Fictional inventory of modern airforces
- Thread starter Khanzeer
- Start date
I'd see the French air force, after budget reductions, with a mix of Rafale and Novi Avion made in partnership with Yugoslavia. ^^
Indeed yes, the Germans here have the equivalent to the V-force, or the shorter legged Soviet Bombers you mention, the intercontinental mission is only good versus the USA and I think the USA is not a primary threat. But I think they can lean on missiles just a little more than the UK did, albeit not quite like the USA or USSR since they have no room for dispersed fields. And I give them a more robust air refueling capability because they need to also in theory reach the USA with no options for bases unlike RAF who has Canada and the Caribbean in theory. So I give them either older models converted to tanking or a dedicated tanker (KC-135) based off a civil airliner. They might opt for a dedicated tanker version of their C-141/Il-76 equivalent as follow on, my thinking is that the Germans are very sensitive to dispersal and first strike being that much closer to all threats. That saves on an airframe and offers potential to put the tankers off the runways needed by the bombers with more dispersal. And I tend to think the Germans are building a B-58 equivalent, its high tech, ideal for getting on target quick and less reliant on a long range escort fighter, the role the F-101 was conceived for. This might keep the RAF more bomber friendly, dare I say more inclined to want a TSR?
I tend to think they resemble Soviet era "Wings" (the Division) with 124 aircraft per fighter wing and 93 per bomber wing since the 4 and 3 aircraft element was their building block in the 1930s on. As we move from pre jet to post jet the capability (and expense) should move us towards the 72 and 54 aircraft Wing, moving to an 8 aircraft squadron as the base with two 4-ship or four 2-ship elements, the latter as "linked" pairs feels the evolution from the "four-finger" tactics. I believe US Navy evolved in that line. But I feel the real tactical formation is Group, the USAF Squadron rather than Wing, the Germans are dispersing more and have more congested air space, so lots of 16 or 24 aircraft units running things, coordinated by the Wing? And on a side note I think the Germans build better all-weather aircraft generally, unlike the Soviets they expect to fly and fight in the worst weather. But it drives up cost so they can never get the same quantity.
I would argue that Germany has less need for carriers than does the RN but still has reason enough to build them if money allows. My thinking is that the German Navy is going to be a open ocean ASW force going after Soviet SSBNs (British and French included), that means North Sea, Med, North Atlantic and Artic Seas are all in need of ASW aircraft coverage, that is within range of land-based air so the small carriers are first off carrying fighters with a limited (likely nuclear) bombing element to direct attack bases). I foresee the Germans leaning heavy on nuclear, with the USSR as enemy number one, the assumptions are it goes nuclear very quickly, likely a launch on warning style twitchiness, the Germans have too few minutes to react so sit on tripwire. So at sea the nuclear option is just more logical and solves problems. Thus the fighter focus and the nuclear response are intertwined. My thinking is a two or three ship CV fleet, not unlike how the RN operated with a few multi-role aircraft in smaller numbers, less offensive oriented and less "all" mission, the USA might still be the big CVN force with huge onboard wings for global blue water but Germany needs to defeat the Soviets first, suppress the British or French as needed, and maybe have something for out-of-area for icing on the cake as a great power.
Riain
Banned
For ICBMs I think Germany would be the first to make then rail mobile, even if only to move flights of them around the country in a 'shell game' much like the dispersal of the V bombers.
I also agree about a German B58-esque plane, more than the TSR2/F111 and more lie the Tu22M or something. I'd also suggest that the victorious Kaiser Reich would have a number of overseas bases available from its MittelAfrika holdings from which to stage nuke bombers from, or hide out of the way.
The bases in Africa would give the KM a presence in the South Atlantic and Indian oceans and New Guinea would give it the opportunity to have a presence in the Pacific, I also think a union with Austria would give them a base at the head of the Adriatic. I imagine the Germans to be richer than OTL France and more interested in the sea than OTL Soviet Union so would build bigger and more powerful carriers than either, which pretty much puts them on par with OTL postwar Britain until about 1968. I'm guessing 3-5 CVAs, able to form a 2 carrier CBG in an area of interest and keep one up their sleeve elsewhere. This many carriers allows them to have plenty of local forces in Europe as well.
Back in the 1960's Australia was very wealthy . It paid up front for the F-111C an aircraft that ended up an incredibly good purchase . In the interim due to problems with the aircraft we had to operate the F-4E Phantom . Now if for example the F-111 problems persisted into 1973 if we postulate that the F-111 is declared not wanted due to the delays . The 24 F-4E are Brought up to current strike equipment and purchased or leased while other options are found .
McDonnell Douglas of course knows of the need for a strike fighter and offers the F-15 B suitably modified . The USAF plans for the F-15E are brought forward and the RAAF begins to receive F-15 B aircraft with FAST tanks and Pave Tack pods starting in 1980 , Early delivery occurring due to the RAAF paying for development , USAF purchases occurred from 1980 onwards . The F-15E as it was by now designated became the standard aircraft for the RAAF when the replacement for the Mirage was needed . The F-18 which had been preferred initially was dropped due to being of a similar cost and the range requirements the RAAF would prefer . By 1990 the RAAF had 110 operational F-15 E with 10 in upgrade in the USA . By the time that the Coalition air war began the RAAF had 4 Recon Eagles with a recon sled on the centreline pylon and full weapons capability . The Recon pack equipped F-15 E's would be employed extensively on Scud Hunts accompanied by full strike packages with SEAD aircraft and funnily enough F-111F aircraft with 500 and 1000 lb laser guided bombs .
McDonnell Douglas of course knows of the need for a strike fighter and offers the F-15 B suitably modified . The USAF plans for the F-15E are brought forward and the RAAF begins to receive F-15 B aircraft with FAST tanks and Pave Tack pods starting in 1980 , Early delivery occurring due to the RAAF paying for development , USAF purchases occurred from 1980 onwards . The F-15E as it was by now designated became the standard aircraft for the RAAF when the replacement for the Mirage was needed . The F-18 which had been preferred initially was dropped due to being of a similar cost and the range requirements the RAAF would prefer . By 1990 the RAAF had 110 operational F-15 E with 10 in upgrade in the USA . By the time that the Coalition air war began the RAAF had 4 Recon Eagles with a recon sled on the centreline pylon and full weapons capability . The Recon pack equipped F-15 E's would be employed extensively on Scud Hunts accompanied by full strike packages with SEAD aircraft and funnily enough F-111F aircraft with 500 and 1000 lb laser guided bombs .
I wonder what might have happened to the UK air forces if in the election after the Falklands war - Labour had been elected!? Labour that is led by Michael Foot. Quite possible he takes the UK out of NATO - does the RAF (the 'R' may not stand for Royal anymore), do they buy from France (also not in NATO), Sweden or heaven help us - USSR!!?
French forces remained in their occupation zones throughout the Cold War. They would have represented a third echelon of NATO forces, after German and BENELUX reserves and probably alongside British Territorials and non-REFORGER American forces. There was never any doubt that the French would fight if the Soviets attacked.
If the IAI Lavi was made, who would have been realistic customers? It was projected to cost $11 million, which is cheaper than the F-16.
Spitfire II
After the collapse of the Eurofighter Project with Germany pulling out following the reunification of Germany and the Subsequent destabilisation of Italy following a number of failed parliaments in the early 90s - Britain ended that project and decided to build the 'Eurofighter' alone and the first prototype was unveiled as the Spitfire II wearing the camouflage and D-Day stripes of WW2 Spitfires at the 1994 Farnborough International Airshow and was billed as a competitor to the F16 and Mig 29.
"A hard act to follow" Spitfire Mk 2 leads the new 'Spitfire II' during its unveiling at the Farnborough International Airshow in 1994 - both aircraft went on to perform individual displays that thrilled the crowds
The Spitfire II would achieve sales in Saudi Arabia, India, Switzerland along with Spain, Austria and former Eurofighter Partners Italy and Germany (their F4s reaching end of airframe life, the Tornado fleet expected to do so at the end of the 2010s and the former East German Mig 29s starved of spares) eventually building them under licence - Oman, Kuwait and Qatar also buying them.
Australia had ordered 36 in 1998 but a change of government the same year reversed the decision and the RAAF went the F/A Super Hornet route instead.
The RAF would eventually operate 7 Squadrons plus an OCU - 3 Squadrons of Interceptors basically Tranche 1+ with incremental improvements intended to defend British Airspace from an increasingly aggressive Russian Federation with the other 4 Squadrons currently at Tranche 4 and fully capable of Multi role capability - in 2018 it was decided to retire the remaining Tornado fleet and instead stand up another 2 Spitfire II squadrons of Tranche 4+ aircraft and No 1 and 617 Squadrons
In 2000 the decision to build a pair of 65,000 Ton carriers resulted in the requirement for a suitable fighter - HMG and BAe controversially at the time spent a small fortune adapting the Spitfire II design into a carrier capable aircraft - with the Criticism from pretty much all sides suggesting that the Navy would have been better off buying US F18s or French Rafale.
Despite this 51 Aircraft dubbed 'Seafire IIs' would be built between 2007 and 2018 - and operated by 2 Squadrons plus a small OCU (the majority of pilot training conducted with the RAF)
In 2014 HMS Eagle the first of the 2 Super carriers conducted her first operational tour and embarked 18 Seafire IIs of 801 Squadron along with 23 other Rotary and fixed wing AC - with the type performing well in carrier ops so far
India bought the designs for the carrier and is currently at time of writing working up their first Super carrier and with the Spitfire II already in Service with the IAF - Actually called the Typhoon or Aandhee (आंधी) in India - the majority being licence built by HAL - has also begun to licence build the 'Seafire II' for its naval air arm
In all as of December 2018 - 723 production Spitfire II and Seafire II have been built including both British and licence built aircraft and the type forms the backbone of Europe's fighter defences
As for the Aircrafts future with the UK a tier one partner with the USA on the F35 Lightning II Project which despite delays and cost over runs is looking to buy 137 F35C between 2017 and 2032 with many of the current Spitfire II operators also seeking to buy the new Stealth fighter it is looking like the Spitfire II is going to be the last all British built fighter Jet in RAF and RN service.
After the collapse of the Eurofighter Project with Germany pulling out following the reunification of Germany and the Subsequent destabilisation of Italy following a number of failed parliaments in the early 90s - Britain ended that project and decided to build the 'Eurofighter' alone and the first prototype was unveiled as the Spitfire II wearing the camouflage and D-Day stripes of WW2 Spitfires at the 1994 Farnborough International Airshow and was billed as a competitor to the F16 and Mig 29.
"A hard act to follow" Spitfire Mk 2 leads the new 'Spitfire II' during its unveiling at the Farnborough International Airshow in 1994 - both aircraft went on to perform individual displays that thrilled the crowds
The Spitfire II would achieve sales in Saudi Arabia, India, Switzerland along with Spain, Austria and former Eurofighter Partners Italy and Germany (their F4s reaching end of airframe life, the Tornado fleet expected to do so at the end of the 2010s and the former East German Mig 29s starved of spares) eventually building them under licence - Oman, Kuwait and Qatar also buying them.
Australia had ordered 36 in 1998 but a change of government the same year reversed the decision and the RAAF went the F/A Super Hornet route instead.
The RAF would eventually operate 7 Squadrons plus an OCU - 3 Squadrons of Interceptors basically Tranche 1+ with incremental improvements intended to defend British Airspace from an increasingly aggressive Russian Federation with the other 4 Squadrons currently at Tranche 4 and fully capable of Multi role capability - in 2018 it was decided to retire the remaining Tornado fleet and instead stand up another 2 Spitfire II squadrons of Tranche 4+ aircraft and No 1 and 617 Squadrons
In 2000 the decision to build a pair of 65,000 Ton carriers resulted in the requirement for a suitable fighter - HMG and BAe controversially at the time spent a small fortune adapting the Spitfire II design into a carrier capable aircraft - with the Criticism from pretty much all sides suggesting that the Navy would have been better off buying US F18s or French Rafale.
Despite this 51 Aircraft dubbed 'Seafire IIs' would be built between 2007 and 2018 - and operated by 2 Squadrons plus a small OCU (the majority of pilot training conducted with the RAF)
In 2014 HMS Eagle the first of the 2 Super carriers conducted her first operational tour and embarked 18 Seafire IIs of 801 Squadron along with 23 other Rotary and fixed wing AC - with the type performing well in carrier ops so far
India bought the designs for the carrier and is currently at time of writing working up their first Super carrier and with the Spitfire II already in Service with the IAF - Actually called the Typhoon or Aandhee (आंधी) in India - the majority being licence built by HAL - has also begun to licence build the 'Seafire II' for its naval air arm
In all as of December 2018 - 723 production Spitfire II and Seafire II have been built including both British and licence built aircraft and the type forms the backbone of Europe's fighter defences
As for the Aircrafts future with the UK a tier one partner with the USA on the F35 Lightning II Project which despite delays and cost over runs is looking to buy 137 F35C between 2017 and 2032 with many of the current Spitfire II operators also seeking to buy the new Stealth fighter it is looking like the Spitfire II is going to be the last all British built fighter Jet in RAF and RN service.
My apologies for the tardy reply. Given that Germany has too little empty land to disperse its missiles I would agree that a rail-based solution is on track, I use the WW2 model of rail guns to guide the theory on mobile strategic artillery. Dispersal should be a strong theme of German deployment and basing. Road mobile should follow, akin to the SS-20, and for Europe its ranges look strategic. Overall Germany is faced with enemies and targets closer and a full intercontinental range is a smaller piece of its equation.
My thinking is that Germany has almost no need for a B-52 or Tu-95, the B-47/B-58 can flex to USA with refueling, a feature I think they pursue unlike the Soviets. And I feel the tactical bombers contribute to the deterrence, something like the F-105, and that pushes for the B-58 penetration bomber. Manned bombers should see more emphasis given the secrecy of the USSR and lack of good maps, targeting, and need to seek out targets. Even with a U-2 the reality is that Germany can only get so much certainty and in this era eyes are better to get to target than math on a missile aside from pure city busting. I am uncertain how much space based recon Germany can develop although they may indeed be the leader in this area.
For me the basing in Africa has more relevance to German global trade interests so LRMP aircraft in SWA, Kamerun and East Africa, combined with some forward based surface and/or submarine elements and Germany can influence the vital routes to Europe. Obviously Austria pressures the Med and threatens Gibraltar and Suez, but I am undecided where Italy falls, if German leaning then the Med is almost a CP lake, if British leaning then the Med is dangerously contested. My thoughts are that the UK aligns to the "Fascist" bloc centered on Italy through the 1930s and loses grip thereafter, post-Mussolini Italy slants to the German side and with Libya asserts more control in the center Med, putting pressure on the British link East of Suez and unbalancing Egypt. But all that is still sketched only in pencil. suffice it to say that Germany looks South and can get there from her core.
Thus I see carriers as a luxury still, actually something like Invincible-class to put up LRMP pursuit might be all, add on the ASW helios and Germany can push back the cruise missile threat while hunting for SSBMs at sea. Power projection would be great but I see a lot of other money hogs to teal that capability away. But Britain should be more fully in the CATOBAR realm longer, she needs the at sea air forces and strike capability globally just as the USA did, only having better distant basing to sustain it. Germany should have a strong land-based naval air element, something like Buccaneer on land to go sink ships over the North Sea, Baltic and into the Med, off its African holdings, etc. And give them fighter cover to defend them and attack the enemy strike force. A tactical nuclear strike on enemy naval bases should be part of the Navy mission.
Germany and Russia share the same weakness, their navy is bottled up with choke points to get to sea, Germany has no good bastions and faces o good way to ensure a SSBN can be gotten to sea, yet I think they do pursue it, land based missiles are too vulnerable and they need a good deterrent force. So I circle back on a carrier element to wedge open and cover the SSBN deployment tracks from Germany to the Atlantic, securing the GIUK gap and threatening the USSR SSBNs hiding up North. But that does not equal a USN style CVN, again I find the British concepts more relevant to German needs ranging only in what are really close waters.
My back drop for this is a multi-polar world, Germany is about equal to the USSR, combined with Austria and its European allies it is superior, but the British are stronger if not fully an enemy, the USA is economically strong but militarily far less involved, Japan is the heavy weight in Asia with China still more land bound and inward looking but moving up. France and Italy are the wild cards. Here all the big players look more evenly matched if lopsided, the British having air and sea but weak land power, the USA same, Japan too, Germany is land and air with decent sea power, Russia the same, Italy tries to balance it all. Not too unlike the OTL 1930s or how we think of the great powers pre-1914.
Last edited:
Spitfire II
After the collapse of the Eurofighter Project with Germany pulling out following the reunification of Germany and the Subsequent destabilisation of Italy following a number of failed parliaments in the early 90s - Britain ended that project and decided to build the 'Eurofighter' alone and the first prototype was unveiled as the Spitfire II wearing the camouflage and D-Day stripes of WW2 Spitfires at the 1994 Farnborough International Airshow and was billed as a competitor to the F16 and Mig 29.
"A hard act to follow" Spitfire Mk 2 leads the new 'Spitfire II' during its unveiling at the Farnborough International Airshow in 1994 - both aircraft went on to perform individual displays that thrilled the crowds
The Spitfire II would achieve sales in Saudi Arabia, India, Switzerland along with Spain, Austria and former Eurofighter Partners Italy and Germany (their F4s reaching end of airframe life, the Tornado fleet expected to do so at the end of the 2010s and the former East German Mig 29s starved of spares) eventually building them under licence - Oman, Kuwait and Qatar also buying them.
Australia had ordered 36 in 1998 but a change of government the same year reversed the decision and the RAAF went the F/A Super Hornet route instead.
The RAF would eventually operate 7 Squadrons plus an OCU - 3 Squadrons of Interceptors basically Tranche 1+ with incremental improvements intended to defend British Airspace from an increasingly aggressive Russian Federation with the other 4 Squadrons currently at Tranche 4 and fully capable of Multi role capability - in 2018 it was decided to retire the remaining Tornado fleet and instead stand up another 2 Spitfire II squadrons of Tranche 4+ aircraft and No 1 and 617 Squadrons
In 2000 the decision to build a pair of 65,000 Ton carriers resulted in the requirement for a suitable fighter - HMG and BAe controversially at the time spent a small fortune adapting the Spitfire II design into a carrier capable aircraft - with the Criticism from pretty much all sides suggesting that the Navy would have been better off buying US F18s or French Rafale.
Despite this 51 Aircraft dubbed 'Seafire IIs' would be built between 2007 and 2018 - and operated by 2 Squadrons plus a small OCU (the majority of pilot training conducted with the RAF)
In 2014 HMS Eagle the first of the 2 Super carriers conducted her first operational tour and embarked 18 Seafire IIs of 801 Squadron along with 23 other Rotary and fixed wing AC - with the type performing well in carrier ops so far
India bought the designs for the carrier and is currently at time of writing working up their first Super carrier and with the Spitfire II already in Service with the IAF - Actually called the Typhoon or Aandhee (आंधी) in India - the majority being licence built by HAL - has also begun to licence build the 'Seafire II' for its naval air arm
In all as of December 2018 - 723 production Spitfire II and Seafire II have been built including both British and licence built aircraft and the type forms the backbone of Europe's fighter defences
As for the Aircrafts future with the UK a tier one partner with the USA on the F35 Lightning II Project which despite delays and cost over runs is looking to buy 137 F35C between 2017 and 2032 with many of the current Spitfire II operators also seeking to buy the new Stealth fighter it is looking like the Spitfire II is going to be the last all British built fighter Jet in RAF and RN service.
Thinking outside the box.
Would it be better just to develop this instead BAe's P110 proposal
Regards filers
If the Germans want a dedicated first-strike arsenal, that would be easy. All you would need are missile silos like the French had at the Plateau d'Albion. They wouldn't need to be dispersed, but they also wouldn't have the warhead sponge effect of a highly dispersed missile field. Strategic bombers with cruise missiles would probably be able to fulfill that role almost as well, but they wouldn't have the launch-on-warning capability of a missile.
Second strike capability depends on survivability through hardening or dispersal. At its most basic, it could be something like strategic bombers on airborne alert. The six minutes of warning you would have for Soviet IRBMs would not be enough to get aircraft on pad alert off the ground and away from the airbase. The road- and rail-mobile ballistic missiles are a good idea but you'll run in to significant NIMBY issues, not just with civilians but also with local and regional governments, because you'll have to use the entire country as a dispersal area. Hardened shelter facilities could be built in the Alps, but you'll have to protect against ballistic missiles coming in from the Soviets to the east, the Americans and British to the north and west, and possibly SLBMs coming from the Mediterranean. An overlooked option is the ground-launched cruise missile. You would be able to deliver the same payload-to-range as a 10-ton ballistic missile in a package weighing one or two tons. The Tomahawk GLCMs weighed 1.2 tons and a truck could carry four of them. In the German context, GLCMs could be mounted in disguised launch vehicles that would be completely innocuous, so nobody could complain about them, or find them quickly enough to target them.
As far as SSBNs go, they might still be useful but you would have to use them as alert weapons rather than standby weapons. Instead of the continuous at-sea patrol that countries on the ocean can do, you would have your submarines living in hardened bunkers, probably in Bremerhaven and Rugen. When a war-warning goes out, the submarines would sortie out into the North Sea and Baltic Sea under a heavy umbrella of German tactical and patrol aircraft. In the Baltic, the mission box would be west and south of Bornholm, requiring no more than two hours of high-speed sailing. In the North Sea, the submarines could probably get out 150 miles from Bremerhaven along the Jutland coast in five hours. After this, they would have to sit completely silent so the entire area can be turned into an anti-submarine free-fire zone to combat encroaching enemy submarines. It's a significantly more complicated deployment concept than CASD but it would play to the strength the Germans would necessarily have in the air rather than at sea.
If you want a completely different approach, South West Africa is almost three times the size of Germany and has only two million inhabitants. Building huge missile dispersal fields would not be difficult, especially in the sparsely populated deserts of the central and southern parts (only the northern strip of Namibia supports pastoralist agriculture, so everyone south of there lives in cities). You could also have a submarine base on the coast there. The main problem with these deployments would be range. Your submarines would have to sail all the way to the North Atlantic to get their missiles launched; getting to launch positions in the Western Atlantic or Norwegian Sea would be a journey of more than 7,000 nmi, which would take several weeks at the speed an SSBN sails. It's also 14,000 km to the US missile fields, so you would need heavy ICBMs in the 100-ton class to get the payload-to-range capability
Second strike capability depends on survivability through hardening or dispersal. At its most basic, it could be something like strategic bombers on airborne alert. The six minutes of warning you would have for Soviet IRBMs would not be enough to get aircraft on pad alert off the ground and away from the airbase. The road- and rail-mobile ballistic missiles are a good idea but you'll run in to significant NIMBY issues, not just with civilians but also with local and regional governments, because you'll have to use the entire country as a dispersal area. Hardened shelter facilities could be built in the Alps, but you'll have to protect against ballistic missiles coming in from the Soviets to the east, the Americans and British to the north and west, and possibly SLBMs coming from the Mediterranean. An overlooked option is the ground-launched cruise missile. You would be able to deliver the same payload-to-range as a 10-ton ballistic missile in a package weighing one or two tons. The Tomahawk GLCMs weighed 1.2 tons and a truck could carry four of them. In the German context, GLCMs could be mounted in disguised launch vehicles that would be completely innocuous, so nobody could complain about them, or find them quickly enough to target them.
As far as SSBNs go, they might still be useful but you would have to use them as alert weapons rather than standby weapons. Instead of the continuous at-sea patrol that countries on the ocean can do, you would have your submarines living in hardened bunkers, probably in Bremerhaven and Rugen. When a war-warning goes out, the submarines would sortie out into the North Sea and Baltic Sea under a heavy umbrella of German tactical and patrol aircraft. In the Baltic, the mission box would be west and south of Bornholm, requiring no more than two hours of high-speed sailing. In the North Sea, the submarines could probably get out 150 miles from Bremerhaven along the Jutland coast in five hours. After this, they would have to sit completely silent so the entire area can be turned into an anti-submarine free-fire zone to combat encroaching enemy submarines. It's a significantly more complicated deployment concept than CASD but it would play to the strength the Germans would necessarily have in the air rather than at sea.
If you want a completely different approach, South West Africa is almost three times the size of Germany and has only two million inhabitants. Building huge missile dispersal fields would not be difficult, especially in the sparsely populated deserts of the central and southern parts (only the northern strip of Namibia supports pastoralist agriculture, so everyone south of there lives in cities). You could also have a submarine base on the coast there. The main problem with these deployments would be range. Your submarines would have to sail all the way to the North Atlantic to get their missiles launched; getting to launch positions in the Western Atlantic or Norwegian Sea would be a journey of more than 7,000 nmi, which would take several weeks at the speed an SSBN sails. It's also 14,000 km to the US missile fields, so you would need heavy ICBMs in the 100-ton class to get the payload-to-range capability
P110 became EAP which became Typhoon
And while yes it would serve I had the POD be a German Government that cuts deeper after unification and effectively ends the Eurofighter project as a multinational project and I had the British go it alone as by this point the Prototype was ready to fly with EAp have flown in 86 with the P110 being a much older design
Riain
Banned
Ha! Good one!
One reason I think that 65 Kaiserreich would have fleet carriers is because they would develop them in the 20s and 30s and by the 60s would come to the conclusion like everyone else that a prolonged world war is impossible. The the role of carriers is a climactic convoy battle like the Malta convoys in a WW3 scenario or supporting limited wars, and in these scenarios a fleet carrier is better than an ASW carrier.
There is a german-land irbm basing option - superhard silos. If I have read correctly, this tl takes place in 1965, so the issue of improved accuracy offsetting the advantage of a superhard silo is essentially nulified, as I assume icbm accuracy would still be quite poor.
Of course, there is the option of airmobile basing - in several forms. Large aircraft carrying large amounts of long range cruise missiles on patrol could survive a first strike mostly intact, however the cost be massive. Still worth mentioning though.
Also, while I very much like your idea of basing missiles in South Africa, with it being a enjoyable and unique idea, I really don't see why there would be large missile dispersal fields - while I suppose it could act as a limited missile sponge, the enemy knows where these missiles are, and could target them, and as I assume these dispersal fields are meant to act as deterrence, not a first strike weapon, It usually isn't good for the enemy to know where your main form of defensive deterrence is located - you may as well stick with slbm.
But I might be arguing this wrong, or just missing something in logic or facts, please let me know.