Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer
As far as proportions of what might still be flyable, I think the RDF Sourcebook probably gives as good an outlook in terms of percentages. The US still has one carrier in need of repair moored in Kuwait, but a lot (relatively) of intact USAF birds (F15s and A10s, IIRC) and that's not to consider what the UK might have (probably the majority being SEPECAT Jaguars, Tornados, and Harriers - possibly even Buccaneers).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToughOmbres
By 2000 I can definitely see Jaguars, a handful of Harrier and Tornados left-with only one or two Lightings surviving. It seems more likely that more Hawks would have survived in numbers, unless they were expended in their emergency role as CAP over the UK.
|
In thinking about this some more, given the scarcity of operational aircraft, fuel, spare parts, and munitions, and targets worth potential losing such assets on, extent air forces would eventually switch pretty much exclusively from tactical-level strikes to operational-level strikes (by 2000, strategic-level targets would likely have been destroyed by nuclear weapons).
We've seen a similar pattern in the RL Ukraine War with how the UAF uses its small force of modern strike aircraft. I haven't seen any footage of said aircraft performing CAS missions. On the other hand, there's hours of footage of UAF air strikes on Russian headquarters, forward arms depots, drone operations centers, and other operations level targets. Granted, these are almost always stand-off attacks using tactical cruise missiles, or smart glide bombs, but the cost-benefit considerations in both cases are similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer
The question is down to use of aircraft, fuel, and munitions over target value.
|
This.
-