds us that not everyone can buy expensive fighters, even if there is a political will to sell it. El cheapo LWFs (Sabre, Hunter, MiG-15, MiG-21, F-104, F-16, Mirage III, Grippen) was what most of the nations could afford, export figures going in hundreds and thousands.
When the Crusader became a bad naval fighter?
marathag
Banned
Did have a terrible accident rate. One of the worst, in fact. Did not handle well at low speeds, like when landing.
Not great for a carrier aircraft
Thank you.
I've googled a bit, seems like accidents were not because it got just one engine, but were related to the high wing loading.
1st nitpick - EE - English Electric Lightning.
2nd The Luftwaffe choose the Lockheed 104 due to bribery, otherwise it would have been the SR177 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.177
- such was the requirement for a high rate of climb (provided by the rocket/jet SR 177) that the 104 was equipped with RATO boosters!
If the Buccaneer had been a cheaper alternative to the TSR2 - IMO I could still envisage the Tornado IDS coming - the Buccaneer would have been an old design by then.
The Jaguar in the Gulf war proved itself, to be a capable aircraft. I doubt politically the UK would abandon it design capability by just buying American, co-operating with the French, also made it more difficult for politicians to cancel projects.
Another option (if Sweden would agree) would be to go for the Saab Viggen instead of Jaguar and Phantom in the ground-attack role (with better air-to-air).