What-If Air-Force -- How Would You Do It?

[KJ_Lesnick]

If you were the head of your own country, how would you have your Air-Force and Military set-up?  

Would you have an Army and Navy with their own Air Forces?  
Would you have a stand-alone Air-Force as well as an Army and a Navy?  Would your Navy have it's own Air-Force as well, or would you have an Air-Force that would cover everything?  
What would the function of your Air-Force be?  More like the post 1947 United States Air-Force? More like the United States Army Air-Force?  Some other proposal?  
How would you designate your planes and missiles?  Would you use a system like the USN, like the USAF, like the British or some other system? 

For the sake of the argument, let's assume that you start out in an era around 1945, you have the same technological level of development as the United-States, United-Kingdom, and/or France at that timeframe, and then proceed from there...


KJ Lesnick

[deathjester]

I would have the whole set up as per the British armed forces, but I would quell the crippling political interference that prevented Britain from being a world leader in the jet age.

[KJ_Lesnick]

deathjester,

I would have the whole set up as per the British armed forces, but I would quell the crippling political interference that prevented Britain from being a world leader in the jet age.

Good start...

[johnestauffer]

There is so much interaction between the various components of any military.  It is difficult to divide them. 
I would allow each service to be responsible for the resources assigned to it.
But, the overall Defense commander would decide who did what.
This might reduce the inter-service rivalary.
In order for any military to function in today's world it must truely be a joint service with individual branchs but a unified planning and command structure.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Here's what I would do

I'd have a stand-alone Air-Force, which seems logical to simply cover both land-based and naval-aviation at the same time.  Those involved with naval aviation would have to meet special requirements obviously.  The fact that at least in the United States Navy, carrier-captains being naval aviators would pose an issue, though I don't know what the RN's or the French Navy's policy is in regards to this, and I don't know how important it really is in the overall scheme of things.

I think close air-support are much more important roles than the early USAF emphasized, and as a result, would emphasize their roles more, though I value the ability to perform strategic missions, and interception missions as well, which the USAF embraced as a role.  Even though Air Forces have electronics warfare capability and both tactical and strategic surveillance roles, I would not adopt the "fighting wars in space and cyberspace" idea that the USAF adopted in the 1980's -- every military service has it's own intelligence department, and there are a variety of non military intelligence organizations in countries all around the world which all are more than capable of cyber-warfare.  That's not a role that need be confined to an Air-Force.  A space-role however is not all that absurd -- the ability to insert satellites for various services up in orbit, maintain them, and to perform a variety of strategic surveillance roles would be well met by an Air-Force, though Aerospace Force would be a more appropriate name for it.

Considering I am not an optimistic person and while I would intend to do most aerial operations off runways and carrier decks, I don't believe in espousing a doctrine that would never assume that airfields would be disabled or damaged.  I think, as a result, it would obviously be practical to for a what-if Air Force to possess either some aircraft with reasonably good short-field performance for certain missions, potentially including the ability to operate aircraft off of highways under certain situations.

As for designation systems for aircraft I'd use a system similar to the USAF, as it's easier to grasp then the more convoluted USN system.

[MAD]

Hoping Everyone had a great Christmas!!

As for me – I would have to say that after reading so much about the petty and costly (in terms of national security and financial cost!) squabbling the likes of the United States Air Force, Navy and Army!
I would say that it would be more important to enshrine a legislative body that continues to look at and evaluate 'what is needed' and what is classed as doctrine for the nations defence as a whole – more than letting each service go for hog on what they pick and choose!
Each service that makes up the armed forces would be allocated a 'obligation' and 'reasonability' of what its primary and secondary task would be via legislation – which is continuously reviewed and answerable!
A perfect example of this is WHO is reasonable for the aerospace defence of the nation/country – including both airbases, naval and army bases (in the case of the United States post 1947- the then new air force, army and navy all wanted a slice of the pie, whilst also wanting to be the primary nuclear deterrent................they all had their own expensive pet project, which directly competed against one another, in a lot of cases meeting the same requirement! 'WHY'???).
WHO is responsible for the air defence of a naval formation whilst outside of national waters?
WHO is responsible for the air defence of an army field formation?

Legislation and continues over-watch review of the likes of the USAF truly meeting its obligation to airlift, supply and resupply army formations!

Legislation and continues over-watch review of the likes of the USAF truly meeting its obligation to meet and provide the army with the close air support and battlefield interdiction, that it deems critical!
The Navy's carrier battle groups meeting its primary task of power projection and strike air assets (both nuclear and conventional) per carrier air wings – as apposed to the carriers air wings being made up of a too higher percent of fighters to strike ratio

Or, as in the case of today's US Navy carrier air wings – a dramatic reduction in carrier-based, fixed-wing ASW assets (with the premature loss of S-3 Viking's!) and a loss of capability to save money, whilst wasting billions of dollars designing, redesigning, and re redesigning again and finally building a class of destroyer the navy wanted 20-30 of the class yesterday as it could not live without them! – just to cancel the entire project after only a couple of ships had been built!!!!!.

Why does the United States Military need so many Special Forces. Hell evey service needs to have one!
I am surprised the U.S Coast Guard don't have a SF's (but then again that could be classified )

Etc........................

Unfortunately it all comes down to money!
And in the eyes of the competitive Armed Forces of almost every nation – money is power and influence!
So if service 'X' do not meet this Legislative criteria – they simply loss that money outright!
Not to have the money to put towards some new hair-brain idea project 'TZ', that someone dreamed up the night before!


Hell I do not think I have help much have I?

Probably after saying all this - I guess that's why the old Soviet armed forces worked so well!


M.A.D

[Silver Fox]

I would follow a basically Canadian Forces model with a single service, seperated into specific commands. I would offer somewhat greater funding autonomy so that no 'service' feels it's core responsibilities are being cut to serve the needs of another service. I would also want to allow for special possibilities like the 'Army' fnding the acquisition and operation of 'Air Force' CAS aircraft.

Why not? Rather than complain about how the other guy isn't spending his money... spend your own!

[beowulf]

personally i would have one conbined all in armed forces.............no tri services to stop any in fighting

as to what they would have/mission statement/etc i would need to know where my country is?, size?, geographics?.....has it got neighbours who are not on good terms.........land locked, coastline or island?

[KJ_Lesnick]

MAD,

Some of your ideas could be met by a more powerful version of a House or Senate Armed Services Committee, which would then set limits on what the DoD could do.  Of course it would have to be constitutionally set up so it would not interfere with executive power, or that executive power could not co-opt it, reasonably speaking.

[B777LR]

Comrades!

It would be Яussian!

I would have an Air Force, Navy, Army and KGB.

The Air Force would be divided up into a transport force, helicopter force, fighter force, attack force and bomber force.

The Navy would be divided up into a submarine force, a surface fleet and aviation assets. The aviation assets would consist of ASW planes, along with a sizeable component of Tu-22 Backfires. In case of war, the Air Force would lend bombers not in use to the Navy. 

The Army would consist of tanks and soldiers, supported by the Air Force, and in case of an amphibious invasion, by the Navy. They also have artillery, trucks, IFVs, APCs, cars, armoured thingies, helmets, uniforms, Toyota pickup trucks/technicals, AA, AAA, SAMs, and radars.   

The KGB would ensure that everyone did their job as best possible. The KGB also controls the nuclear weapons. I control the KGB.

The army/navy/airforce would be very large. Larger than most. It is the job of the air force to gain air dominance and to supress the enemy forces, first by destroying their AA capability, then by destroying their means of resupply and by destroying their forces. The Navy will prevent convoys from getting there, while supporting amphibious invasions of the enemy. The Backfires will first sink the enemy navy, then sink any convoys.



PS: It's an african country. Will throw up the story in a few minutes

[MAD]

MAD,

Some of your ideas could be met by a more powerful version of a House or Senate Armed Services Committee, which would then set limits on what the DoD could do.  Of course it would have to be constitutionally set up so it would not interfere with executive power, or that executive power could not co-opt it, reasonably speaking.

Yes good point!!
Sorry but as an Australian, and someone who has been in the ADF for 20+ years
I have served and fought next to American's for a good part of this time in some form or another and I must say that the American system scares me a little!!
So I have some difficulty getting my head around their 'Constitution' - and the way in which it is both used and manipulated by both the public, corporate world and politics!!
Saying this I think that you would have an easier time amending the Constitution, than enforcing and keeping the Pentagon in check and reiterating to them that they are subordinate and answerable to the Government and Congress!
One key thing that 'must' be changed is the U.S. Military carear structure.
Were part of your carear structure is ending up in some private defence industry - due to your so-called experiences (namely your contribution, and liaising to the private defence industry, whilst you were in uniform and had some say and influence in the purchase and acquisition of  a give military industries product!!)
This way the average U.S soldier/airman and sailor will get the weapons and equipment they truly need and want - as apposed to the weapons and equipment that a U.S Senator and private defence industry has lobbied for and convince the services they should have!

As for the House or Senate Armed Services Committee - they have a lot of wind - but appear to have little power or effect on the waistage of what the U.S services extract from the tax payers every year, let alone the dodgy programs and projects that they are meant to be oversighting!

P.S To Silver Fox - I forgot the Canadian system, when I mentioned the Soviet system
Thanks for reminding me! At least in the Canadian system - your service men and woman have rights, food and little fear of reprisals and purges or being forced to attack an enemy with no rifle or if your lucky a rifle and no rounds!!


M.A.D

[batmancustoms]

If I was to have my own Empire 

I would have a combined Air Force.

To support all theaters of combat.  Try to have the most common parts as possible. For easy mfg , cost and maintains in the field.

I Try to use this Idea behind all my armed forces.

Then I would have A Navy and Army.

3 branches of service. But all combined to one combat force. Same Ranks , same structure system , and as much as same equipment.

Then I would have my Black ops force. Again just one Special ops unit. With no limits and answer to few.  Like the Knights Templar.

Again I would try to have the KISS/ AK 47 method.   Very simple , easy to understand and Hard as nails.

Also I would never allow Soldiers to be commanded by men or women who never served there country. For instance if someone dropped all this in my lap , I Would insist I do at leas one or more tours of duty with my men. I don't see how you can ask of something when you never risked your own butt.

I also would Start my own NATO type program of just my allies and to heck with being politically correct or part of the UN. 

Just my first idea.

[Fulcrum]

Maybe a Defense Force with a Air & Land componets.
The Defense Forces & Government are supported by 1 Intelligence agency(J.I.A.-Joint Intelligence Agency, combining both civilian & military intelligence)(The U.S. should consoidate their intelligence agencies-they have 14 in total, that we know about).

Land Forces
   -Light Infantry in Stryker APC's(with extra BMP-1's in reserve) with a AK-47/L1A1 combo or a bullpup version(7.62mm prefered)with upgraded Dragonov sniper rifles, Panzerfrausts(better than RPG's), an excellent MANPAD & with TOW's & Milans
   -Basic structure would be a Battle group(3 Battle groups to a Brigade Group)
   -Armour(Leopard 2A5 & LAV-AT's), Artillery(M-777 155mm(I prefer 155mm) & HEMTT-based RM-70's) & Engineers pooled for use on request by the Battle Groups
   -1 Special Forces unit (J.F.G.-Joint Forces Group)(size unknown)

Air Forces
   -25th Squadron(fighter pool)-60-72 Mig-29M(24 active, rest either training, reserve or stored)
   -24th Squadron(training) with 6-12 Mig-29UB & 8-16 Hawk Mk.60
   -12th Sqn. with C-17's( & Il-76's for war reserve)
   -15th Sqn. with KC-30's( & KC-10's in reserve)
   -37th Sqn. with Mi-24 Hinds armed with Stinger AAM's & TOW 4
   -5th Sqn.(Chinook pool) with 50 CH-47's in cargo, ulitility roles
   -2nd Sqn. with 24+ UH-60's for JFG use
Studies are ongoing for a possible fighter replacement, a possible bomber(rumours report what looked to be a Bombcorde version) & UCAV's using retired/reserve Mig-23's(Q-23's) for SEAD & Su-17's(Q-17's) for a strike role.

Due to the loyalty of the Air Force to the government, Air Force Colonels, Brigaders & Generals are usually chosen as adjuntants, military aides & CDS(Chief of Defence Staff).

[jeremak]

Two years ago I prepared small timeline for Poland on western side in Cold War: as NATO  border country and first line of defence, so it has a big military. How I ended in parts of armed forces:
"Discussion areas of responsibility":
Sea Aviation: helos based on ships: to Navy, Patrol, ASW, ASM squadrons; to Air Force
Land Navy units: "shore artillery": ASM batteries, observation posts: to Navy, "Marines": to Army
Airlift and Attack: Transport planes, ind. Helicopter units: to AF, integral heli units in Army formations (Air Assault Infantry, Attack Helos in Armoured Divisions, UAVs detachments: to Army, but paratroopers will jump from AF planes
Common Special Forces, Intelligence and Flying School for all Armed forces.

Air Force "Ready to battle" OOB in 1951:
Air defence and superiority
1 Fighter Wing: 111, 112, 113, 114 Fighter Squadron (F-86 or Ta-183 from reactivated F-W factory): Warsaw region. One squadron: around 12 planes (RAF scheme)
2 FW: 121, 122, 123 FS (F-86 or F-80): Cracow and Upper Silesia Region
frontline fighters:
3 FW: 3 Fighter Regiment: 131, 132 FS (F-80), 4 Fighter-Bomber Regiment: 141, 142 FS (F-84)
4 FW: 5 F Reg.: 151, 152 FS (F-80), 6 F-B Reg.: 161, 162 FS (F-84)
attack:
7 Bomber-Reconnaissance Regiment: 51, 52 B-R Sq. (jet bomber: RB-45, Ardo Blitz, Canberra in near future?)
8 Assault Wing: 21, 22, 23, 24 AS (low flying tank destroyer: new build Hs-129? Do-335 V-13 with 30 mm cannons?)
9 AW: 31, 32, 33, 34 AS
other:
10 Sea Wing: 41, 42 Patrol Sq. (Neptune), 43, 44 Bomber-Torpedo Sq. (Avenger or Fairey Spearfish)
11 Reconnaissance Wing: 11, 12 Artillery Correction Sq. (Storch?) 13 Fighter-Reconnaissance Sq. (Nightfighters and PRU missions) (Gloster Meteor or P-61)
55 Independent Bomber Sq. (B-29 or Lancaster)
5 Bomber Wing: 211, 212, 213, 216, 217 BW (classical medium bomber: B-26? or late-version Mosquito?)
26 Indp. Transport Sq.

And at end of Cold War:
1 FW: 111, 112, 113, 114 FS (F-15)
2 FW: 121, 122, 123 FS: (F-15)
3 FW: 131, 132, 1133 FS (F-16)
4 FW: 141, 142, 143 FS (F-16)
5 FW: 151, 152, 153 FS (F-16)
6 FW: 161, 162, 163 FS (F-16)
7 Assault Helicopter Wing: 21, 22, 23, 24 AHSq. (AH-64): wing used as reserve for key battles to stop enemy armoured breaktrough, or suuport own atacking forces
8 Assault Wing: 31, 32, 33, 34 AS (A-10)
9 Tactical Wing: 41, 42, 43 Strike Sq. (Panavia Tornado)
10 TW: 51, 52, 53 SSq. (Tornado)
11 TW: 61, 62, 63 SSq. (Tornado)
12 Support Wing: 211 Air Tanker Sq. (KC-10) 212 Transport Sq. (DC-10/KC-10) 213 Transport Sq. (C-130)
26 Ind. Sq. (VIP transport)
55 Indp. EW Sq. (E-3)
326 Indp. Transport Sq. (C-130, later C-17)
331 Training Sq.
332 Helicopter Training Sq.
Sea Wing: 1 Sq. (P-3), 2 Sq. (ASW Seahawk), 3, 4 Sea Strike Sq. (Tornado)

And on end, even more: first-line ground units circa 1989 too:
1 Armoured Division:
   -10 Armured Calvary Brigade (Leo2 + Bradelys or Warriors), 3 Rifles Brigade (Bradleys or Warriors) Artillery Brigade (+ support units)
Independent Para Brigade
4 Infantry Brigade (light infantry with wheeled IFVs)
5 Sea Rifles Brigade ("marines" and shoreline defence)
6 Air Assault Brigade (helicopter carried infantry)
Carpatian Rifles Regiment (long range recon, high mountain, arctic, desert warfare)
7 Lublin Ulans Brigade (mechanized infantry)
8 Podhale Rifles (mountain infantry)
"1,5 line" units:
11 Armoured Division:
   -16 Armoured Brigade, 15 Calvary Brigade(mechanized), Artillery Brigade(+support)
17 Mechanized Division
   -14 Tank Regiment, 12 Mechanized Brigade , 20 Mechanized Brigade

Yes, I know, it's... huge.

[Fulcrum]

Maybe a Defense Force with a Air & Land componets.
The Defense Forces & Government are supported by 1 Intelligence agency(J.I.A.-Joint Intelligence Agency, combining both civilian & military intelligence)(The U.S. should consoidate their intelligence agencies-they have 14 in total, that we know about).

Land Forces
   -Light Infantry in Stryker APC's(with extra BMP-1's in reserve) with a AK-47/L1A1 combo or a bullpup version(7.62mm prefered)with upgraded Dragonov sniper rifles, Panzerfrausts(better than RPG's), an excellent MANPAD & with TOW's & Milans
   -Basic structure would be a Battle group(3 Battle groups to a Brigade Group)
   -Armour(Leopard 2A5 & LAV-AT's), Artillery(M-777 155mm(I prefer 155mm) & HEMTT-based RM-70's) & Engineers pooled for use on request by the Battle Groups
   -1 Special Forces unit (J.F.G.-Joint Forces Group)(size unknown)

Air Forces
   -25th Squadron(fighter pool)-60-72 Mig-29M(24 active, rest either training, reserve or stored)
   -24th Squadron(training) with 6-12 Mig-29UB & 8-16 Hawk Mk.60
   -12th Sqn. with C-17's( & Il-76's for war reserve)
   -15th Sqn. with KC-30's( & KC-10's in reserve)
   -37th Sqn. with Mi-24 Hinds armed with Stinger AAM's & TOW 4
   -5th Sqn.(Chinook pool) with 50 CH-47's in cargo, ulitility roles
   -2nd Sqn. with 24+ UH-60's for JFG use
Studies are ongoing for a possible fighter replacement, a possible bomber(rumours report what looked to be a Bombcorde version) & UCAV's using retired/reserve Mig-23's(Q-23's) for SEAD & Su-17's(Q-17's) for a strike role.

Due to the loyalty of the Air Force to the government, Air Force Colonels, Brigaders & Generals are usually chosen as adjuntants, military aides & CDS(Chief of Defence Staff).

I forgot to add a national air defense system of Patriot PAC-2 & 3's with S-300's in reserve.