Aviation Assets.

[Abbott Shaull]

Hearing the local Coast Guard Helo fly by had me thinking.

What would the US or for that fact any NATO member would have in actual usable helos. I know the US Divisional Aviation Brigade has been quite enlarged, by moving assets from upper levels down and new units.

Yet, in the t2k original time-line. Would there be enough left around, especially in Europe to be of much use. I do understand the Middle East assets having a large number of them left, then again with the 101st Air Assault and 6th Air Combat Cavalry Brigade accounted for the large number still in operational use by both units after Army helos were consolidated into those two units.

Yet, in Europe and Korea, we don't get any information on if there any that are still operational at any level, at least from the modules. I know there were air modules in the Challenge Magazine. Also in Krakow there was 1 Helo. From what I have seen of helo compliment at Pact Divisional level and losses this wouldn't seem too far fetch. I mean they make a big deal of giving AFV info even if they M728 CEV or LAV-75, but only give helos to 6th ACCB and 101st. I am sure there are more helos in Europe than that, granted fuel was the main problem, but somewhere I am sure someone would try to consolidate them into such units as the pre-war 11th and 12th Aviation Brigade and scrounging up what every they could find for fuel....

So as GM are we to assume that most Helos have been consolidated at some level above Division or are there too few to even worry about. Yeah, I know their is limit supply of fuel for them, but I still find hard to believe that even the limited Offensive of 2000, that NATO didn't try to get something of operational unit to support the 3rd German Army at least even if they didn't have enough to give assets to Corps levels.

I do know Grae had the 5th Mechanized down to few aircraft that were grounded due to lack of fuel for the most part.

Any thoughts.

[Adm.Lee]

I just assumed if there was any jet fuel left in 2000, it would be saved for fast-movers, rather than helos.

Maybe a lift ship or two for a really important special-ops mission.

[Raellus]

Spare parts would also be an issue in 2000.

I went to a local airshow a couple of months back and a CH-53 crew chief said it took like 60 man-hours of maintainance for every hour flying. If you don't have the spare parts to make repairs, your bird is grounded. After the manufacture of new spares comes to a halt in late '97, the only way to get spares is to cannibalize other birds. Over time, you'd have very few operational helis left, even if fuel for them was available.

On the other hand, I think helicopter gunships and/or CAS aircraft like the A-10 or SU-25 would be more valuable in 2000 than the "fast movers" like the F-16, F-15E, and Tornado IDS. With the state of things in 2000, I just think direct battlefield support would be a bigger priority and a better investment than interdiction and deep strike.

[Abbott Shaull]

You know I understand the spare parts. Yet in Europe the US Army has probably 1.5 times to twice as many helos than they do in the Middle East. Granted too many two Stars would want to keep assets but when a three Star or four Star ask for something, they generally tend to cough up what was asked, even if they do so begrudgingly...

[HorseSoldier]

Everybody in Europe were also operating in what was probably the most lethal air defense environment in human history, Attrition of aviation assets on both sides must have been staggering during the pre-nuclear phase of the war.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes, I also realize this too, that is one of reason why I believe that helo assets would be consolidated more quickly. Too keep those that were operational with the ability to perform their functions. Never bough into the theory into units operating at less 50% of their authorized TO&E before the Nukes dropped in late 1997 and 1998. If Aviation unit or Armor unit dropped below they would be relieved of front-line service and sent to the rear for rest and reoragnization. Which could include the handing over of equipment and personnel to other units to keep them functional.

[Raellus]

Yes, I also realize this too, that is one of reason why I believe that helo assets would be consolidated more quickly. Too keep those that were operational with the ability to perform their functions. Never bough into the theory into units operating at less 50% of their authorized TO&E before the Nukes dropped in late 1997 and 1998. If Aviation unit or Armor unit dropped below they would be relieved of front-line service and sent to the rear for rest and reoragnization. Which could include the handing over of equipment and personnel to other units to keep them functional.

This assumes that operational contingencies would allow for decimated units to be pulled out of the line. Under massive WP pressure, this may not have been possible in many cases.

I still think the paucity of aircraft by 2000 can be explained by pre-TDM attrition (HorseSoldier made this point very well) and post-TDM spares and fuel scarcity.

On one hand, consolidation makes sense. Two or three helis per division are not going to be able to make much of an operational or strategic impact. On the other, concentrating a Corps' worth of helicopters makes them a tempting target for the enemies remaining air/missile forces, effectively putting all the eggs in one basket. For this reason, dispersal, diffusion makes tactical and strategic sense.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes I agree having the assets spread out would make sense, but being able to use them as unit would help too.

[Webstral]

In the Gulf, CENTCOM concentrates its surviving attack helicopters in 6th ACCB.

Webstral

[waiting4something]

Would it be possible for a private army to still have a bunch of air assets? I mean one's off the radar. Or would something like that be easily detected by intel? It'd be bad ass if everyone's air assets are thought to be gone and out of nowhere some A-10's or something start messing stuff up.

[jester]

The craft are not the issue, but the issue is the support structure for strike aircraft, or a large fleet of any size.

ALTHOUGH!

An aviaton museum could be the perfect front for such an operation, just keep the aircraft involved to be older planes.

Instead of a AC131 Spectre, have a DC-3 Puff the Magic Dragon

Have a couple F-4 Phantoms, a P51 or two and some FU Corsairs. Or even a F105 Thunderbolt.

There are many air museums that keep several of their vintage planes in flying condition. And they had spares which is a plus. I can see a force moving in taking over and poof! Instant Air Force. Of course where do they get the fuel for them? Pilots, Aircraft mechanics and even systems can be had or found. Old engines can be replaced with more modern engines with some fabrication, but the fuel to keep them in the air, hydraulic fluid, oil and similiar consumables is the problem that I see, however!

Those can also be raided from other planes at the airport, as well as the onsite mechanics shop and the hangars where private piliots restore and repair their own craft. But even these items will run out.

And then we also have the issue of ordinance?

Machineguns could be found and aquired. Ammo for say a .50 or a .30 caliber can be had or made. But the more advanced ordinance, could become an issue, as well as rockets, and anything other than homemade dumbbombs, or even retarded bombs. There is napalm, but would you use the fuel for that? Or would you use it to fly your planes? Then again they have those fuel air bombs which could be useful.

A cool thought for sure.

[pmulcahy11b]

Although -- most display aircraft are essentially hollow. They're a more-or-less sealed airframe, but not much else.

[Dog 6]

by law all display aircraft in the USA are "cut" . they can't and couldn't be made to fly.

[jester]

Ah, but I am thinking of the working planes at places like Chino's "Planes of Fame" museum and a few other places that do have working models. Or the Confederate now the Commemorative Air Force, these tend to also work in conjunction with many of the air museums.

As for planes with which are "cut" it all depends on what is cut, I would argue that statement, someone with an A&P certificate or a couple people with such with the proper materials could probably make it happen. After all alot of those folks have recovered planes from wrecks that crashed and sat for decades and returned them to flying order.

And, a old style piston inline or radial engine fighter or attack aircraft would require ALOT of maintenance. But, it is doable compared to what a more modern jet would require in terms of maintenance, materials and support and service.

[Targan]

An aviaton museum could be the perfect front for such an operation, just keep the aircraft involved to be older planes.

Instead of a AC131 Spectre, have a DC-3 Puff the Magic Dragon

Have a couple F-4 Phantoms, a P51 or two and some FU Corsairs. Or even a F105 Thunderbolt.

Great idea. The F-4 Phantom probably isn't a good example though. I may be wrong but IIRC the Phantom required a lot of maintenance man hours per hour of flight time. Piston powered aircraft would be very viable though, IMO.

[copeab]

Not just a preference for piston engines, but radial piston engines. They are more reliable than inlines (note how virtually every carrier plane in WWII used a radial engine*). Also, being air-cooled instead of liquid-cooled, it doesn't require a radiator and thus is less vulnerable to battle-damage (a single bullet can knock out an inline engine -- it's very difficult for a single bullet to knock out a radial engine).

Crop dusters are useful for conversions to emergency ground attack aircraft. They are fairly common, nimble, and have a useful payload capacity.

[jester]

Yes, I too preffer radial engines, but, one can not argue with the inline engines of the Alison variety that powered the Spitfire or the P-51 Mustang, two planes that were some of the best of their class. And the P-51 was still in service with some nations into the 70s.

As for F-4, it would be cool, but the amount of JP-4 they would require is insane. Hit after burner and forget it.

As for man hours, if you have the personel then it doesn't matter that much. Heck, even today the CH-53s and CH-46s require an ungodly amount of maintenance hours for each flight hour. It is what comes with using old airframes. My main thing with Jets vs piston driven is one requires alot of technology to keep it in the air. Others, well you can work on them in a garage and even use a regular mechanic for some of its maintenance, as well as high grade vehicle items. And parts can be fabricated easier than those for a new F-18. And all the other support services needed to keep them in the air.

As for biplanes! Oh yeah! Those could be made quite easily, and some of them flew on kerosene which would be interesting. Or how about a small fleet of dirgibles? They follow the wind, fly about the enemy lines taking pictures and dropping bombs as they pass enemy positions. then, they return with the wind several hours later to freindly lines.

[Adm.Lee]

Yes, I too preffer radial engines, but, one can not argue with the inline engines of the Alison variety that powered the Spitfire or the P-51 Mustang, two planes that were some of the best of their class. And the P-51 was still in service with some nations into the 70s.

Quibble: The Allison was in the P-38, P-39 and P-40. Mustangs and Spitfires used Rolls-Royce Merlins. The earliest models of the Mustang (P-51, P-51A and A-36A) had Allisons, and they were mediocre fighters. The British put Merlins in their Lend-Lease Mustangs, and found they had a winner! Upgrading to a four-bladed prop didn't hurt, either.
I was at the "Gathering of Mustangs" in Columbus 2(?) years ago, and it was phenomenal to see 100 Mustangs there. A 20-ship formation flyover was something to see!
Finally, The Nicaraguan Air Force was flying (radial-engined) P-61 Black Widows in the 1979 civil war. IIRC, the Honduras-El Salvador "Football War" of 1969 featured Corsairs vs. Mustangs.

As for biplanes! Oh yeah! Those could be made quite easily, and some of them flew on kerosene which would be interesting. Or how about a small fleet of dirgibles? They follow the wind, fly about the enemy lines taking pictures and dropping bombs as they pass enemy positions. then, they return with the wind several hours later to freindly lines.

The biplanes are more likely, dirigibles need a lot of material to make.

[Webstral]

Some time ago, there was a lengthy debate about the viability of airships. It's true that airships require vastly greater resources to construct than biplanes. The two types of aircraft aren't very comparable, though. One would use them for very different purposes. Given this, the range of cantonments capable of constructing and operating biplanes almost certainly will be much greater than the range of cantonments capable of constructing and operating airships.

Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

Zeppelins and blimps require a lot of infrastructure to make work -- source of helium or hydrogen and equipment to handle it, hangars (or just mooring masts, though you'll eventually need the ability to hangar for maintenance and such).

It would be a lot for a someone to cobble together in an out of the way spot (like Airlords of the Ozarks), but probably not unreasonable for MilGov, CivGov, or their foreign equivalents to start putting up in the air as rebuilding gets up a head of steam.

[jester]

Okay, then how about a balloon, a large balloon with a large enough basket in it to carry a couple machineguns for straffing, or some bombs, or a night mission where a squad fast ropes down to do their thing.

I am thinking of that old 60s or 70s movie where they traveled around ina balloon.

[pmulcahy11b]

Okay, then how about a balloon, a large balloon with a large enough basket in it to carry a couple machineguns for straffing, or some bombs, or a night mission where a squad fast ropes down to do their thing.

I am thinking of that old 60s or 70s movie where they traveled around ina balloon.

There is a V1 module, Airlords of the Ozarks,that centers around the use of airships by New America, and ultralights to oppose them.

[Webstral]

Getting back to the original question of Army aviation assets, I agree with some of the ideas already posted. Consolidation of the surviving assets into formations large enough to have a significant impact probably would occur even before the nuclear exchange began. Attrition the conventional battlefield would be very significant, to say the least. Although I am a firm believer in the ability of American/Western aviators to adapt to changing circusmtances, given the comparative loss rates v manufacturing time available from 10/96 through 07/97, succcessful adaptation by NATO helicopter pilots means a lowered loss rate. Losses still continue to mount at a rate greatly surpassing the West's ability to replace them.

Some time ago, we had a thread about the TO&E for armor in a division in mid-2000 that had a handful of operational AFV. The general consensus was that surviving tanks would be consolidated into formations that allowed commanders to continue to use them in the types of massed formations that history has shown are the foundation of modern mobile warfare, rather than keeping surviving tanks dispersed in penny packets among many smaller formations. Additionally, if the surviving tanks are consolidated into a single battalion, administrative and support issues are somewhat simplified. This isn't to say that battalion task forces can't be created with smaller packages of armor; however, the appropriate level of command has the option to parcel out tanks or keep them concentrated at will.

The aviation picture probably looks much the same. Surviving aviation assets and support would be consolidated at whatever level was necessary to ensure that a suitably capable formation could be kept in action. At some point, we would see aviation reserved at the corps level, then at the army level. Organizational consolidation does not necessary mean that the surviving helicopters are physically co-located. Just as artillery occupying widely-dispersed firing positions can be coordinated to strike a common target, so helicopters dispersed throughout the tactical or operational rear of an army (like the Seventh US Army) can be managed to execute a common mission. Protecting these assets against nukes, chemical weapons, conventional air attacks, and commando raids would be a high priority, as well as a real challenge given the varying nature of protective methods one would take against each of these threats.

Of course, by mid-2000 all of this may be passe. Seventh US Army may be able to operate only a handful of choppers, or none at all. Lack of fuel and spares, along with the deplorable state of the lines of communication in North Central Europe, may mean that the birds become inoperable.

I like the idea of using biplanes, though. Aerial recce will be as valuable as ever in 2000. Given the lack of aircraft, it might even be possible to use gliders or stationary balloons with telescopes and video recorders. Of course, those glider pilots are going to need some inccredible intestinal fortitude.

Gliders and biplanes for recce... Something to ponder. Getting back to some of my own work (sorry, guys--it's always going to be that way), in Manifest Destiny, a cantonment capable of manufacturing biplanes in 2001 will have a lot to offer MilGov or CivGov. If biplanes can be manufactured someplace with a reasonable degree of quality control, and if they can be moved over long distances (say, in the cargo hold of an airship or cinched to the bottom of the airship's cab), and if suitable fuel can be provided, then it just might be possible for American forces working to bring CONUS back under control to operate with air power. Even given the severe limitations of biplanes, the psychological impact of the USAF supporting ground operations would be staggering. Combine biplanes, ultralights, and airships with guns, rockets, and bombs, and you might just have a winning combination.

The Shogun's going to be bummed.

Webstral

[jester]

Light Easily Made Inexpensibe Planes:

It is VERY Simple to make such planes like the pipercub. A simple rec plane with either a thin sheet metal skin, or a fabric skin stretched over a frame of light metal tubing or wood. Personaly I would go with metal tubing or even metal framework, and a thin metal skin over would provide the best support.

You could make it where the wings simply unbolt from the frame and slide out. Another more complicated place, where and how to mount the engine. I would also use a pusher engine as it is more efficient and usualy allows for a more manuverable platform.

I would also have the wings in the high profile configuration with a centraly mounted engine.

Engines I would use, VW engines and Fiat engines would work well as they are aircooled and not watercooled, a 4 cylinder engine would do well in a light plane which is what we are going for.

Then, we simply install the control features in the fail and wings. These are usualy used by a pulley and wire system connected to the pedals and control stick.

As I said, get half a dozen aircraft mechanics, an engineer with the facilities and materials and they could probably put together such a craft that is safe and flys. It just won't have alot of the frills that most have these days.

Another idea with my aircraft design is you can fly it with landing gear that falls away from the aircraft. Which eliminates weight and drag, not to mention any controls. Upon landing it lands like a glider, another aspect of the high rear propeller.

And again, the bigger problem isn't making the aircraft, its the fuel to keep them flying. If one has a catonment they could manage a primative aircraft as they used to and still do store many in barns. As an evil GM I would balance the availability with a lack of technicians or fuel, making it very time consuming to process regular gas into avaiation grade fuel.

[Webstral]

One could launch a glider-type aircraft from what amounts to a giant slingshot or a fast-moving pulley powered by a counterweight. While this would not be a suitable weapons platform, it could be a very acceptable recce platform. With the right equipment, it might also be a radio relay station.

The real trick is having a sufficiently stable food source, a tolerable local security situation, people with the requisite skills available, and the right tools and materials. With some imagination, I'm sure many specific locales justifiably could be made to have all of these things.

I'm thinking that the Navy in SF Bay might put up an aerostat for radio relay and observation. If a pre-war aerostat can be refitted and repurposed, it may be possible to include a weatherized cabin with a radio room, etc. Crews might go up for approximately twelve hours at a time, although the intervals should be unpredicatble. The aerostat would be lowered for crew changes, then put back up for the next period of operations. If nothing else, a big balloon with the national colors and US NAVY on it visible from every part of the Bay should boost the good guys' morale.

Webstral

[headquarters]

we have a few older type planes on our site that were meant to use if you agreed on the older planes would be more useful theory in T2K .

(Or if you wanted to play some historical setting ).

Definently the older planes are more useful as they ned less fuel , have less electronics and can be maintenanced easier.

Biplanes for recce and artillery spotting would mean a huge advantage over a ground locked adversary .

Aerostats weer used in the war of the states using coal gas , in T2K it could very well make a comeback were no vantage points were available .

I believe the Grumman company already made one of their WWII type fighterbombers into a duster. I think its called the AgCat (Agriculture).

Given a cantonment with a steady food supply,a motivated leadership and some capable fellows to go out and get stuff , putting a few older type aircraft in the air is a possibility imho .

We have a non canon campaign that have seen a lot of aerial combat over the years - the players reverted to the "NotJagerprogramme" to counter the MilGov consolidation efforts . ( MilGov was crunching out a few WWII type planes and using them to gain airsuperiority .It could have meant constitutional rule of law in the CONUS.A disaster for the party.had to be stopped )

;)

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Actually I always thought that much like at the beginning of WW2 where our military was very limited, that we would ramp up production once war began. Even after the nukes hit, there would be plenty of places that were not hit that could and would be turned into wartime production. I would think that we would at least be in short by at least 98 making counter insurgency type aircraft. Maybe even by 99 producing at least WW2 level of technology in tanks and APC's of even post WW2 armor and weapons.

Yea nuked American cities would be horrible, but one thing that was never taken into account is the American response much like to the twin tower or pearl harbor attack response. Auto factories would be turned into producing military trucks and tanks, small industry would be turning out other military equipment like mortars, fire arms, radios, uniforms, etc.

Just a thought and perhaps an interesting alternate time line anyway.

[headquarters]

Actually I always thought that much like at the beginning of WW2 where our military was very limited, that we would ramp up production once war began. Even after the nukes hit, there would be plenty of places that were not hit that could and would be turned into wartime production. I would think that we would at least be in short by at least 98 making counter insurgency type aircraft. Maybe even by 99 producing at least WW2 level of technology in tanks and APC's of even post WW2 armor and weapons.

Yea nuked American cities would be horrible, but one thing that was never taken into account is the American response much like to the twin tower or pearl harbor attack response. Auto factories would be turned into producing military trucks and tanks, small industry would be turning out other military equipment like mortars, fire arms, radios, uniforms, etc.

Just a thought and perhaps an interesting alternate time line anyway.

I believe that this would take place as well .Maybe such programs would have to be initiated by commandeering local resources by the local military cmdr.

[HorseSoldier]

The main choke points would be the level of complexity involved in manufacturing big ticket items like jets, tanks, etc. An auto plant could be pretty easily switched over to making Humvees (even up armored ones) instead of passenger cars, but making more M1 tanks would require a massive retooling and redesign effort to just get the facilities suitable for it, even before encountering any additional complications getting components, etc.

I do think the powers that be would un-mothball all the military production facilities available (if memory serves me correctly there were a couple plants for tank production and some ammunition producing arsenals kept in standby mode for just such an eventuality).

I don't know if there was much Cold War era ability to surge aircraft production, but I'd guess there'd be round the clock shifts pulling stuff out of the boneyard in Arizona to replace combat losses.

Once the nukes fly and the massive reduction in fuel distribution takes the food distro networks and most everything else with it, I don't think you'd see much above the local level -- even when government control is retained in a fairly broad area, the odds of having everything you need in one cantonment/area is pretty slim (remembering how defense contractors prudently spread production out among as many politically significant states as possible to keep Congressional delegations fighting for their programs and such). Anything much beyond the level of what you can accomplish with a well equipped machine shop is probably unlikely, but that still means that governments could be cranking out things like mortars, SMGs, rifles, uparmor kits for military and civilian vehicles, etc., pretty easily.

[jester]

I would suggest that even lighter artillery would be able to be produced for some time. And as was stated, the same could be said for airfraft of WWII era and just after, just not jet technology.

Such aircraft such as the old Flying Box Car and even C-130s would be certainly doable if you left off the frills of hi tech electronics and computers.

Again a large airframe of the C-130 class would take some time to build but could be done in a remote desert hangar what was large enough. The other airfraft, easier because they are smaller and of course lower on the technology scale. And that would make them well within the realm of ability in the T2K world.

I would also think a return to WWII style weaponry <recoil operated machineguns, much simplier than the gas piston systems> so I would say that we would see a return of the Browning and Maxim or Vickers class machineguns as they are simplier to make using just steel that is machined and a few stampings vice steel, steel and other alloys, stamping, welding and machineing and assorted polymers and plastics.

So, something along the lines of the Mini 14 could come into service as a primary issue rifle to suppliment small arms.

As I said, light artillery could also be produced on smaller numbers in the 105 and 75mm howitzer class is WWII technology that again would be quite capable in a small manufacturing shop.

And as was said, if parts manufacture was farmed out, as well as subcomponents done at another location/facility then the final assembly could be done and you could probably turn out a completed unit a week if materials and transportation remained uninterupted.

[HorseSoldier]

So, something along the lines of the Mini 14 could come into service as a primary issue rifle to suppliment small arms.

As I said, light artillery could also be produced on smaller numbers in the 105 and 75mm howitzer class is WWII technology that again would be quite capable in a small manufacturing shop.

My guess would be something like a Mini-14 would be too labor and machining intensive compared to, say, an AK. For any post-nuke completely new design, I'd guess that even if people weren't just making straightforward AK clones, they'd draw more on that style of design (as well as the StG-44 and CETME/G3) -- but I suppose it depends on available machinery and other resources.

Artillery in other than existing calibers runs into a secondary choke point on the ammunition supply. I suspect that given the choice between building a small number of reproductions of WW1 vintage 75mm field guns and ammo for them and a much larger number of medium and heavy mortars with comparatively plentiful ammo, the latter path wins for just about all applications in a scavenger economy.

[pmulcahy11b]

One thing is that the government's stock of core weapons (M16, M4, M9, M203, AT4, etc) would be readily available as plans that could be distributed in an emergency to whoever had the facilities or workshops to build them (as the Nazis did in the late stages of World War 2). Add to this robust and relatively easy-to-build weapons like revolvers, the AK-47/AKM, the M3 Grease gun, the Sten, and suchlike. Think of the amazing work the Nazis were able to accomplish in 1944-45 despite the fact that Germany was largely a ruin.

Here's another thing I always thought would be true post-TDM: things like M16s with wooden stocks, pistol grips, and handguards. Later, you might even see the light alloy construction of the receiver replaced with steel stampings.

[jester]

So something more akin to a AR-18 which is more stamped with a internal assembly similiar to an AK. I do not see the US switching to AKs but rather sticking to something American simply for the purpose of using as one of their main weapons a home designed and manufactured weapon.

Also, rather than a M3 Greasegun, I would think the MAC series of submachineguns would be much easier to produce and use less materials too.

As for pistols, for a little bit more you can make a MAC 10 or MAC 11, it would simplify the aresenal if you could keep the number of additional weapons to a minimuim for ease of logistics, training, repair and resupply, as well as similiar manufacturing considerations.

However, if pistols were wanted. I could see them being personaly purchased by individuals in the military much like was the case for many armies through the centuries where officers were required to provide their own sidearms.

[HorseSoldier]

Don't know how I forgot the AR-18 previously, but yes, that's exactly the sort of rifle I can see MilGov, CivGov, and/or New America manufacturing (though for some reason I always picture New America being way into battle rifles, maybe from hearing too many arm chair militia members talking about how they're going to fight off the Chinese Army with their M1A or something . . .).

On pistols, I can also see the revolver making a come back, since you can (in theory) take, say, a 357 Magnum revolver and run everything from +P+ 357 Magnum loads down to 38 Special loaded with black powder through it.

[HorseSoldier]

Here's another thing I always thought would be true post-TDM: things like M16s with wooden stocks, pistol grips, and handguards. Later, you might even see the light alloy construction of the receiver replaced with steel stampings.

That would be a pretty cool project build for the AR-15 -- a T2K M16EZ. Couple different companies make wood furniture these days, bunch of companies are selling surplus M16A1 kits. Would just need a couple feet of 550 cord to tie the finished product to your back bumper and a stretch of gravel road to drag it up and down a few times to get that been there/done that post-nuclear battlefield look.

[pmulcahy11b]

Another thing: How long would it take before weapon parts, because of different and uneven manufacturing techniques, became no longer interchangeable? Or possibly incompatible with pre-TDM parts?

[headquarters]

For the record , the WWII Luftwaffe had programs running that were overrun by the allies that would have meant that a continued war into 1946 could see numerous jet fighters fielded.

I refer to the excellent pages of Luft46 that has indepth material on these.

A jet engine per say is not very complicated - the V1 bombs had simple jets that actually could be made by pretty untrained personell using scavenged materials.

Building an operational combat aircraft is a totally different matter , but some type of CAS plane could be fielded with very limited resources .Although why you would insist on this being a jet instead of a prop powered one I dont understand - most hitech AAA liek SAMs and indeed much of the radar capacity would be over and done with in this stage of the war ,effectively setting the situation back to around 1945 or eaerlier in terms of anti airpower .
Also there is the question of fuel efficiency , and the advantages that props have in that regard .

If there were factions operating on a level that gave them the possibility to manufacture war supplies after TDM ,(say MilGov or the PolitBureau in what remains of USSR ), putting together a limited production of some sort of "emergency war plane " is certainly possible from a technical point of view.

The alternative being having one or two hi tech fighters with fuel for one or two operations - I would prefer having several old school fighterbombers with fuel for extended ops and aerial recce .Something like the ME-329 or other aircraft that never were -but well have been .

[pmulcahy11b]

That would be a pretty cool project build for the AR-15 -- a T2K M16EZ.

I remember a picture from a magazine about 20-25 years ago of just such a weapon, taken off a dead Sandinista guerrilla by a Honduran unit. It looked pretty weird, but strangely attractive. I imagine, though, it was a good 0.5-1 kilos heavier than a standard M16, though.

[Adm.Lee]

Jets are easier to maintain (fewer moving parts = fewer chances for breakdown), but the materials & skills needed to make them are really expensive and hard to come by, and the fuel is more expensive to refine, AFAIK.

The question, IMO, is how to find and make a high-energy fuel to run those aircraft, prop or jet. You could probably run a blimp or dirigible off ethanol, but not a fixed- or rotary-wing craft.