NationStates Jolt Archive

Though I have only been at NationStates for around a month, I have noticed that when wars are roleplayed, air support is downplayed. I thought that this may be due to the fact that some do not know how to effectively roleplay an air war. So, being the aircraft lover that I am, I decided to write this guide in correctly using an air force to devastate your enemy forces.

Historical Real Life Testaments to the Power of an Air Force

While I know that NS and RL are two very different things, using examples from the past that show how much of a turning point the air force can be. World War II is by far the best example of how essential an air force can be to winning. In the beginning of that war, at the Battle of Britain, the Royal Air Force’s maintaining of air superiority over the Luftwaffe ultimately scrapped Germany’s Operation Sealion, and most likely saved Britain. Around a year later, Japan nearly completely crippled the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet with their aerial bombing of Pearl Harbor. Finally, when the Allied’s made their push into Europe, the bombing of key Nazi industrial factories most undoubtedly helped the allies push farther at a quick pace.

Two Words to Never Forget: Air Superiority

Air superiority is without a doubt, the key to winning any war with an Air Force. It is the single most important task. If you cannot maintain air superiority, then your Air Force is quite essentially useless. So, what is air superiority? Being able to maintain a corridor in which aircraft can travel with relative ease and safety. Without air superiority, you can’t bomb enemies, and you cannot stop enemies from bombing you.

The Most Important Tools to Your Air Force

To gain air superiority in a war, you must have a capable air force. A capable air force has a variety of planes in both combat and noncombat roles. There are 9 types of aircraft, and the best air force has all types. Here’s a brief explanation for each type.

Fighter: The mainstay of any air force, these units are fast and furious and are essential to winning an air war. They gain and maintain air superiority by fighting off enemy airplanes. The United States usually labels fighters with an F, though I have yet to figure out why the F-117 isn’t the A-117. Also, please note that many aircraft designated with an F are technically multiroles that are used most often in a fighter role fully, but can still be used as standard multiroles.
Bomber: These guys are the ones who pummel the enemy ground forces. They are usually slower than other combat aircraft, but can hold enormous payloads compared to the others. United States designates bombers with a B.
Attacker: These units usually have the speed of fighters, but instead of fighting air-to-air, they fight air-to-ground. Their payloads are usually smaller than bombers, but they make up that with their improvement in speed. The United States designates these with an A.
Multirole: These units are a mix of two of the above types. Often called fighter-bombers (though true fighter-bombers are somewhat rare, most are actually fighter-attackers) these are useful in combining air-to-air and air-to-ground, though it should be noted that multiroles are not as effective as the planes dedicated to the roles. Designated in the United States with an F/A.
Tanker: A non-combatant, this unit is used as a support craft to refuel units in midair. Always try and make sure that they are not in danger of being shot down. Refuel in safe places, or you’ll find a great deal of your planes having to land prematurely when your tanker gets shot down and the planes have no fuel…
Supply: Though sometimes not associated with the air force, I still classify them as part of the air force, since they are still aircraft. They provide supplies to army and navy, and are important to protect, as aircraft are becoming more and more commonly used to transport valuable goods.
Reconnaissance: With the use of recon satellites becoming increased, these units see less usage. They go extremely fast at high altitudes to evade detection, and use cameras to gain information. Even if you have satellites, it’s nice to have these as backup if someone launches an ICBM and blows up your satellite…
Jammer: You may be surprised, but planes have the ability to jam radar using a neat little thing called ECM (Electronic Counter Measures). Some combat units have portable ECMs that can be attached to hardpoints, but aircraft dedicated to jamming is much better at it, able to spread a jamming signal over a wide area. However, it has the unwanted effect of disabling your radar as well as the enemy’s. This is going into less use with stealth technology coming into play, which enables evading radar detection without affecting your own radar, but it can still be handy in a pinch.
Command: Better known as AWACS, these units are the most essential units that I haven’t seen roleplayed. These units give commands from the air, and can continually watch over the battlefield via radar and when close up to battle, visual confirmation. While these can be replaced with combination of recon satellites and regular bases, the fact that they can see things much closer makes them more capable. Their proximity towards the battlefield allows quicker reaction time for the pilots participating in the operation. However, they are much more vulnerable to attack when compared with others. Usually used from a couple miles away from the battlefield for maximum effectiveness.

If you can make a successful combination of these planes, you can unleash the full power of an air force.

Helpful Attributes

A key point in having a good air force is having good planes. No matter how effective your strategy is, a WWII plane will be cremated when placed against a modern fighter. So, here’s a list of helpful attributes to consider when buying aircraft.

Stealth: Stealth is the effective dispersal of radar waves so that they do not go back to the radar source, dampening the radar signature of an aircraft. It also has to do with dampening visual and heat signatures of the aircraft. Most common technologies in stealth aircraft are the use of continuous curves and certain angles to disperse radar, paint camouflage to lower visuals, and cooling heat exhaust to diminish heat trails. The results? The plane is considerably less detectable. But do not mistake this for being undetectable, as you can still find stealth fighters, though it requires more effort. Stealth is becoming more and more commonly used, though it’s strict restriction on shapes to lessen radar signature make it a less maneuverable aircraft compared to some others.
VTOL: Short for Vertical TakeOff and Landing, it is underrated attribute. Why is it useful? You see, most aircraft require long runways to takeoff and land. However, when a bomb or missile hits the runway, you’ve lost any way of getting off the ground. But with VTOL, you can take off with little room around the aircraft. Very useful in navies, where you can maximize the amount of aircraft you can place on the carrier, and allows more aircraft to get off if the carrier were to get hit.
Canard Foreplanes: Canard Foreplanes are basically miniature wings that are placed in front of the standard wings that drastically assist in maneuverability. I’m going to skip the physics behind it because it’s complicated, and I’m being sort of lazy. Just know that it helps the maneuverability of the aircraft. Also note that most stealth aircraft do not have these, as they mess with the continuous curvature, and can increase radar signature. While this may seem disadvantageous, you can evade missiles much more easily when using canard foreplanes. It’s a personal preference choice.
Forward Swept Wings: While this may sound odd, turning the wings around results in better maneuverability. However, it’s quite complicated, and the mechanics behind it are less than perfect, causing some problems with aircraft equipped with it. There are no stealth planes with forward swept wings because of continuous curvature. Again, it’s a personal choice between stealth and maneuverability.
Swing Wings: By being able to change the wings angle, you can greatly increase speed, maneuverability, and lessen G’s, upping crew comfort. The only drawback is that it doesn’t work with stealth, like other measures that increase maneuverability.

Weaponry

Now that you know what to look for when buying, it’s time to learn how to properly arm your combat aircraft. Unlike other units, aircraft are very dynamic when it comes to equipping them with weaponry. It’s important to remember what and how much you can add to your planes before putting them into combat. There are a multitude of weapons to be used, and many planes can use a wide range of them. Here’s another guide to assist you in correctly arming your planes.

Guns: Most often used only when the enemy is close enough in which a missile explosion might damage the attacking plane as well. The exception to this rule is the A-10, whose large gun is used to destroy armored vehicles. Used on: All combat planes.
IR AAM: Short for InfraRed Air to Air Missile, these are cheap to purchase, and are ‘fire and forget’, in which you launch a missile and can then change targets without having to give chase. Their only problem is they lack range. Used on: Fighters and multirole, some attackers use it as a last defense.
ARH AAM: Short for Active Radar Homing Air to Air Missile, these units have both long range and the ‘fire and forget’ ability. However, they are much more expensive compared to infrared missiles. Used on: Fighters and multirole.
TV AGM: Short for TeleVision controlled Air-to-Ground Missile. This may sound odd, but it allows the missile to be controlled manually for utmost precision. However, if you’re not paying attention, you can be easy prey for enemy fighters when using this missile. Used on: Attackers and multirole.
ARH AGM: Quite basically the same as the radar air-to-air missile, but used for air to ground purposes instead. Used on: Attackers and multirole.
PGB: Short for Precision Guided Bomb, and also known as the smart bomb, it uses fins and radar to calculate its landing and hit it. While pricier than a so-called “dumb” bomb, it’s accuracy makes up for it. Bombs in general make much more of an impact than missiles, however, their weight only allows a few of them on a normal plane at one time (with the exception of bombers, which are designed for dropping large amounts of bombs). Used on: Bombers and attackers, some multiroles.
Unguided Bomb: Also known as a dumb bomb, this requires the computer on board the aircraft to calculate landing, and if dropped at the wrong time, will miss its target. Extremely cheap though, and bombers with high payload capabilities can unleash large amounts of these for widespread damage to an area. There are also specialized types of bombs that are unguided, such as napalm or cluster bombs. Again, bombs are usually more destructive than missiles, but are heavier. Used on: Bombers and attackers, some multiroles.

Always remember, your payload is limited to what your plane can carry. Fighters usually take 8 to 12 AAMs to battle. Multiroles usually take anywhere from 4 to 8 AAMs, and a group of either 6 AGMs or a group of bombs. Attackers usually carry a couple AAMs for a last defense, then a group of either 12 AGMs or 5 bombs. Bombers can take a large load of bombs, but rarely use missiles. These large diversities in payloads are what make it essential to buy a variety of aircraft to be used in your force.

Using the Air Force to Maximum Effectiveness

Okay. I can assume you now know what aircraft to buy, and how to properly arm it to the teeth. Now, it’s time to jump in and take these planes for a spin. Here’s where you get to learn how to effectively use your Air Force to pummel the enemy. And it doesn’t take much to learn, if you’ve remember those two key words…

Step 1: Gain and Maintain Air Superiority
I told you this was important, and I’m telling you again. The first step in any air war is to gain control of the skies. However, for such a critical task, it’s surprisingly easy to roleplay… you simply must attack the enemy’s air force until it is safe for you to bring in support and ground attack planes. Unless, of course, you’re on the defensive, in which case you simply want to make sure that your enemy cannot bring in their support and ground attack planes.
Step 2A: Eliminate Enemy Air Defenses (if on the offensive)
Now, before you go and blow up anything you want, you must eliminate enemy air defenses. This means that you take out airports and any surface-to-air missiles or other anti-aircraft weapons before you destroy anything else. Why? If you can destroy the enemy’s ability to counterattack you in the air, you can just pummel them over and over again without repercussions. If your enemy is lucky, they’ll be able to bring in reinforcements from other airbases, but it will take time to deploy, allowing you to pummel the enemy for a couple more turns, at the least.
Step 2B: Destroy Enemy Ground Attack Capabilities (if on the defensive)
If you’ve gained air superiority in the area, this will be simple; all you have to do is shoot down any plane left that can destroy your ground forces. This won’t take much, as most or their entire defense escort will be gone. However, be wary for multirole aircraft… they can hold their own in air-to-air combat and also decimate your ground forces. This step will also be considerably harder if you do not maintain air superiority, as you will have to deal with escorts.
Step 3: Take Out Key Targets
Alright, now that you've destroyed or secured air defenses in the area (depending on if you're attacking or defending), you can destroy key targets with bombers and attackers... supplies, important buildings, units, anything that is necessary to defeating the enemy on the ground. If you attack these critical points in the enemy's defense, you can force them to retreat.
Step 4: Remember to Occasionally Refuel
Unlike the others, this step does not have to go in chronological order. Every so often, you need to refuel from a tanker or land so that you continue flying. To maximize your efficiency in the air, refueling from a tanker is the better, if somewhat riskier option. To effectively do this, you need to cycle your planes. Have a small group go and refuel why the majority of your planes maintain air superiority. Remember, while you do not have to move at a snail's pace while doing this, refueling your air force takes time. The larger your force is, the more time you can expect to take refueling. Logistics isn't pretty, but it's necessary.

These four steps will help you win victory in the air and subsequently, on the ground. I would also like to note the importance of having the initiative... if you can get your guys in the air first, you'll immediately have air superiority, and the enemy will be facing an uphill air battle. Good luck fighting, and I hope these strategies help you find victory.

(OOC: Nice. Clear and informative. There really should be an increased awareness on the advantages a well funded, and organized airforce can bring to an army. I see far too many focus on uber fighters, and not enough on what can help make those fighters far more deadly. All other things aside, might also want to add that AWACS can afford friendly fighters increased reaction time to plan and act against new threats. Should make the advantage AWACS offer somewhat more clear to others.)

The USAF gives this two thumbs up, rather, a member of the USAF does. Congrats on doing justice to what, nowadays, is the pivotal turning point in most any operation. Nice work.

Thanks for the compliments, and I'll add your info, Kyanges. As I said, I may have only been here for only a month, but aerial abilities seem way too unused. I love airplanes, I have god knows how many combat air simulators, and I thought if people were informed, air forces would get their due respect. They are quite essential to any war effort.

Command: Better known as AWACS

Ah, I couldn't remember for the life of me what AWACS were called. Thanks. :D

AWACS = Airborne Warning and Control System. For anyone who doesn't know.

That was very helpful!

Thanks for the compliments, and I'll add your info, Kyanges. As I said, I may have only been here for only a month, but aerial abilities seem way too unused. I love airplanes, I have god knows how many combat air simulators, and I thought if people were informed, air forces would get their due respect. They are quite essential to any war effort.

(OOC: Great. Both about adding that bit, and how you love airplanes. I haven't seen many aircraft enthusiasts around lately. Or ever.)

Very interesting and well-done thread, which brings back the focus on airpower in NS. However, with the designation, though it is important to distinguish air superiority aircraft from something like a bomber, really though more and more aircraft are becoming multirole rather than being dedicated to air superiority, and this is especially true both in NS and IRL (with the newer 5th generation aircraft such as the F/A-22 and the Eurofighter). With the designations, politics and requirements still contribute to that factor, taking aircraft such as the F-16 (excellently light multirole fighter) and F-14 for example (fleet defence fighter transformed to an air superiority/precision strike fighter-bomber).

Likewise, I'll also have to disagree with the statement about supply/transport aircraft, as they are cruical assets that determines the nation's capabilities to project its forces overseas. In regards to the reconaissance and command aircraft, there are still overlooked types, mainly being ground surveillance aircraft (such as the JSTARS) and ELINT/SIGINT aircraft such as the Rivet Joint. The JSTARS provide cruical surveillance and monitoring of enemy ground forces, while ELINT/SIGINT aircraft provide cruical intelligence-gathering capabilities (even though the full capabilities of these aircraft are still very much classified today). As well, in reply to the statement about Jammer/Electronic Warfare aircraft, their role is not so much to allow friendly aircraft to evade radar, but rather degrade the performance of radar and other enemy AD systems by suppressing and/or destroying said system.

In regards to the next few sections, once again well done, though one point that is missed is propulsion, and especially related and performance-enhancing techniques such as thrust vectoring (which basically diverts the thrust from the engines to allow better maneuveribility). Further, in regards to weapons, keep in mind of other things such as cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles for bombers and fighter-bombers (e.g. ALCM, JASSM, Storm Shadow), and newer IR and radar-guided AGMs (e.g. IR-guided Maverick variants, and the Brimstone). With the PGB (or rather, the PGM), a heavy weight is not always the rule. Newer kits and other types such as newer JDAM tailkits (for 500lb Mk.82s) and the SDB are still extremely precise, while a fighter-bomber can carry several or even more than ten of them (as in the case of the SDB). With guided bombs, it can also include cluster bombs/submunition dispensers, one example being the WCMD. In regards to unguided bombs, they are still good for tasks such as close air support (CAS), as they are much cheaper than a PGB or any other glide bombs, while a skilled pilot can always deliver them quite accurately onto ground targets.

With payload, once again, it depends on the type of the aircraft. However, with bombers, the use of missiles are always there (for example, Cold War B-52s with things such as Hound Dogs and SRAMs). In the post-Cold War era with newer 5th generation aircraft, there are also considerations about upgrading existing bomber fleets with better avionics and weapons. The B-1R (B-1 Regional) is one example, as it is also designed to carry newer AMRAAMs for self-defence.

In regards to tactics, well put, though Close Air Support (CAS) is definately important for both the offensive and defensive side, involving the support of friendly ground forces against hostile forces. This involves dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 and the Su-25, and faster aircraft such as the F-16 can also be involved (though they are less well suited for the task). Taking out key targets should also be a priority before the achievment of air superiority (which is still a hard task in NS or Cold War-era environments), in which unescorted and escorted bombers can also take advantage of the long range of the cruise missile to strike dangerous targets such as military and leadership facilities, economic facilities, infrastructure, and so on. For example, the strike on military and leadership facilities can hamper the enemy's ability to communicate and deploy forces (a bombed out airbase or port is not a good thing), while the strike on infrastructure and other targets (i.e. power plants and dams) can hinder the enemy's ability to support its existing forces through the use of logistics. In such case, refueling is a cruical element in order to get bombers to trave over a long range. Thus, instead of taking those steps in a linear fashion, it is best to utilize coordination to achieve surprise, shock, and devastation against the enemy.

Great work, it's surprising how many RPers design forward swept stealth aircraft.

@ Omz222:

I've something to ask about the precision of unguided bombs when delpoyed by a skilled pilot. Exactly how precise can they actually be? I'm asking under combat conditions (Whatever you assume them to be.) and at a high altitude. (Once again, feel free to set up your own example.)

@ Omz222:

I've something to ask about the precision of unguided bombs when delpoyed by a skilled pilot. Exactly how precise can they actually be? I'm asking under combat conditions (Whatever you assume them to be.) and at a high altitude. (Once again, feel free to set up your own example.)
To hopefully clear things up, I'm not implying that unguided bombs would be suitable for general deployment in a first strike, but instead I'm implying that unguided bombs can be a very cheap alternative when guided ones aren't necessary (would you drop a JDAM or a Mk.82 on a column of tanks?). To answer the question, it depends on the combination of pilot and the existing systems on an aircraft, though at high altitude there still isn't much luck (unless you are seeking saturation-style bombings such as B-52 bomb raids in Vietnam and Iraq), as there's a very high chance of deviation from its intended targets because of wind, so the chance is either a miss (using a few bombs) or a whole cluster of potholes (using a pile of bombs in a literal sense). However, high-altitude bombing by both bombers and some specialized fighter-bombers (with the exception being the many low-level swing-wings like the F-111) were still used in Cold War-era tactics before the advancements set by modern PGBs. For example, the Soviets used such methods with Tu-22s and other bombers in Afghanistan, though they were pretty much at that time, only truly effective in terror bombings in actuality. This is why dive-bombing was still quite popular as a way to deliver bombs accurately from medium-high altitudes (with the exception of low-level raids) back then, especially in Vietnam.

Just out of interest, at low to medium altitudes, unguided "iron" bombs can still be delivered fairly accurately, with the help of things like the CCIP system (Continuous Calculated Impact Point) used on American aircraft, and the CCRP (CC Release P) system used on older aircraft of similar types, which basically allows the pilot in a sense to "aim" the bomb on/at a target (as I'm aware this is used in the Israeli raid on an Iraqi nuclear facility in the early 80es).

Once again though, this is just from someone who has been somewhat informed of air combat, and is far from an expert.

OOC: Excellent job! Now we have army, navy, and air force threads for reference. Thank you for adding to the NS community.

To Omz222:

I appreciate your opinion, and your points are all valid. I intended this to be a more basic and easy to understand guide. If I wanted to expand, it would have taken me way more time to explain the stuff you mentioned, and some people would have undoubtedly become confused. Also, please recognize on some of your points, that I was aimed towards the NationStates crowd, and based those on impressions made upon me, which may not be completely correct.

taged for future use
nice one :)

To hopefully clear things up, I'm not implying that unguided bombs would be suitable for general deployment in a first strike, but instead I'm implying that unguided bombs can be a very cheap alternative when guided ones aren't necessary (would you drop a JDAM or a Mk.82 on a column of tanks?). To answer the question, it depends on the combination of pilot and the existing systems on an aircraft, though at high altitude there still isn't much luck (unless you are seeking saturation-style bombings such as B-52 bomb raids in Vietnam and Iraq), as there's a very high chance of deviation from its intended targets because of wind, so the chance is either a miss (using a few bombs) or a whole cluster of potholes (using a pile of bombs in a literal sense). However, high-altitude bombing by both bombers and some specialized fighter-bombers (with the exception being the many low-level swing-wings like the F-111) were still used in Cold War-era tactics before the advancements set by modern PGBs. For example, the Soviets used such methods with Tu-22s and other bombers in Afghanistan, though they were pretty much at that time, only truly effective in terror bombings in actuality. This is why dive-bombing was still quite popular as a way to deliver bombs accurately from medium-high altitudes (with the exception of low-level raids) back then, especially in Vietnam.

Just out of interest, at low to medium altitudes, unguided "iron" bombs can still be delivered fairly accurately, with the help of things like the CCIP system (Continuous Calculated Impact Point) used on American aircraft, and the CCRP (CC Release P) system used on older aircraft of similar types, which basically allows the pilot in a sense to "aim" the bomb on/at a target (as I'm aware this is used in the Israeli raid on an Iraqi nuclear facility in the early 80es).

Once again though, this is just from someone who has been somewhat informed of air combat, and is far from an expert.

Ah, I see. I almost thought that I'd stumbled across a much cheaper way of bombing what I want to. Thanks. I guess you could say that I'm somewhat informed, but not truely in tune with all the names, and technical bits. Thanks again.

A nice thread but as OMZ222 mentioned there are always areas where thign get horrendously complicated.
With command aircraft it must be remebered that not all have big radars and not all Airbone Early Warning aircraft have command functions (AEW)

Also if you are smart you can actually combine both tanker and supply functions in the same aircraft (KC-10, MRTT-310, KC767 etc), AND with supply aircraft you have 2 main distinctions: tactical (ie hercules, An-72, C-295) and strategic (C-5 galaxy, An-124).

but that is maybe making thigns too complciated...

Let us not get into the issues of command and control of a modern airfroces, that will make your head hurt (coordinating what is where at what time so that your CAS fighters don't fly through a bit of space occupied by an artillery barrage etc).

Perhaps you could add a basic section on how to structure your air force or an army air or naval air wings so that people who want to use that for RP purposes can have a better understanding of the subject.

And perhaps you could also look at various aircraft selling storefronts and give feedback on the designs?

*Bump for other RPers to see this great thread*

FYI. It's F-117 because it's meant to confuse the enemy. Why it is using the old designation systems is also beyond me, I guess more confusion.

Nice job, man.

You might want to add in AMRAAM perhaps (for those who don't know - Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile)

That's part of ARH AAM. AMRAAM, ALRAAM, and ASRAAM are all a part of that category.

Perhaps you could add a basic section on how to structure your air force or an army air or naval air wings so that people who want to use that for RP purposes can have a better understanding of the subject.

And perhaps you could also look at various aircraft selling storefronts and give feedback on the designs?In case you missed it...

That's part of ARH AAM. AMRAAM, ALRAAM, and ASRAAM are all a part of that category.

I'm assuming that:

ALRAAM is long range and
ASRAAM is short range

I'm assuming that:

ALRAAM is long range and
ASRAAM is short range

No shit, Sherlock? :eek:

Tag

I've been trying to structure my Air Force for a short while and have been trawling through the Internet to look at various Air Forces. Here's what I've been able to come up with as a general guide:

Flights (2-4 aircraft): The classification with the fewest planes in an Air Force, this can be anywhere from one or two aircraft to seemingly four aircraft or perhaps more. In general, this would most likely be equivalent either to an army's fire team or perhaps a section.

Squadrons (3-4 flights; usually around 12 planes): This classification is a very common one, and perhaps the most common one in an air force. For short range missions, you can send squadrons of mostly (if not completely) fighters or bombers, but on longer range missions, one of the flights will need to be devoted to air-to-air refueling, otherwise, you'll have to land your planes.

Groups (3-5 squadrons): These usually combine squadrons with different roles (such as a strike/attack aircraft squadron with a air support squadron). Sometimes, a group is organised by the type of aircraft involved (such as a reconnaissance group featuring five squadrons of recon aircraft). Modern air forces tend to be flexible about such matters, but they always take logistics into account!

Wings (3-5 groups): This is generally where you might want to RP more of a command structure beginning, as opposed to a large scale or small scale action involving a wing. You could also do the same at the group level. Wings often include a wide variety of aircraft squadrons and groups; this is probably equivalent to an army division.

Numbered Air Force (2-5 wings): Like the numbered fleets of the U.S. Navy, this is where offensive power projection is accounted for. You might put a First Air Force in your home country to serve as a homeland defence tool or you might put a Fourth Air Force in a colony or in a region of the world where you have vital interests. For instance, I might assign my Third Air Force to my base in Pacitalia to provide coverage of the Pacific.

Major Commands (2-5 Air Forces): Like the army groups or theatres (the Sarzonian name for an army group), this is the largest collection in the military command structure behind the Air Force itself. Your Generals or Air Marshalls would likely command this category. If I put a second Air Force in southern Haven because of my alliances there, I would likely have one of the two (Pacitalia or Haven) serve as the Major Command under an Air General.

Incorporated Sarzonian Air Force: This is the level where your minister or deputy minister devoted to leading the branch is located. For me, it would be Air Force Chief Bill Lighton, for the United States IRL, it would be the Air Force Secretary.

This post is in no way intended to be writ of any kind; it's essentially a mishmash of the USAF's organisation with the RAF's (British) structure. If anyone has any specific constructive feedback, I'm more than willing to hear it.

tag

This is a great thread, and is very useful for Reference, though in the conflict I have undertook, Airpower was the key factor in the winning of the war, proving that you have to provide enough power to key up all of your forces. My TU-22's in preticular, were so essential that i had to build an airbase off the coast of the conflict area for them. I think the key to winning a war is air force.

Very nice, especially for terms which I am to often too lazy to look up :cool: .

I think the key to winning a war is air force.
But I mostly posted because I disagree with that statement, yes airforce is importent you can't win with air power alone. The key is good infantry, they are what holds the war and territory.

But great refernce page.

I think i know why the F-117 uses the 'F' designation, in case anyones wondering. Its becuase when it was first designed they wanted fighter pilots to fly it and , apparently, most fighter pilots wouldnt be willing to fly a plane that had a 'B' or an 'A' designation.

To me, the key to winning a war is the cooperative efforts of all branches of the military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Space Force if applicable).

You can't expect to win a war without boots on the ground, with anything less than strong infantry, mechanised units, and strong tactics.

You can't win without mastery of the seas; without being able to protect your shipping while harrassing his; or imposing a blockade to stifle his trade and his ability to get supplies.

You can't expect to win a war without achieving air superiority; without destroying his ability to attack you through the air or defend against you doing so.

While you *may* be able to win without destroying space-borne assets, you take away many of his options if you can destroy his communications or spy satellites and you can rain down Godrods on him at will.

However, no matter what branch of the military you talk about, you also have to keep logistics in mind. Protecting your supply convoys and harrassing his. Blowing up a bridge and destroying a power transformer does a lot more than give you that nice "boom" sound. It can damage his battle plans and force him into costly delays while he waits for his supply convoy to go around that blown up bridge.

Winning wars is the combination of all of the above branches of the military working in concert with each other and outstanding overall strategy and tactics.

I've been trying to structure my Air Force for a short while and have been trawling through the Internet to look at various Air Forces. Here's what I've been able to come up with as a general guide:

Flights (2-4 aircraft): The classification with the fewest planes in an Air Force, this can be anywhere from one or two aircraft to seemingly four aircraft or perhaps more. In general, this would most likely be equivalent either to an army's fire team or perhaps a section.

Squadrons (3-4 flights; usually around 12 planes): This classification is a very common one, and perhaps the most common one in an air force. For short range missions, you can send squadrons of mostly (if not completely) fighters or bombers, but on longer range missions, one of the flights will need to be devoted to air-to-air refueling, otherwise, you'll have to land your planes.

Groups (3-5 squadrons): These usually combine squadrons with different roles (such as a strike/attack aircraft squadron with a air support squadron). Sometimes, a group is organised by the type of aircraft involved (such as a reconnaissance group featuring five squadrons of recon aircraft). Modern air forces tend to be flexible about such matters, but they always take logistics into account!

Wings (3-5 groups): This is generally where you might want to RP more of a command structure beginning, as opposed to a large scale or small scale action involving a wing. You could also do the same at the group level. Wings often include a wide variety of aircraft squadrons and groups; this is probably equivalent to an army division.

Numbered Air Force (2-5 wings): Like the numbered fleets of the U.S. Navy, this is where offensive power projection is accounted for. You might put a First Air Force in your home country to serve as a homeland defence tool or you might put a Fourth Air Force in a colony or in a region of the world where you have vital interests. For instance, I might assign my Third Air Force to my base in Pacitalia to provide coverage of the Pacific.

Major Commands (2-5 Air Forces): Like the army groups or theatres (the Sarzonian name for an army group), this is the largest collection in the military command structure behind the Air Force itself. Your Generals or Air Marshalls would likely command this category. If I put a second Air Force in southern Haven because of my alliances there, I would likely have one of the two (Pacitalia or Haven) serve as the Major Command under an Air General.

Incorporated Sarzonian Air Force: This is the level where your minister or deputy minister devoted to leading the branch is located. For me, it would be Air Force Chief Bill Lighton, for the United States IRL, it would be the Air Force Secretary.

This post is in no way intended to be writ of any kind; it's essentially a mishmash of the USAF's organisation with the RAF's (British) structure. If anyone has any specific constructive feedback, I'm more than willing to hear it.

The only thing here is that you need to switch around wings and groups, since wings usually consist of 72 or so planes, and groups usually consist of 300 or more. Otherwise, it is much like I do. I'm sorry I didn't get around to this earlier, I haven't checked this in a while, and I haven't had much time in the first place.

I've been trying to structure my Air Force for a short while and have been trawling through the Internet to look at various Air Forces. Here's what I've been able to come up with as a general guide:

Flights (2-4 aircraft): The classification with the fewest planes in an Air Force, this can be anywhere from one or two aircraft to seemingly four aircraft or perhaps more. In general, this would most likely be equivalent either to an army's fire team or perhaps a section.

Squadrons (3-4 flights; usually around 12 planes): This classification is a very common one, and perhaps the most common one in an air force. For short range missions, you can send squadrons of mostly (if not completely) fighters or bombers, but on longer range missions, one of the flights will need to be devoted to air-to-air refueling, otherwise, you'll have to land your planes.

Groups (3-5 squadrons): These usually combine squadrons with different roles (such as a strike/attack aircraft squadron with a air support squadron). Sometimes, a group is organised by the type of aircraft involved (such as a reconnaissance group featuring five squadrons of recon aircraft). Modern air forces tend to be flexible about such matters, but they always take logistics into account!

Wings (3-5 groups): This is generally where you might want to RP more of a command structure beginning, as opposed to a large scale or small scale action involving a wing. You could also do the same at the group level. Wings often include a wide variety of aircraft squadrons and groups; this is probably equivalent to an army division.

Numbered Air Force (2-5 wings): Like the numbered fleets of the U.S. Navy, this is where offensive power projection is accounted for. You might put a First Air Force in your home country to serve as a homeland defence tool or you might put a Fourth Air Force in a colony or in a region of the world where you have vital interests. For instance, I might assign my Third Air Force to my base in Pacitalia to provide coverage of the Pacific.

Major Commands (2-5 Air Forces): Like the army groups or theatres (the Sarzonian name for an army group), this is the largest collection in the military command structure behind the Air Force itself. Your Generals or Air Marshalls would likely command this category. If I put a second Air Force in southern Haven because of my alliances there, I would likely have one of the two (Pacitalia or Haven) serve as the Major Command under an Air General.

Incorporated Sarzonian Air Force: This is the level where your minister or deputy minister devoted to leading the branch is located. For me, it would be Air Force Chief Bill Lighton, for the United States IRL, it would be the Air Force Secretary.

This post is in no way intended to be writ of any kind; it's essentially a mishmash of the USAF's organisation with the RAF's (British) structure. If anyone has any specific constructive feedback, I'm more than willing to hear it.


Thanks for putting this up. This is Exactly the kind of thing I like to see. This will make it all the easier to organize my own airforce (once I get one).

On another note, what about numbers for logistics? How many people are needed to get 1 aircraft in the air? (i.e. How large does your airforce need to be to have x number of aircraft?)

There are no stealth planes with forward swept wings because of continuous curvature.

Except for the SU-37. Which is stealthy. And has forward swept wings.

Keep in mind, most planes are shot down by AAA (70%), not SAMs (25%), and especially not high tech interceptors (interceptors account for only 5% combat losses). This should put your priorities in order.

Tips:
Make planes AAA resistant, invest in good AAA over interceptors, Use SAMs only for stand off reasons (like defending RADAR and AAA, or just plain HUGE tracts of land in low risk areas)

A few interceptors would, of course, ruin anybody's bombing run (forcing them to drop bombs early and dissengage, might even shoot a few down).

Stealth technology is not immune to the eyeball, but will increase chances of surprise and coming back alive.

Except for the SU-37. Which is stealthy. And has forward swept wings.

Yeah, but I thought it was a prototype fore the SU-47, which to the best of my knowledge has yet to enter production due to the horrendous cost.

tag

Keep in mind, most planes are shot down by AAA (70%), not SAMs (25%), and especially not high tech interceptors (interceptors account for only 5% combat losses). This should put your priorities in order.

But those stats really aren't applicable. If modern-day, then they are heavily weighted with situations where a vastly more power (like the US) has overwhelming power from the start and enemy SAMs and interceptors are almost irrelevant because of air dominance (and resulting air defense suppression) right from the start. If historical, then it is too heavily weighted from WWII and such when there were no SAMs and everything was within the reach of AAA.

W00t. I'm glad someone has decided to write a thread on this. I ought to know if any one does...

To me, the key to winning a war is the cooperative efforts of all branches of the military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Space Force if applicable).
Yes, but if you have no navy like me, or a very small one at best, what you need to do is gain air superiority first, and then take out the ships from above; or, alternately, hit them from the shore. That's one reason why I fund my air force more than the other branches of the army.

Yes, but if you have no navy like me, or a very small one at best, what you need to do is gain air superiority first.Granted, but in my honest opinion you need to develop a navy to at least defend your coastline if not project power. My post you quoted was in response to someone saying that air power was THE key to winning a war, as if only one branch can win a war for you.

Many of the failed operations in modern warfare or pre-modern warfare can be attributed to a failure on the part of the branches to work in cooperation with each other and the inevitable interservice rivalries making a well-coordinated war effort impossible. The operations that succeed largely are the result of a unified leader responsible for the success of the objective and able to unify the disparate branches into one well-oiled machine.

That task becomes even more acute when you talk about allied countries and the debate becomes who's in charge of the combined effort. The Allied war effort could have fallen on its face when General John Pershing refused to allow his troops to fall under French command he insisted on commading American doughboys himself, saying quite famously, "I will not be coerced." Fortunately for the Americans, that collapse didn't happen.

Granted, but in my honest opinion you need to develop a navy to at least defend your coastline if not project power. My post you quoted was in response to someone saying that air power was THE key to winning a war, as if only one branch can win a war for you.
True. I'm going to work on developing a navy after I finish my current RPs. The current purpose is primarily to defend the shores anyway, with a maximum force of a little under 100 ships and submarines which can defend, but not really hold its own against any major attacking power. (The info on my wiki page is a bit out-of-date; I need to update it pretty soon.)

But those stats really aren't applicable. If modern-day, then they are heavily weighted with situations where a vastly more power (like the US) has overwhelming power from the start and enemy SAMs and interceptors are almost irrelevant because of air dominance (and resulting air defense suppression) right from the start. If historical, then it is too heavily weighted from WWII and such when there were no SAMs and everything was within the reach of AAA.

Modern day stats, including from 7 days war, Vietnam, Russian action in Afghanistan, Korea, and the Falklands conflict, this is a culmination of ALL aircraft casualties to date.

Either way, rockets and interceptors are susceptable to godmodders, ("I have superior ECM\ECCM, / I have better pilots, therefore I win")

If a 3" or 5" shell hits you, no amount of godmodding can save you.

And most of those AAA kills are opticaly aimed, no fancy electronics there.

Simply put, the more expensive (complex) the system is, the sooner it will most likely destroy itself. And culmitive affectiveness, is:

A>Likelyhood of it being there (mobility and quantity)
B>Likelyhood of not malfunctioning (simpicity)
C>Chance of weapon producing a kill when used(lethality, chance of hitting)
D>Chance of being killed before it can be used (range, armour, mobility)

A*B*C*D= effectiveness coefficient

Notice, that one may increase stats for C and D, but at great expense to A and B, and a 5" shell, would equally likely kill a plane a 5" rocket (when it hits) and the small loss of accuracy is soon made up by simply useing more guns in an intelligent manner (A), and a shell is much simpler than a rocket,

To fire a rocket you have to contend with recievers, transmitters, RADARS, transievers, rocket fuel, software, control surfaces, launcher, guidance units, CREWS, and such. And all it would tae is for ONE of these to fail.

The firing of a gun is much simpler, you have a launcher device, a crew, a projectile, propelant, and a simple aiming device. And if any of these components fail, the crew generaly has the intelligence to fix the problem in moments

guns also fire faster than rocket systems (in regards to cost, I can have an AAA battery at the cost of one missile and its bare essential infrastructure; and for one good interceptor, I may hve a sizeable fleet of rockets)

Modern day stats, including from 7 days war, Vietnam, Russian action in Afghanistan, Korea, and the Falklands conflict, this is a culmination of ALL aircraft casualties to date.


And notably, many cases in which AAA was the dominant simply by virtue of being essentially all there was (Afghanistan and Korea for instance).

Relying on AAA is a bad idea however. AAA is useful only as a last-ditch AAW system. You're going to want to keep them as far away as possible, which means theater missile systems (like the Patriot) and then smaller systems as they get closer to their targets (such as the Patriot missile center).


Either way, rockets and interceptors are susceptable to godmodders, ("I have superior ECM\ECCM, / I have better pilots, therefore I win")


So is AAA if they're going to godmod.


If a 3" or 5" shell hits you, no amount of godmodding can save you.

And who in the world uses 3" or 5" shells for AAA?

There were Stinger missiles in afghanistan, they downed a large number of Mi 24 Hinds, to the point that pilots had to change tactics.

Korea had considerable amounts of SA-2s available, and also downed enough planes that tactics had to change, such as the tried and true method of diving toward the missile and jinking at the last second to exploit their large turn radius.

And the British and Argintinain forces most certainly did not reley entirely on AAA during the falklands, the blowpipe was deployed quite often), and yet they had similar resaults

One instance of light AAA doing better than expected:
During a joint training operation, a russian sgt had become very annoyed with a helicopter that could strike with impunity, while whenever he returned fire, the refferees claimed he always missed with his HMG, so he fed some live ammo and shot down the MI-24 Hind gunship (these are "proof" against 37 mm cannon) in one well aimed burst, he was demoted for reckless behavior and was commeded for his accuracy.

Q: And who in the world uses 3" or 5" shells for AAA?
A: The US Navy, 5" DP is still used today, and the 3" is used on anything too small for a 5", like PT boats. The 5" DP is also the standard naval gun around the world because of its reliability at knoccking out both air and land targets in one mount. Anyhow, what do you think the 125 mm gun on the Joseph Stalin tanks came from?

Q: If these are so out of date, then why praytell do we keep falling back on them?

The first time a US missile successfully shot down a plane was in 1971 in the gulf of Tonkin. Many missiles had been fired previous, but most of them failed to find their targets.

The AIM-7 sparrow had a kill rate of 5% during the Gulf war, this was the best it has EVER done...

Then the part that issiles are susceptable to EMP while guns are not...

Do not tell me that Missiles are better than guns, you will suffer a major systems crash...

One point I haven't seen mentioned in this otherwise interesting and useful thread is this:
That while VTOL is a wonderful capability in that it does just what it says on the tin, as Harrier shows building an aircraft around VTOL tends to slow down the aircraft significantly, and actually using the capability with a full payload cuts significantly into your combat range.

This should go inside one of those big stickies.

This exercise of teaching and learning this how to use an air force efficiently, is Wawa approved. See here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543917) to see who we are. We may also decide to reference some to this thread as well.

I am glad to see someone appreciates aircraft. The U.S. wouldn't last long in a war without them. China or India would just run over us. The american army isn't that large. The soldiers usually call for airstrikes first then clean up with helicopter support if it is a large opposing force. Thats what we are doing in Afghanistan alot. The Afghans fight for about ten minutes then hide because it takes about ten minutes for a helicopter to get deployed and sent into the area. Thats why the war in Iraq doesn't seem to be going anywhere. because they don't come out to fight.It is really annoying that people don't understand these facts.:headbang: