Fictional inventory of modern airforces
- Thread starter Khanzeer
- Start date
A bit too clever perhaps but I do like to play. And you are correct, to me the Germans have been tinkering since the Ausonia, following British example and copying from them. Germany operates in the North Sea and Atlantic near arctic, so closed bows, higher horsepower, deal with deck icing, hanger heating, sheltering aircraft, bad weather, etc. Germany likely embraces the armored carrier even before Britain, an ersatz cruiser in their minds, replacing the BC as they merge into the fast BBs. So smaller is my guide, less aircraft, little deck park, fighters near useless so more focus on attack, just as the RN taught itself. And we get some legacy ships, if the first true CVs are built closer to the 1930 mark they are still good enough hulls to 1950-ish, thus the next generation might be newer than preferred as the technology shifts to jets. I feel Germany has as many anchors dragging as the RN had as the thinking moved past conventional to nuclear and from all nuclear to flexible unknown. Post-1960s the threat is submarines, especially the SSBMs that the UK, France and Russia will field. That was how I got to the ASW focus, but I agree that a power projection capability is always desired, my fear is not enough funds. Germany here can threaten most of her enemies via land-based air, her submarines and lighter surface forces can deny the close water, her submarines can contest the rest of the North Sea and hazrad the Atlantic, but her problem is sweeping the SSB(N)s lurking at ever more distant stations. Playing 50 years forward from the Great War is a lot of butterflies, but I think the core concepts and issues remain, Germany has to be economic at sea, so I think a blue ocean ASW navy is in the cards akin to the Soviet Navy. But I do now think the RN holds more of her CATOBAR CVs and holds them longer, in a weird way the Harrier makes more sense for the Germans in my world, but Germany goes deeper on nuclear power, she uses more missiles where the RN relies upon her aircraft. For me the RN remains the senior service, the RAF its peer and the Army gets to go commando.
There are probably some Alpine valleys that are deep enough to keep RVs entirely out. They would still need a self-digout mechanism in case rock gets blasted all over the bottom of the valley.
The inherent difficulty with Germany's position on the continent is that there's no good dispersal area. Because access to the ocean could be easily blocked, the racetracks would have to be over Germany itself. If the racetracks are known and constant, it might be possible to hit them with airbursts and knock the planes out of the air, although this would require a lot of warheads
The US Minuteman fields would require more than a thousand warheads to fully neutralize, which is about two-thirds of the allowed strategic weapons deployment under New START and half of the allowance under START II. The role of the missile field is to act offensively as a first-strike weapon or defensively as a missile sponge; NCA would have to make an instant decision to either launch-on-warning or let the missiles be destroyed. US SLBMs are the second-strike weapon that can survive a nuclear strike and wait for NCA to respond before launching. Because the Germans wouldn't be able to effectively utilize SLBMs, they would need a different second-strike mechanism, if they decide to even invest in one and not maintain a launch-on-warning policy.
.
And this is the challenge speculating 50 years after the POD where one has yet to pin in place all the butterflies. First one cannot be certain Germany pursues missiles, they were an alternative to super heavy/long-range artillery under Versailles, but if they do then missiles are more tactical and intermediate strategic given the inaccuracy and vulnerability. Again, assuming as I have that a USSR still evolves, then its closed secretive nature makes missiles far from reliable to hit anything less than area targets like cities. Thus I tend to see the manned bomber having an edge longer, missiles are for closer targets that can be targeted or cities, superhard silos closer together deployed roughly around Hannover and towards Berlin from the West appears the best field but far smaller than anything like the SRF or SAC deployed. I think air basing is too costly for the vulnerability, German airspace is small and croeded, instead I fall back to rail then road basing, that gives dispersal on the dense rail and road net. And as far as basing in SWA I am not yet certain Germany gets that from SA but if it did I fear it is far away and hard to defend without draining off manpower needed for the conventional deterrence versus the USSR. For me it is interesting to construct the multi-polar world, instead of two camps and the non-aligned, it is more Mexican stand-off, the only saving grace in this more armed and less certain world.
And gratitude for indulging my sub-thread herein.
All on target responses. Even with 1914 borders and buffer states to the East, Germany has no wide open spaces, it is comparable to Montana overall, not enough space to really install a missile sponge. The SLBM force is workable but likely not exactly like how the USN or RN did it, it needs to deploy longer and further and deeper, perhaps uses some escort SSNs in a chain of virtual bastions way off shipping routes, or under ice, something to allow a one or two bigger missile boat element to kill enough civilians and wreck enough factories to deter but that is on a smaller scale than USN and SIOP style planning. I would argue they need a Typhoon style boat with long loiter capability in near static silence way far away. So missiles will likely sit on launch on warning, bombers will be in the air AND on alert ready to fly, it will be by the nature of the close ranges a tripwire paradigm, Germany will be the most paranoid of nuclear powers. Britain can transition from bombers to submarines and be less twitchy, the USA has distance, and the USSR sits next to a national nuclear landmine, so it is about the same, but if I add in a nuclear Imperial Japan, then its paranoia gets amped too. I think we see a far less stable "pause" environment for the NCA to gauge and react, it is hair trigger and the danger is now accidental war in the era of twitchy radars, unreliable computers and paranoid generals.
Riain
Banned
A couple of points.
I doubt the Kaiser Reich would have trouble with familiarity of the USSR that the US had in the 50s because they have been in the neighbourhood forever whereas the US was looking for the first time.The Germans would accurately know where Moscow is on a map.
While Imperial Germany is small compared to the USA and USSR its hardly Britain and is much bigger than France sp Germany could find a spot or two for ballistic missiles if needed. In addition while the USA and USSR put their ICBMs out in the missile of nowhere there were plenty of other first stike nuclear targets close to populated areas, Germany could simply accept the risk as on par with these sites.
The US forward based SSBNs at Holy Loch Scotland and Rota Spain in the Polaris/Poseidon era, I imagine the KM could come up with something similar for its SSBN fleet to mitigate having home bases in the North and Adriatic seas. Perhaps SSBNs could do 'shuttle' missions; start the patrol from home, transit to a German colony or ally, change crews and replenish then start the patrol from this forward base and finish it at home.
I doubt the Kaiser Reich would have trouble with familiarity of the USSR that the US had in the 50s because they have been in the neighbourhood forever whereas the US was looking for the first time.The Germans would accurately know where Moscow is on a map.
While Imperial Germany is small compared to the USA and USSR its hardly Britain and is much bigger than France sp Germany could find a spot or two for ballistic missiles if needed. In addition while the USA and USSR put their ICBMs out in the missile of nowhere there were plenty of other first stike nuclear targets close to populated areas, Germany could simply accept the risk as on par with these sites.
The US forward based SSBNs at Holy Loch Scotland and Rota Spain in the Polaris/Poseidon era, I imagine the KM could come up with something similar for its SSBN fleet to mitigate having home bases in the North and Adriatic seas. Perhaps SSBNs could do 'shuttle' missions; start the patrol from home, transit to a German colony or ally, change crews and replenish then start the patrol from this forward base and finish it at home.
In 1941 the Germans were using pre-1914 maps, all inaccurate, I see little clarity gained by another 20 years of Soviet secrecy and misdirection. Until we get photo mapping I think we need bombers who can seek out targets based on highly inaccurate mapping. For me the missiles are more a threat versus Western Europe and slowly take up missions to the East, freeing bombers to go find targets. Thus the missiles are counter-value.
For me it is a matter of degree, the bomber in 1965 or so still has advantages and the missiles are still disadvantaged, thus my force mix favors the bomber but has begun the transition to missiles. And I do feel that missiles are installed but more akin to the later USAF close spacing concept, and with super hard silos the fewer missiles are poised to be quick alert in front of the bombers rather than a missile sponge. I se the missiles leaving the silos very early, more counter value, and the bombers expected to effect a counter force and more directed attack on vitals, worst case doing the overkill for failed missile strikes. To my mind Germany is deploying a maybe 400 warhead package, at 2 to 1, that is dangerously close to not enough warheads to cripple the USSR and provide for the assured destruction of cities and populace and infrastructure. Theatre and tactical fill gaps and add to the carnage.
That is why I think Germany sits on a short reaction command chain, those missiles are still near urban areas and any inbound strike is doing harm, Germany needs to deter any strike, its response must be assured destruction, the stakes are too high. The USA and USSR can in theory think about riding it out or evacuating, but Germany is not so fortunate, the optics look to launch on warning to create maximum terror, it is a "don't mess with us" all the way.
If I allow for some realignments it might be the KM that bases in Rota. Or Portugal. Maybe in the OE somewhere, so Haifa? Anywhere further afield and it seems less useful. A base in Kamerun or East Africa might work once we get to Poseidon or Trident level ranges. I will ponder that. I already have thought that we might go to triple crews, I think something needs done to keep days deployed at the maximum, at best I tend to think Germany can field between 7 and 9 SSBNs, maybe double that in SSNs, that eats a lot of budget and shifts weight from the bombers being winnowed down. So we are good for 2 or 3 deployed, maybe another 1 or 2 in transit and 1 or 2 pier side able to launch? Even at 24 SLBMs per boat that is a small warhead group certain to be launch ready any given hour.
Interesting. Thank you!
Fair points. That's also a valid concern about SA basing I hadn't thought of.
Also, no problem, the topic was too interesting for me to pass up
Finnish Air Force:
In 1990, just before break-up of the Soviet Union, Finland bought new fighters for the Air Force. Like before, purchase was divided between Soviet Union and Sweden. With Swedish planes Finland had access to Western technology as direct purchase of US planes was seen too controversial for the neutral state. The candidates for 1990 purchase were SAAB JAS-39A Gripen, MiG-29A, Mirage 2000 and F-16A Falcon.
Thus between 1990 and 2008 Finnish Air Force consisted of 20 MiG-29A's, 3 MiG-29UB's, 40 JAS-39A and 4 JAS-39B Gripens. MiG-29 was retired early in 2008 and replaced by JAS-39A's bought from Swedish Air Force stocks and upgraded in 2005-2010 timeframe to JAS-39AFIN standard exceeding JAS-39C performance. (OTL 1992 purchase of 64 F-18's was seen as a surprise by many.)
In 2016 a decision was made in the new fighter programme, GM(X). The candidates were Rafale, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Gripen E/F (which was accelerated to get into Finnish fighter program) and F-35. In the end, Gripen E/F was chosen due to industrial experience with SAAB. Finnish defence industry was strongly involved in Gripen E/F effort. (OTL decision on Hornet replacement to be made in 2021 with F-35 and Gripen E/F widely considered to be the most probable candidates.)
In 1990, just before break-up of the Soviet Union, Finland bought new fighters for the Air Force. Like before, purchase was divided between Soviet Union and Sweden. With Swedish planes Finland had access to Western technology as direct purchase of US planes was seen too controversial for the neutral state. The candidates for 1990 purchase were SAAB JAS-39A Gripen, MiG-29A, Mirage 2000 and F-16A Falcon.
Thus between 1990 and 2008 Finnish Air Force consisted of 20 MiG-29A's, 3 MiG-29UB's, 40 JAS-39A and 4 JAS-39B Gripens. MiG-29 was retired early in 2008 and replaced by JAS-39A's bought from Swedish Air Force stocks and upgraded in 2005-2010 timeframe to JAS-39AFIN standard exceeding JAS-39C performance. (OTL 1992 purchase of 64 F-18's was seen as a surprise by many.)
In 2016 a decision was made in the new fighter programme, GM(X). The candidates were Rafale, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Gripen E/F (which was accelerated to get into Finnish fighter program) and F-35. In the end, Gripen E/F was chosen due to industrial experience with SAAB. Finnish defence industry was strongly involved in Gripen E/F effort. (OTL decision on Hornet replacement to be made in 2021 with F-35 and Gripen E/F widely considered to be the most probable candidates.)
Last edited:
Finnish Air Force 1960 - No Winter War
Finland managed to pass through Second World War without getting into conflict with either Soviet Union or Germany, although there were several close calls and the German invasion of Norway proving that neutrality alone would not protect a small nation if not backed by heavy defense. Post-war Finland, along with Sweden, has continued with the policy of armed neutrality as it proved it's worth during the Second World War.
Although Finland did develop a jet fighter in late 40's, VL "Pyörremyrsky" (Tornado), it was clearly outdated with it's straight wings and decision was made to license produce Swedish SAAB Tunnans instead, while Canadian designed VL produced CF-100 Canuck serves in the all-weather fighter role. The Mach 2 fighter project was conducted jointly between Finnish VL and Swedish SAAB, with the Draken / Lohikäärme just entering service. It is expected that while Lohikäärme's replace Tynnyri's they will be turned into attack role.
Some 200 Lohikäärme's are ordered. Furthermore, the Air Force has ordered Bristol Bloodhound long-range anti-aircraft missiles while the Army will operate medium-range Hawk missiles. All-weather VL Kanootti's will be replaced by Bloodhounds and Lohikäärme's without a direct replacement.
Finnish Air Force - divided into Flight Regiments which are more of an adminstrative commands housing different types of operative squadrons.
Lentorykmentti 1 - Army Co-Operation - 6 squadrons of attack planes (VL Pyörremyrsky, F-84 equivalent), 120 aircraft, 2 close reconnaissance squadrons (VL Pyörremyrsky, 20 aircraft
Lentorykmentti 2 - Day Fighter regiment - 12 squadrons of VL Tynnyri's (Barrel, license produced Tunnans), 270 aircraft
Lentorykmentti 3 - All weather fighters - 5 squadrons of VL Kanootti (Canoe, license produced Canuck), 49 aircraft
Lentorykmentti 4 - Bombers - 4 squadrons of English Electric Canberra, 41 aircraft
Lentorykmentti 5 - Long range reconnaissance and naval co-operation, 1 long range recon squadron, 5 recon squadrons, 2 naval co-operation squadrons. 10 EE Canberra ELINT, 24 Fairey Gannet, 60 VL Tynnyri T (reconnaissance)
Tukilentorykmentti - Transport, utility and training aircraft
Finland managed to pass through Second World War without getting into conflict with either Soviet Union or Germany, although there were several close calls and the German invasion of Norway proving that neutrality alone would not protect a small nation if not backed by heavy defense. Post-war Finland, along with Sweden, has continued with the policy of armed neutrality as it proved it's worth during the Second World War.
Although Finland did develop a jet fighter in late 40's, VL "Pyörremyrsky" (Tornado), it was clearly outdated with it's straight wings and decision was made to license produce Swedish SAAB Tunnans instead, while Canadian designed VL produced CF-100 Canuck serves in the all-weather fighter role. The Mach 2 fighter project was conducted jointly between Finnish VL and Swedish SAAB, with the Draken / Lohikäärme just entering service. It is expected that while Lohikäärme's replace Tynnyri's they will be turned into attack role.
Some 200 Lohikäärme's are ordered. Furthermore, the Air Force has ordered Bristol Bloodhound long-range anti-aircraft missiles while the Army will operate medium-range Hawk missiles. All-weather VL Kanootti's will be replaced by Bloodhounds and Lohikäärme's without a direct replacement.
Finnish Air Force - divided into Flight Regiments which are more of an adminstrative commands housing different types of operative squadrons.
Lentorykmentti 1 - Army Co-Operation - 6 squadrons of attack planes (VL Pyörremyrsky, F-84 equivalent), 120 aircraft, 2 close reconnaissance squadrons (VL Pyörremyrsky, 20 aircraft
Lentorykmentti 2 - Day Fighter regiment - 12 squadrons of VL Tynnyri's (Barrel, license produced Tunnans), 270 aircraft
Lentorykmentti 3 - All weather fighters - 5 squadrons of VL Kanootti (Canoe, license produced Canuck), 49 aircraft
Lentorykmentti 4 - Bombers - 4 squadrons of English Electric Canberra, 41 aircraft
Lentorykmentti 5 - Long range reconnaissance and naval co-operation, 1 long range recon squadron, 5 recon squadrons, 2 naval co-operation squadrons. 10 EE Canberra ELINT, 24 Fairey Gannet, 60 VL Tynnyri T (reconnaissance)
Tukilentorykmentti - Transport, utility and training aircraft
Here's a "what of" from actual Portguese history:
(original from deviant art)
Between the late 1960s and 1974, the portuguese air force tried to buy Mirages. Talks of between 20-50 of various models were undertaken, with political and econimical problems delaying the buy. It was apparently finally set on paper in 1974 (at least the french approval) for 36 Mirage IIIE. But the April 1974 revolution put a stop to it.
But if we assume that the purchase went on as approved, we might get, by (say) 1980:
Monte Real Airbase
201 Squadron (Falções) 16 Mirage IIIEPL
301 Squadron (Jaguares) 16 Mirage IIIEPL
Remaining aircraft on reserve.
(original from deviant art)
Between the late 1960s and 1974, the portuguese air force tried to buy Mirages. Talks of between 20-50 of various models were undertaken, with political and econimical problems delaying the buy. It was apparently finally set on paper in 1974 (at least the french approval) for 36 Mirage IIIE. But the April 1974 revolution put a stop to it.
But if we assume that the purchase went on as approved, we might get, by (say) 1980:
Monte Real Airbase
201 Squadron (Falções) 16 Mirage IIIEPL
301 Squadron (Jaguares) 16 Mirage IIIEPL
Remaining aircraft on reserve.
MiG-21 as historically, Draken, F-104... Practically any Mach 2 plane could be kept flying forever with modifications. At some point the EE Lightning Mk XII would not have a single interchangeable part with the original, or the maintenance of EE Lightning from original tranches would get sky high, but the development of smaller electronics and weapons would play powerfully into logic of just upgrading older planes.
The italian F-104 and austrian Draken survived untill 2004/2005. The Mig-21 is still around and in combat. And NASA still has Canberras hard at work. Assuming the planes are not worn out, then it pretty much depends on the onwer country's budgets and internal politics.
It's a bit late to do now but two possibilities I've been considering are earlier liquid propellant work in the UK seeing the Brakemine surface-to-air missile being successfully deployed in limited numbers during WWII, having the effect of accelerating later guided weapons development, and due to Power Jets having more resources jet engine development is advanced twelve months or so the Short Sperrin becomes the world's first jet-powered heavy bomber replacing the Vickers Valiant.
The standard joke after all was that it relied more on long takeoff runs and the curvature of the earth to get airborne, although in fairness that was the earlier marks. It was a rather decent aircraft and if they'd actually gone ahead with the improved version with the enlarged wings, referred to as 'tin wing' IIRC, and engines with more power it would have been even better.
In an ideal world they would have realised early on in the programme that combining the trainer and ground attack roles in the same aircraft was leading to one which was lacklustre at both and split them. Of course that might well derail the whole thing since the Armee de l'Air were under funding pressures and the joint role was how they had been able to see the whole project.
That does raise the question of which version of the F-117. The different variants that have been proposed over the years are something of a mess, IIRC two separate ones from different time periods having the same designation, and based on estimates so it's hard to keep track of the performance figures. If the UK had gone ahead, and personally I can't really see it due to the large cost and limited/specialised role they performed, then assuming that it was one of the later variants - enlarged and reduced sweep wings, tailerons, improved engines, bulged bomb bay etc. - it might have actually prompted a new US order as well due to politicians not wanting someone else to have a better version.
I know you're talking comparatively but 'higher performance' is not something I normally expect to see written about the Jaguar - certainly not in its favour.
The standard joke after all was that it relied more on long takeoff runs and the curvature of the earth to get airborne, although in fairness that was the earlier marks. It was a rather decent aircraft and if they'd actually gone ahead with the improved version with the enlarged wings, referred to as 'tin wing' IIRC, and engines with more power it would have been even better.In an ideal world they would have realised early on in the programme that combining the trainer and ground attack roles in the same aircraft was leading to one which was lacklustre at both and split them. Of course that might well derail the whole thing since the Armee de l'Air were under funding pressures and the joint role was how they had been able to see the whole project.
That's half of it but you don't mention design capability. That's a highly specialised field that if not kept in work will deteriorate quite quickly, the state of the art keeps advancing, and disappear. Once that's gone you're pretty much locked into buying foreign aircraft, either directly or by licensed production, as rebuilding the capacity is often seen as too expensive and long-term.
Which is why projects like Typhoon continued after the Cold War ended. Plus BAE Replica, and now Tempest.
I actually think Tempest is a really good idea if the the avionics from Typhoon can be updated and pulled through, since the most risky part of development isn’t the airframe, it’s the avionics and systems integration.
With continued development of items such as CAPTOR-E there is no reason why a competitive aircraft couldn’t be developed at a fraction of the cost of F-35 (or even F-35 divided by 3).
I actually think Tempest is a really good idea if the the avionics from Typhoon can be updated and pulled through, since the most risky part of development isn’t the airframe, it’s the avionics and systems integration.
With continued development of items such as CAPTOR-E there is no reason why a competitive aircraft couldn’t be developed at a fraction of the cost of F-35 (or even F-35 divided by 3).
Err, I don't want to sound pessimistic, but the avionics of Typhoon are kinda outdated. Even CAPTOR-E, if it comes one day in actual operational service, isn't really something you'd want for a future fighter jet: while barely getting out of the prototype stage its design is very similar to radars that have been operational for roughly a decade (AN/APG-77, 79, 81 for the US, J/APG-1 for Japan or RBE-2AA for France), and by the time it gets operational, all the models I listed will be on their way out as newer versions with much, much more effective GaN antennas are being produced now for these radars while CAPTOR-E will be stuck with GaAs ones. Avionics is pretty much the big weak point of Typhoon, these days, which explains its rankings when it comes to official procurement competitions (the Swiss one comes to mind prominently), with British officials acknowledging a couple years ago, IIRC, that the EW suite was in dire need of being upgraded to stay competitive with the two other NATO frontline multirole fighters. So, if Tempest ever gets done - which is a big IF, considering the loss of know-how from the British aerospace industry over the past two decades by not doing an entire project by itself due to political reasons - it will definitely need brand new avionics rather than Typhoon ones.
To stay in the thread, though, one could imagine in a fictional inventory Typhoon with the TVC engines, which could help a lot compensate the aerodynamic cost of the far-coupled canards choice imposed to maximize vertical speed.
Khanzeer
Banned
can you turn the Javelin into a strike fighter /CAS platform to be used by commonwealth states after retired from RAF
Please ! I love that airplane