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

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon

It'd be somewhat tricky to pull off the all-encompassing airforce per se - you'd wind up with so many logistical tangles with that.

What other logistical tangles would you have?

Being that you're considering all-encompassing, I would suggest that Rotary Wing assets would similarly be under that umbrella, though it distances your Close Air Support in reality, as it then faces the division between branches, and communication problems as well.

How would having helo's under the Air Force cause division between branches and communication problems?

I don't know if the RN or Marine Naval or similarly any other foreign force has the requirement, but I would surmise it comes in handy regardless of the flag, to have the CO know how things work below the deck, allowing smoother integration.

That is obvious.  I'm just wondering if the requirement actually makes a serious difference.

As to the Army Air/Navy Air divide, if you read back through my post, it's a much more integrated air element, though there is a per se direct Airforce, but they're more tasked with land-based air superiority and major bombing assets - you need air support, call either the army or the Marines, since the Naval assets primarily are centered around air to water or air to air off a ship.  You need something utterly destroyed, call the airforce

So the Air Force would focus on strategic bombing and interception, with the Army focusing on land based close air support and the Navy focusing on anti-ship and carrier launched air-to-air missions?


Kendra

[Sauragnmon]

Kendra,

If you have the airforce all encompassing, and an entity unto itself, you face the fact that in order to get Anything moved, you have to talk to the airforce with almost little exception, unless you have a sizable sealift capacity as well.  So there would have to be time allowances and such, and how accomodating would the airforce be of tying up all those pilots with the logistical flights.  How much inter-branch problems are there in respect to things like this?

Having helo support under the airforce wouldn't Cause, but further emphasize the division between branches, and the communication problems inherent with going between branches to get support, in addition to the limited ammount of support in any given area, which means shorter ammounts of resources.  How many operations have been Murphied, so to speak, because Air and Arty support are not there when required?  The less integration you have in the units, the more of a case you're looking at that risk happening again, and more so because it has to go up one chain then transfer over to the other branch and come back down - it's a longer chain of command to get further air assets into a theater of operations, which means further delayed communication, and slower results.

I would surmise that having the requirement does make a difference - it's the factor of knowledge coming into the job - the more Bob knows before he becomes CO, means the less he's gotta learn when he assumes the job as the Carrier's CO, shortening the transition time for another new CO who has to get up to speed on how the system really works.

That would be the concept I had yes - the Airforce also has Strategic Airlift capacity under wing - they get the big lifters like the C-5 and C-17, though units like C-130 and such are still associated to Army Logistics units to allow supply operations and theater lift support.  The Army and Marines have their own self-assigned tactical air support, while the Navy operates the Air Superiority and Anti-ship/submarine taskings, though ASuW and ASW are also handled in some capacity by the airforce and Marines, since they are overlapping areas of concern, but not in larger capacities - Airforce has some domestic assets for maritime patrol for example, and as such has a mild Anti-ship and Anti-sub capacity - the Marines have their own capacity to destroy surface targets with units like the Battleships, and of course there's the intrinsic ASW capacity of most naval helicopters on lesser combatants - they have to have some ASW capacity since they operate closer to the target area, so protection of their own surface groups is important, though the Navy operates the submarines and such.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon,

If you have the airforce all encompassing, and an entity unto itself, you face the fact that in order to get Anything moved, you have to talk to the airforce with almost little exception, unless you have a sizable sealift capacity as well.

Of course you'd want a sea-lift capacity...

So there would have to be time allowances and such, and how accomodating would the airforce be of tying up all those pilots with the logistical flights.

You'd obviously have to have a sizeable number of air-crews for performing transport and logistical missions.

How much inter-branch problems are there in respect to things like this?

You raise good points, do you know any way around the problem?  Perhaps having one basic armed-force which is sub-divided into branches which function as military services such as Army, Navy, Air Force etc? 

Israel seems to have a basic defense force which seems to include army, air-force, and some naval functions.

Having helo support under the airforce wouldn't Cause, but further emphasize the division between branches, and the communication problems inherent with going between branches to get support, in addition to the limited ammount of support in any given area, which means shorter ammounts of resources.  How many operations have been Murphied, so to speak, because Air and Arty support are not there when required?  The less integration you have in the units, the more of a case you're looking at that risk happening again, and more so because it has to go up one chain then transfer over to the other branch and come back down - it's a longer chain of command to get further air assets into a theater of operations, which means further delayed communication, and slower results.

If you just had everything under one armed force, with the services as sub-branches, and inter-service cooperation, wouldn't that be adequate?

I would surmise that having the requirement does make a difference - it's the factor of knowledge coming into the job - the more Bob knows before he becomes CO, means the less he's gotta learn when he assumes the job as the Carrier's CO, shortening the transition time for another new CO who has to get up to speed on how the system really works.

Understood.  Would you recommend that the requirement be that the individual be a pilot or flight-officer, or specifically a carrier pilot or carrier flight-officer?

That would be the concept I had yes - the Airforce also has Strategic Airlift capacity under wing - they get the big lifters like the C-5 and C-17, though units like C-130 and such are still associated to Army Logistics units to allow supply operations and theater lift support.  The Army and Marines have their own self-assigned tactical air support, while the Navy operates the Air Superiority and Anti-ship/submarine taskings, though ASuW and ASW are also handled in some capacity by the airforce and Marines, since they are overlapping areas of concern, but not in larger capacities - Airforce has some domestic assets for maritime patrol for example, and as such has a mild Anti-ship and Anti-sub capacity - the Marines have their own capacity to destroy surface targets with units like the Battleships, and of course there's the intrinsic ASW capacity of most naval helicopters on lesser combatants - they have to have some ASW capacity since they operate closer to the target area, so protection of their own surface groups is important, though the Navy operates the submarines and such.

Understood

[Weaver]

Honestly, I don't know how the workload of performing an intercept against bombers can be much harder than conducting air-to-air warfare against fighters with missiles beyond visual range, including the point where you close into visual range.  If anything it sounds far harder to do the job against fighter-planes, though I could be wrong.

It probably is harder against fighters, but the point is, it's hard. Also, with incoming nuclear bombers, you have to get it right pretty much first time. If you fluff the pursuit curve, it may have dropped it's bomb/launched it's stand-off missile before you catch it up again, and shooting it down afterwards is pretty redundant. Also, remember that bombers can carry more and bigger jammers than fighters, so it may need much more intensive radar work to actually get and hold a contact.

Two questions

1.) Would an early F-102A or F-106A's workload carried out sans SAGE be equal or higher than the English Electric Lightning's workload with it's HOTAS system?

Don't know - I'd imagine it would be pretty high.

2.) How much help did the Lightning's HOTAS system make in helping reduce workload during intercepts (i.e. how much harder would it have been without it)

Well you have to presume it was worthwhile or they wouldn't have bothered with it. The real issue is not the control position, but the sophisitication of the radar signal processing and display. With no or crude computers, the pilot has to understand radar tech and control every aspect of the radar's behaviour manually. It's only when a computer can take over the running of the radar and the pilot just treats it as another source of info, without getting involved in how it works, that you get a real reduction in workload.

Until 1980s electronics began to reliably reduce pilot workload

I thought it would have been the mid 1970's at latest.  In 1976, the F-15 for example, entered full operational service, and it used HOTAS and had a sufficient workload to allow one pilot to operate the weapons system and fly the aircraft reasonably well.

Reasonably well-ish: the pilot still had to get fairly involved with the radar. It's significant that in mock combats with Aggressor F-5s, the F-15's kill rate dropped sharply as the total number of aircraft in the fight increased, i.e. two F-15s on two F-5s scored a much higher kill rate than ten F-15s on ten F-5s. That indicates to me that overload was still a factor.

I have a question regarding the XF8U-III, I'm wondering if the combination of the dual-grip stick, mach-hold autopilot/auto-throttle, and such allowed intercepts to be carried out independent of SAGE-like ground controlled assistance with reasonable work-load?  

Some sources say that the workload was too high, but allegedly Chance-Vought built an interactive cockpit which they took to Washington DC and proved that it could be done.  The F8U-3 did have a data-link, but I don't know if it was designed to simply provide information to the pilot to provide a better picture of the situation, or if it was designed as part of a SAGE-type system to control the aircraft through part of the intercept or not.  Do you have any information?

I don't have much info about the F8U-3 at all, I'm afraid. Have to say, I've always wondered about the workload issue though: that thing could generate some closure....

Then again, the situation with a naval interceptor is somewhat simpler. You know where the incoming bombers are going (the Carrier Battle Group) because it's the only worthwhile target, and the CBG is, geographically speaking, a single point-target, so the geometry on the intercept is more predictable. With a land-based fighter defending a continent there are many possible targets spread over a large area, so the bomber can fly convincing feints and then change targets after the fighter has set up it's intercept, leaving it to make long cross-range chases.

Why would you need a special point-defense interceptor?  Couldn't a high-performance air-superiority fighter with radar do that?  I mean the USN with it's F8U/F-8 Crusader seemed to operate in that role, and it was an air-superiority fighter predominantly.

I didn't say you did need a "special" point-defence interceptor: an air-superiority fighter tasked to point-intercept is usually fine. Big two-seat "patrol interceptors" are expensive, limited in number, and therfore can't be everywhere. Add that to the multi-target problem described above, and it makes sense to have a second tier of cheaper, numerous point-defence aircraft (whether specialised or not) which can be stationed near a greater percentage of targets and act as "goalkeepers" should the patrol interceptors get wrong-footed. The "battle-horizon" for a ground control and interceptor defending an individual city is much smaller and easier (more akin to a carrier) than that required to defend a continent.

[Weaver]

On the subject of who commands a carrier, it really depends more on how you train your officers than what their background is. The UK system has been described as a "giant management training course" because officers with command potential are identified and "flagged" early in their careers and are then posted around to give them neccessary breadth of experience to command well. This is sometimes criticised for creating lack of consistency in particular areas or units where officers seem to come and go via a revolving door, but it does seem to breed good "generalists" who are suited to command.

[Sauragnmon]

Kendra,

I would imagine an all-integrated force would probably eliminate a lot of the problems of branch disagreements, since they're trained to operate as an integrated unit in general.  It kind of keeps things in unity.  The whole integrated thing shortens the length of the chain, and the number of people that have to be involved in any operation.

On the Carrier operations, I would probably say the Carrier CO should have background as a Carrier Pilot or Flight Officer, as there's that intrinsic level of background on the subject - it's a different way of operating when you have a LOT less space to work with.

I still don't like the whole Hands-Off-Intercept concept, really - it doesn't breed any sort of better operation.  However, having the AEW&C craft basically operating as the interceptor pilot's second-man might be helpful, as he's got more area situational awareness, and can then help break down the information and ease up the workload on the pilot.  Perhaps giving secondary weapons control to AEW&C so that AEW is basically the RIO for the PD Interceptors would be handy in some ways.

Ten Eagles and Ten Tigers... sounds like... Towering Inferno?  That was more a lack of communication and coordination than overload per se - the Eagle pilots tracked and engaged two and three pilots to the same planes, and nobody really talked about who engaged which, which led to a number of Tigers surviving the initial spread and closing to engage, which was where the Tiger performed much sharper than the Eagle.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon,

I would imagine an all-integrated force would probably eliminate a lot of the problems of branch disagreements, since they're trained to operate as an integrated unit in general.  It kind of keeps things in unity.  The whole integrated thing shortens the length of the chain, and the number of people that have to be involved in any operation.

How would you structure such a force?  Like I described, or in a different fashion?

On the Carrier operations, I would probably say the Carrier CO should have background as a Carrier Pilot or Flight Officer, as there's that intrinsic level of background on the subject - it's a different way of operating when you have a LOT less space to work with.

Makes sense, especially if you have pilots commanding air-bases.

I still don't like the whole Hands-Off-Intercept concept, really - it doesn't breed any sort of better operation.

Agreed, plus it pretty much hinges everything on that ground-controlled automated computer system -- it fails and you have beaucoup trouble.

However, having the AEW&C craft basically operating as the interceptor pilot's second-man might be helpful, as he's got more area situational awareness, and can then help break down the information and ease up the workload on the pilot.

Makes sense, he could tell the pilot what to do either by voice, or by up-linking data to the interceptor

Perhaps giving secondary weapons control to AEW&C so that AEW is basically the RIO for the PD Interceptors would be handy in some ways.

I don't think that's really necessary.  I think if the airplane and weapon system is designed right the pilot should be able to fire just fine.


KJ Lesnick

[Sauragnmon]

Kendra,

I would probably follow my own structure, as it uses the same integration - I posted it above, and have discussed it at length.

Yeah, pretty much - I would rather have somebody who knows the operations running the base, because it just makes for less transition time and less problems in the long run.

The hands-off system is also only as good as the computer - Garbage In equals Garbage Out - too much capacity for screwups, and even a minor one kinda leads to Beaucoup Caca.

Combining points, the AEW&C operator uplinking data would be good, as it eliminates the need for interpretation of the information - people learn better when you include a little visual input, and that would cut back on pilot overload some.  That, and your comment of the weapons systems and airplane being properly designed is a rather weighty IF - let's face it, if it's not the cheap solution, bean counters won't go for it.  Too often, the equipment's the lowest bidder, so a little redundant safety is a good idea.  The less workload on the pilot, the better.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon,

I would probably follow my own structure, as it uses the same integration - I posted it above, and have discussed it at length.

Okay, I'm sorry.  I misunderstand what you said.  

Is there any way to get an army, air-force and navy to integrate reasonably well if you had an airforce that pretty much covered all fixed-wing aircraft (with the possibility of helos, or with the helo's belonging to the army)?  Israel has a basic defense force with an air-force, an army and a navy subdivided within for example.  They seem to do okay, am I missing something?

Yeah, pretty much - I would rather have somebody who knows the operations running the base, because it just makes for less transition time and less problems in the long run.

Logical

Combining points, the AEW&C operator uplinking data would be good, as it eliminates the need for interpretation of the information - people learn better when you include a little visual input, and that would cut back on pilot overload some.

Seems to make sense

That, and your comment of the weapons systems and airplane being properly designed is a rather weighty IF - let's face it, if it's not the cheap solution, bean counters won't go for it.  Too often, the equipment's the lowest bidder, so a little redundant safety is a good idea.  The less workload on the pilot, the better.

I suppose that is a good point.


KJ Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

As an aside, in addition to the structure of such a What-If Air-Force, I thought it would be interesting to think about what kind of aircraft designs you would have conceived for your what-if Air Force, assuming you started in 1945 and had similar technological capabilities as the United States, United Kingdom and France.  This can include fixed-wing aircraft such as fighters, attack-planes, bombers, reconnaisance aircraft and transports, as well as non fixed-wing aircraft such as helicopters.

Yes, you can pluck already existent designs from real air-forces, or make up your own.  Try to be realistic though.

Let's have some fun with this...


KJ Lesnick

[Sauragnmon]

Kendra,

Probably of note, the IDF is in some ways a rather unique force - considering they are in almost constant state of combat in some way, they are in a way the Luftwaffe of yesterdecades - there is no B-Game for an IDF Pilot, and they don't have a whole lot of time to screw around.  Additionally, the country isn't exactly huge, so air assets can be on call rather quickly for a situation.  There isn't much room for branch arguments inside the IDF, and in truth they are probably the most experienced, best trained, and hardest-fighting force out there in the world.  They are the example every military should really look up to, in truth.

I like to take the logical lean towards things, in truth.  It makes things much more effective and smoother going.


On to the main event, the structuring of my what-if air forces.  I'll just go somewhat by unit style here, and make a progression I think...

So, here we start with the AirCommand.

Bomber Air Division - general large-scale command assignment.

2x Heavy Strategic Bomber Wing - Each Wing operates four squadrons of Heavy Bombers, such as B-29, and two squadrons of escort fighters - generally something like P-51, a long-legged escort fighter to accompany the aircraft to and from the delivery zone.  These would progressively move up to heavier bombers, such as B-36, and newer escort craft - the general principle focus for these is the range and delivery of the payload.  Escort Squadrons are there to accompany bombers on ingress and egress.

2x Medium Strategic Wing - 3x Medium Strat Squadrons - Still retaining high level, the Medium Strategic Bomber is meant for delivering a moderate payload with relative speed being the emphasis.  Bombers like what would be the Tu-22 are important in this unit, good for speed and striking at time-sensitive strategic targets with heavy firepower.  3x Escort Squadrons - faster fighters still given to long legs, for the safety of the bombers they're accompanying.

1x Tactical Support Wing - This unit operates the Tankers and Supply chains for the unit, responsible for IAR and the like of the division's bombers and aircraft to keep them armed and flying as needed.

1x Patrol Wing - Large heavy maritime recon and patrol units are operated in this wing, primarily tasked with large detection and in possible times, engagement of enemy assets as needed.  They also tend to train to co-operate with landed Naval units as needed.


Airlift Division

2x Heavy Airlift Wing - generally outfitted with the biggest lifters they can find, the Heavy Airlift wing moves anything and everything that can be lifted - An-124/225, C-5, the kind of planes that don't consider how heavy it is, just how Big it is.

2x Medium Lift Wings - Starlifters, and the like - General weight transports, capable of moving general military assets, these are what get assigned to the Medium Lift Wings.


Fighter Air Division

2x Fighter Wing - these are the muscle of the air dominance game - the two seat, heavy fighters that roam the skies and sodomize intruders with a chainsaw.  These are the big dogs, that kill things with glee.  In other countries, these might be known as Zerstorers, or Heavy Fighters - the big, two engine beasts that bring a fistful of firepower and send you home in a pine box.

3x Interceptor Wing - These are the planes that run the front - F-16's, F-5's, the lightweights that operate on a moment's notice and are there to cause damage and intercept enemy aircraft quickly, to either take them down or tie them up until the big hitters get into the fight.

1x Early Warning and Control Wing - These units originally are regional radar units, ground-based, and the regional command unit for the fighter divisions - they coordinate and command the fighter unit as a whole, and are responsible for C3I, Detection and Information.

1x Logistical Support Wing - Tankers, TacLift, general supply.  These are the tasks for this unit, and its primary task is to move the supplies for the unit, transport them, and keep the aircraft in the air.



Navy:

Carrier Air Division - generally centralized, the CAD is the general operations unit that is either based landside, or on the Carrier together as a cohesive unit.  Generally, Landside, a CAD will have, in addition to a standard airfield, an "Indestructible Carrier" for training newer pilots cycling into the unit to operate on the Carrier - fully established with catapults, restrained CTOL Ski Jump, and arresting gear, the "Indestructible Carrier" is dimensioned exactly like a Carrier deck, to provide operational training, though the space is expanded upon to include "the drink" or other such hazard areas in safe landing capacity, though clearly marked off, for later haranguing of the pilot who misses the trap.

2x Fighter Squadron - given the highest end fighters available, the Fighter Squadron's primary tasking is escort and air superiority - they get the job done.

2x Attack Squadron - Originally with torpedo bombers, and later given to the delivery of heavy anti-ship missiles, the Attack Squadron, such as it is, is given the task of destroying enemy naval assets with direct prejudice.

2x Bomber Squadron - Divebombers and the like, the Bomber Squadron in more modern terms would be the unit that delivers precision hits when needed - They're also the ones that use anti-radiation assets and the like, becoming the electronic attack units, with craft like the EA-6.

1x Scout/Patrol Squadron - generally, these are the fleet scouts, given the long legs, and the anti-sub warfare elements.

1x Control Squadron - Originally scouts and spotters, the control squadron moves into the more modern times with AEW assets and electronic recon, supporting ops at longer ranges than the Carrier can.

1x Support Squadron - General lift operations, and the COD flights, are what this unit specializes in - resupply and logistical command.


Army - for sake of the scope here, I'll just present the unit, and its air assets - the rest we'll skip.

Mechanized Division

1x Heavy Gunship Squadron - B-25, AC-130 and similar aircraft, for heavy tactical support.

1x Attack Squadron - Local area Divebombers, later planes like the A-10.

1x Gunship Squadron - Starts with planes like the 110C, fast support planes, with rotary wings turns to attack choppers.

2x Tactical Lift Squadrons - moves the lighter manpower and equipment from A to B.  Ideally, designs that can also double up as tactical bombers.

Light Infantry Division, AKA Air Cav

3x Tactical Airlift Squadron - C-130, other paradrop planes - equally, as above, double for Tactical Bombing Support.

1x Tactical Helo Squadron - CH-46 and the like, these are the helicopters that lift in bulk to get a company from A to B in short order.

2x Support Helo Squadrons - UH-1 or other similar lighter rapid-deploy units, meant for patrol duties as well as rapid transit.

3x Gunship Squadrons - as above - fast support aircraft converting to attack helicopter support later.

2x Heavy Gunship Squadron - Being that these are the closest that the Light Infantry have to DivArty, there's two of them.


I'll cover the Marines, eventually, but right now I'm a little mentally exhausted, and can't think too straight.  Enough food for thought here.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon,

Probably of note, the IDF is in some ways a rather unique force - considering they are in almost constant state of combat in some way, they are in a way the Luftwaffe of yesterdecades - there is no B-Game for an IDF Pilot, and they don't have a whole lot of time to screw around.  Additionally, the country isn't exactly huge, so air assets can be on call rather quickly for a situation.  There isn't much room for branch arguments inside the IDF, and in truth they are probably the most experienced, best trained, and hardest-fighting force out there in the world.  They are the example every military should really look up to, in truth.

So, you would say that the IDF only manages to avoid inter-service rivalry due to the fact that they are virtually constantly at war, and due to the small size of the country?

I like to take the logical lean towards things, in truth.  It makes things much more effective and smoother going.

Am I correct in saying that my idea could be done, but going it your way would smoother, or am I wrong?


KJ Lesnick

[Sauragnmon]

Kendra,

I would say the IDF's nature as being so smooth-running would stem, yes, to the fact they are almost always at war and the small size of the military and country - they don't have time for inter-branch problems and the like, so it's never really an issue - they're from day one operating as an integrated combined force.

You are indeed saying your way could be done, but it's a little more divided in nature and would suffer longer communication lines that could provide more margins for screwups or inter-branch bickering.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon,

I would say the IDF's nature as being so smooth-running would stem, yes, to the fact they are almost always at war and the small size of the military and country - they don't have time for inter-branch problems and the like, so it's never really an issue - they're from day one operating as an integrated combined force.

Makes sense. 

You are indeed saying your way could be done, but it's a little more divided in nature and would suffer longer communication lines that could provide more margins for screwups or inter-branch bickering.

I'm confused by the particular wording.  Would you say it could be done, even despite the fact that it would be a bit more divided in nature and suffer longer communication lines and provite more margins for screw-ups or inter-branch bickering?

[Sauragnmon]

Kendra,

I have to agree, it Could be done, even if it would be, to be frank, a practical exercise in the art of cluster-coital operations.  It'd be possible, but it'd be messy I think.  I wouldn't want to be in that army, certainly.