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

[Sauragnmon]

I think the all-in-one armed forces concept works very much so.  I like the combined-arms layout of the whole principle, and I would consider a few things that would expand on the combined-arms depth of operation.  Here's the general division of tasks per se:

Air Command - Generally, AIRCOM is about two arms of the operation - Strategic Operations and Land-based Air Superiority.  Bombers, Air-to-air operations from land bases, and strategic airlift are the central focuses.

Land Force - Land Force, or generally the Army, retains their own air assets, primarily rotary wing and light fixed wing air units.  Tactical Air Support, Airlift, Close Air Support, it's designed from the start to integrate with ground operations right off the starting block.  Air-integrated drills are commonplace, and quite often, a Division's assets include its air support units.  For example, Light Infantry per se are doubled up between Parachute operations (with their own lift unit integration) and Air Cavalry operations by Rotary Wing.

Naval Aviation - Marine Patrol operations, Naval Air Superiority, Naval Strike and ASW are the primary taskings of the Naval Aviation, or NAVAIR, in my vision.  Generally, fighter operations would be Ideally combined between NAVAIR and AIRCOM for commonality and maintenance, but the Navy would be allowed specialized versions designed to support carrier operations.

Marine Force - Much like Land Force, the Marines are generally given their own air support assets - TacAir, TacLift, Rotary Support.  Marines are tasked primarily with Amphibious and Riverine Warfare - they're also given their own CVLs for the sake of independant operation, though trained to integrate with naval task groups.  The Marines are also given full command of Strategic Surface Assets - Battleships (and you naysayers can get the hell off my post) will be continually held in regard under Marine assets, kept in modernization, and generally given full authority by the Marines for strategic surface support operations.  To this end, for the most part, the Marines are also given general operation of any Sealift capacity, as it rather directly influences their operational capacity.

Strategic Force - this would be the arm of the forces that generally lends itself to maintenance and operation of theater and strategic missile forces, notably the heavy units especially.  They are also generally given direct control of Long Range Reconnaisance and Space assets, owing to the dual nature of Strategic Missiles and Spacelift operations.  To a degree, this also makes them of importance for intelligence operations, as they provide reconnaisance at range, and imaging/signals intelligence through satellite assets.


That's just my two cents.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I wouldn't have developed a system like SAGE...  I'd have either insisted on a design with a HOTAS like system, or twin-crew. 

[GTX]

I wouldn't have developed a system like SAGE...  I'd have either insisted on a design with a HOTAS like system, or twin-crew. 

That makes no sense to me?

Greg

[KJ_Lesnick]

GTX,

Well for the role of air-defense, which would be one of the roles for an Air-Force, I would not have developed my interceptors like the F-102 or F-106, being dependent on an elaborate system like SAGE to take control of and steer aircraft towards their targets.  It's overly complicated, you can use conventional radios to tell the pilot which heading's to fly, and if you have reasonably low workload, you don't need a hands-off intercept system. 

A hands-on-throttle and stick system which was used on the English Electric Lightning managed to allow one pilot to carry out an intercept.  Alternatively a twin-seat interceptor would also eliminate the need for a hands-of ground controlled intercept.

[Sauragnmon]

Remote-control to me screams "we don't think our pilots can do the job, so we're going to do it For them" personally.  I also think a two-man interceptor would be better for my Air Command's Area Interceptor - add to that the AEW&C system, and give the RIO an ability to have a large-sector map-screen to make him a small-area AEW, courtesy of an uplink to the AEW&C aircraft - own-aircraft radar pickups are marked for identification, and visible on a second screen to identify what the plane is seeing, but on the larger screen, you get an area of space around you and the ability to get uplinked data from the AEW aircraft, and the controller can additionally mark data and information to uplink to the fighter points of reference and the like, allowing for further C3I between the interceptor and the AEW to affect better air superiority operations.  The RIO is also the man who directs intercepts in the aircraft, leaving the pilot to affect better combat flying.

But that's just me being idealistic in regards to the concept.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon

Remote-control to me screams "we don't think our pilots can do the job, so we're going to do it For them" personally.

It does show a lack of faith in the ability of a pilot to carry out the intercept

[Sauragnmon]

I agree - more money in training and C3I will never be beat out my something like SAGE for the output and efficiency of intercept aircraft.  After all, what's the pilot there for but to do the job of intercepting things?

[Taiidantomcat]

I should point out that "naval aviator" does not necessarily mean "Pilot" I knew a carrier captain who made his living flying IN E-2Cs, not flying them personally though.

[KJ_Lesnick]

If you had an air-force that covered both land-based and sea-based ops, I have a question (Which I have revised due to the Post #23 by Taiidantomcat)...  

How would you deal with the issue of carrier-command?  In the US, carriers are commanded by Naval Aviators or Naval Flight Officers (who are aircrews who are not pilots); with the USAF, you have air-bases commanded by USAF pilots.  When it comes to Aircraft Carriers, are there any countries with aircraft-carriers that do not require their commanders to be pilots or flight-officers?

[Sauragnmon]

I would think that redundancy is important - command staff who know the intricacies of the flight operations, can thus command the carrier in such a way as to make those operations as efficient as possible.  It makes sense to me, personally.

[Weaver]

GTX,

Well for the role of air-defense, which would be one of the roles for an Air-Force, I would not have developed my interceptors like the F-102 or F-106, being dependent on an elaborate system like SAGE to take control of and steer aircraft towards their targets.  It's overly complicated, you can use conventional radios to tell the pilot which heading's to fly, and if you have reasonably low workload, you don't need a hands-off intercept system. 

A hands-on-throttle and stick system which was used on the English Electric Lightning managed to allow one pilot to carry out an intercept.  Alternatively a twin-seat interceptor would also eliminate the need for a hands-of ground controlled intercept.

The workload in a Lightning during a radar intercept was frighteningly high, with the pilot trying to simultaneously fly the plane, look out, operate the radar, interpret what it was telling him and do some pretty complicated mental arithmetic to work out turn-in points and curves, all whilst closing the target at 1000+ knots relative. It makes you wonder how many combat intercepts would have been fluffed due to the pilot's brain maxing out under pressure.

It's this overload which SAGE and it's ilk were designed to address, but to my mind, they're fatally vulnerable to jamming or destruction of the ground infrastructure, and if the pilots arn't able or equipped to do without them at such times, then the system falls down. Until 1980s electronics began to reliably reduce pilot workload, I'd advocate a two-seater every time for self-controlled intercepts with on-board radar, and simple GCI for single-seat point-defence interceptors.

RAF VC-10 tankers are fitted with JTIDS terminals so that they can act as datalink nodes to extend the range at which Tornado F.3 interceptors can receive the JTIDS picture. This lead me to wonder about extending the concept to an "Interceptor Support Aircraft" which is basically a tanker with a thumping great nose radar and a datalink. It wouldn't act as an AWACS, rather it would just provide extended-range radar data to anyone who wanted it, whether that was an interceptor making it's own decisions, a formation of interceptors under the command of the flight leader, or an airborne or ground-based control centre.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon,

I would think that redundancy is important - command staff who know the intricacies of the flight operations, can thus command the carrier in such a way as to make those operations as efficient as possible.  It makes sense to me, personally.

Makes sense to me.  What I'm wondering if you had an all encompassing air-force covering both naval and land operations, how would you make such a thing work?  Would you have a system in which they could switch their service from Air Force to Navy when carrier command enters the equation?  Some kind of dual-commission in which carrier-based air-crews hold dual-commissions (both Air Force and Navy) allowing them to be both Navy (command a ship) and Air Force (pilots/flight-crew) at the same time?

Also, are there any countries which operate carriers that do not require their captains to be flight-crews?


Weaver,

The workload in a Lightning during a radar intercept was frighteningly high, with the pilot trying to simultaneously fly the plane, look out, operate the radar, interpret what it was telling him and do some pretty complicated mental arithmetic to work out turn-in points and curves, all whilst closing the target at 1000+ knots relative. It makes you wonder how many combat intercepts would have been fluffed due to the pilot's brain maxing out under pressure.

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.

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?

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)

It's this overload which SAGE and it's ilk were designed to address, but to my mind, they're fatally vulnerable to jamming or destruction of the ground infrastructure, and if the pilots arn't able or equipped to do without them at such times, then the system falls down.

Very good point.  Ground infrastructure goes, or a computer malfunction comes up and the intercept system fails.  I actually didn't even think of that

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.

I'd advocate a two-seater every time for self-controlled intercepts with on-board radar

I'd have to generally agree with you there.  

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?

and simple GCI for single-seat point-defence interceptors.

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.

RAF VC-10 tankers are fitted with JTIDS terminals so that they can act as datalink nodes to extend the range at which Tornado F.3 interceptors can receive the JTIDS picture. This lead me to wonder about extending the concept to an "Interceptor Support Aircraft" which is basically a tanker with a thumping great nose radar and a datalink. It wouldn't act as an AWACS, rather it would just provide extended-range radar data to anyone who wanted it, whether that was an interceptor making it's own decisions, a formation of interceptors under the command of the flight leader, or an airborne or ground-based control centre.

Interesting concept...


KJ Lesnick

[Sauragnmon]

Yeah, that's somewhat of a difference in situations - if you have a situation where the airforce, per se, is all encompassing and rules over anything with wings, then you have somewhat of a conundrum.  I would imagine at the least in this case the commanding officer of the carrier would have to likely have a logistical background in some way, or else there would have to be some level of integration of airforce situational control into the naval operations with regards to the carrier.  Either way you look at it, you have a command officer who will have to have some background in the knowledge of the operations he's overseeing with regards to his ship - no CO worth his salt is going to be without situational awareness on his ship.  It would, I would imagine, make for some serious problems in the case of the situation, where-in you have the issues of communication in that respect.  Kind of why I divided up the air assets and assigned them directly to subordinate roles - it's a little old school in some ways, but it provides for better combined-arms integration.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sauragnmon,

Yeah, that's somewhat of a difference in situations - if you have a situation where the airforce, per se, is all encompassing and rules over anything with wings, then you have somewhat of a conundrum.

Logistically tricky to pull off, huh?  Also, the next question is would you include helicopters into such an Air Force, or would you have helicopters being used by the Army, and Navy?  Considering I take the CAS role more seriously than the actual USAF did, I instinctively think it would be a good idea to keep the choppers under this Air Force.

Still I'd like to hear your opinion

I would imagine at the least in this case the commanding officer of the carrier would have to likely have a logistical background in some way, or else there would have to be some level of integration of airforce situational control into the naval operations with regards to the carrier.  Either way you look at it, you have a command officer who will have to have some background in the knowledge of the operations he's overseeing with regards to his ship

Makes sense.  I'd still like to know if the RN or French Navy require their carrier captains to be flight-crews...

Kind of why I divided up the air assets and assigned them directly to subordinate roles - it's a little old school in some ways, but it provides for better combined-arms integration.

So your idea was to have an Army Air Force and a Navy Air Force?


KJ Lesnick

[Sauragnmon]

Kendra,

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.  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.

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.

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.  Essentially, in my armed forces, every army division has its own air assets, varying in quantity by the unit's design, and as such is integrated to operate with that unit - dedicated Tac Air Support, on call, when you need it, kind of like DivArty assets.  Similarly the Marines have the Battleships, since they are primarily tasked with amphibious warfare, and it's in essence a DivArty El Grande asset.  My Armed Forces concept is a somewhat more divided, yet Combined Arms force, where each arm is given support and equipment to handle their operations in theatre.