How long would Aviation units be effective.

[Abbott Shaull]

Okay with the various logistical problem that both Helicopter units and Air Force units has me wondering two questions?

1. How long before the lack of spare parts, run out of war stock, and in fuel requirement would force the leadership on both side to start to cut back on the use of all type of aviation units in general?

2. Replacements of both aviation airframes, pilots, and crews that maintain them? We talk about how long it would take to train and then field more traditional ground units. Yet, we rarely discuss the length of time it would take to properly train pilot and the people who maintain them. Also how fast could production of Airframe be increased from say even early 1995 to the time when the US, UK, and Canadians join the war.

[Mohoender]

It will depend.

Antonov 2 and Mig-21 will fly much longer than F-16.

Helicopters might flight much longer than most aircrafts (no fly by wire on them at the time).

Mirage III will prove superior to Mirage 2000.

F-100 Super Sabre will find their way back to first line.

Mig-29 might become the most advance fighter.

The F-4 Phantom being my favorite aircraft and the one I always found the most impressive, I might not dislike that situation.

According to a retired french fighter pilot I know (he was operating in Africa in the 1950-1960), he often flown russian aircrafts as they could be fixed with anything. Once he used spares from a russian truck to make an aircraft airworthy.

DC-3, C-123 and Hercules will be the US air force mules.

And a cessna might become a mighty combat machine.

I have attempted to get around this subject but failed so far (too vast, much too vast).

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

It will depend.

Antonov 2 and Mig-21 will fly much longer than F-16.

Mig-29 might become the most advance fighter.

And a cessna might become a mighty combat machine.

Mohoender,

A friend of mine pointed out the Mig-29's engines were only rated for 500 hours service. But the An-2 would basically go forever. So basically expect to see a great deal of prop aircraft.

Someone suggested at some point the Confederate Air Force (circa 2000, of course the name would not have changed) could be put to good use. However, the Soviets have exceptional air defences and I would imagine that attrition for combat missions would be severe.

Tony

[Marc]

Just some thoughts.

By the late 80’s and early 90’s, some western aircraft designers, assessed by experienced fighter pilots introduce some new factors not taken into account in the past decades. Among them, the appreciation that the need of a long and well prepared runway was a severe weakness. This was especially true if the use of tactical nuclear devices was a probable choice. Expensive and powerful fighters of the past, like the F-4 and Mirage III, or some new designs, like the F-15 or Mirage-2000, don’t have the appropriate characteristics to operate from short and not-well prepared runways. To add more concern about this question, all this runways were included in extensive facilities. Such a concentration of manpower, supplies and machines were and obvious target that would eliminate all these state-of-the-art fighters from the equation in just a few hours or days. Not only a change in aircraft design was needed, but some other considerations must to be taken. Thinks like dispersion in small airfields, the ability to operate from highways or the training of the maintenance crew to work “in the field�. Sweden Air Force was an example of this doctrine. Their Saab Viggen was designed with all these problems in mind.

Some other western designs could have good characteristics from this point of view, like the SEPECAT Jaguar or the Harrier. The MIG-29, following the old Russian doctrine, is ready to operate from unprepared runways and have a shorter take-off distance than this antecessors.

Most probably, the old Skyraider will be the perfect choice

[TiggerCCW UK]

I see aircraft like the Pucara becoming massively more effective - their short/rough field capability makes them much more effective all of a sudden. The Harrier was deployed out into hides in the field as well, something I'm amazed was never really capitalised on for newer aircraft designs.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

I see aircraft like the Pucara becoming massively more effective - their short/rough field capability makes them much more effective all of a sudden.

Tigger,

Yes, I can see the US buying Pucaras and spares in bulk from Argentina, especially after the nuclear strikes.

Tony

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Yes, I can see the US buying Pucaras and spares in bulk from Argentina, especially after the nuclear strikes.

And what exactly will they be paying for them with?
Post nuke there will be no banking system. The vast majority of modern wealth is computer based and exists as nothing more than electronic information. EMP will wipe that out entirely.
All that will be left is hard currency, gold, silver and other precious minerals. Forget about the stock market, even paper money... The US (and most countries) will be effectively bankrupted overnight.

[Panther Al]

Until the TDM, I don't see any significant degradation of the use of airpower as the build up to war would allow time to build up spares across the board. Post-TDM however I could see airpower being cut back in this order:

(With exceptions based on specific situations)
First to go would be strategic bombing.
Then deep strike aircraft (but wait... They will be back)
Air forces on the whole will see their fuel allocations drop out significantly at this point.
Army aviation will be next, though there will be small scale use whenever possible.
At this time I would pull fuel back from army aviation as with the nukes being by and large used up, as well as top of the line air defence, using what high end strike aircraft will really pay off against any supply/troop/choke points that may be found, paying off the cutting of deep strike earlier than really needed.

That how I would do it at anyrate. A few hoarded strike fighter and attack aircraft using up some of the fuel tucked away for really really big emergencies would have paid off big in a kalisz situation.

[Adm.Lee]

I think prop planes might make a brief comeback in the recon/liaison role briefly, like during 1999, when their might still be parts and fuel available. After the gasoline goes away, nada. Some of those might be squirreled away for important jobs, like the Krakow helicopter.

Speaking of Krakow, deep in the "Free city" module, there was a nearby village holding an American F-16 pilot prisoner. Then and now, my mind boggles at this- "they've been holding this poor guy for how many years, and haven't found an army to take him away?" Lately, I've been wondering if he wasn't on one of the last strike (or photo-recon) missions of the war, saved up for the summer 2000 offensive. Like maybe a key bridge between Poland and the Soviet reserves in Ukraine? I've been thinking of rescuing him as a convention/one-shot game someday soon. Maybe his pictures are worth something....

[dragoon500ly]

I've been looking over some old Congressional Records and here is the best guess insofar as the Air Farce...

USAF is supposed to maintain about 30 days of war stock, past that, controlled stripping of damaged aircraft to maintain serviceable aircraft to keep aircraft flying for another 15 days.... Right!

The one that had me shaking my head is that US industry was supposed to be in full scale production within that 45-day window!

Then there was a mention that the various ac builders would not be able to restore full production for a period of six months...minimum.

Keeps coming right back to the lead time going into war. To sustain anything like what GDW came up with, there had to be at least a 3-5 year build-up of forces.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I've been looking over some old Congressional Records and here is the best guess insofar as the Air Farce...

USAF is supposed to maintain about 30 days of war stock, past that, controlled stripping of damaged aircraft to maintain serviceable aircraft to keep aircraft flying for another 15 days.... Right!

The one that had me shaking my head is that US industry was supposed to be in full scale production within that 45-day window!

Then there was a mention that the various ac builders would not be able to restore full production for a period of six months...minimum.

Keeps coming right back to the lead time going into war. To sustain anything like what GDW came up with, there had to be at least a 3-5 year build-up of forces.

Yes that is one of the that I ask. Remember the US did have a year or two head start before being attack at Pearl Harbor, some source would push the date back another year or two before 1939. So the US had a considerable lead up to it entry into the war 1941. On the down side, many of the material they were making were being sent to various location to support the UK and it various holdings in the world and to the Soviet Union. It still took the US two more year to properly equip and train units.

Yeah, considering many Division that had been activated were continuously being stripped for Cadre for new Divisions to a point where one Divisional Commander after receiving orders told his superiors that he could send the Cadre, but he would need a Cadre to help train the new troops that would of poured into to fill the ranks. Another thing is after a Reserve or National Guard unit had been activated. It wouldn't take long for it lose it 'local' flavor. I can see units being asked to send troops over early as replacements, if not entire Squads on up to Brigade size units being stripped from a unit to help make up replacements for units already in the fight. Leaving the units to fill void by reorganization and receiving replacements, that they would have to train.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And what exactly will they be paying for them with?

Leg,

To be exact, they could pay with a mineral known as "gold", with the symbol of "Au" from the Greek "Auric" and an atomic weight of 79. Along with other strategic metals, the US government has stockpiled several thousand tons of gold and silver in NYC/Manhattan and Ft. Knox, KY. It's possible in the event of a global war even more would be stockpiled.



Well, you did say be specific!

Even if there wasn't gold available, the USA still has a considerable amount of resources, including mineral rights and other convertible wealth. Finances and bookkeeping existed far earlier than computers, for thousands of years. It wouldn't take long for such methods to be resurrected, in a kind of lend-lease deal like in WWII. That is, not cash (or cigarettes) on the barrelhead but owed for some period, with interest.

Admiral Lee mentioned fuel, and while the supply of JP4/JP8 would decrease (but not cease) and the immense strategic oil reserves be depleted, propeller-driven aircraft can use ethanol instead of kerosene-based fuel. Unfortunately, the engines need to be converted as using ethanol in unmodified engines is more damaging than in petrol engines.

Tony

[natehale1971]

This is one of the reasons I've liked the slow build-up to the war. It allows things to be more indepth and allows for the war to spread all across the globe. Because, admit it... There are states in South America who would love to go at the US if given the chance (such as Venezuela).

My slow build-up idea allowed me to develop background reasons for Mexico to invade the US, and creating the extensive alliance that would cause the US to have to divert resources into the Southern Hemisphere (and another front in Africa as well).

One of the things i loved about Twilight 2000 was the fact we sat down and wrote up all kinds of supplemental materials for conflicts all around the globe (before T2k 2.0 and 2.2 came out) while we were aboard the Ike. Having an Operations Specialist in our group made it really fun. One of my current Gamer friends is an ex-Military Intelligence Specialist... i've got him to promise to help read over the work i'm doing for "WWIV: A World In Flames" to make sure that the write-ups read well.. and i'm not forgetting anything.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

This is one of the reasons I've liked the slow build-up to the war. It allows things to be more indepth and allows for the war to spread all across the globe. Because, admit it... There are states in South America who would love to go at the US if given the chance (such as Venezuela).

Nate,

Without Hugo Chávez in power, would Venezuela be so belligerent? He was elected after a crisis of confidence in 1998. Fitting this into the T2K timeline, it makes sense the government of Venezuela would collapse with or without nuclear strikes, giving Chávez an avenue to power, perhaps with KGB backing (going back for years). Presumably, there would be substantial Venezuelans along with the Mexicans in invading the USA.

Tony

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Nate,

Without Hugo Chávez in power, would Venezuela be so belligerent? He was elected after a crisis of confidence in 1998. Fitting this into the T2K timeline, it makes sense the government of Venezuela would collapse with or without nuclear strikes, giving Chávez an avenue to power, perhaps with KGB backing (going back for years). Presumably, there would be substantial Venezuelans along with the Mexicans in invading the USA.

Tony

In 1992 he carried out a failed coupe... something that if he had someone supporting him, he just might have been able to hold onto power and have six years more time in charge to consolidate power and become a very... very BIG thorn in the side of the US in South America... In fact he's one of the major leaders of the Havana Pact in my campaign...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Even if there wasn't gold available, the USA still has a considerable amount of resources, including mineral rights and other convertible wealth. Finances and bookkeeping existed far earlier than computers, for thousands of years. It wouldn't take long for such methods to be resurrected, in a kind of lend-lease deal like in WWII. That is, not cash (or cigarettes) on the barrelhead but owed for some period, with interest.

Yes, Gold is the obvious first thought, however how interested is another country going to be in gold when the entire world is in the toilet? What are they going to do with all that gold in the short term? How is it going to be shipped to them in the first place and where exactly is the US going to find it? I would imagine Fort Knox is little more than a steaming crater by this time....

Moving on, "rights" are only worth anything when there are organisations and governments in existence to acknowledge them. Resources (such as food) are not likely to be shipped offshore to foreign countries when they're so badly needed at home. In the year or three post nuke, what sort of resources will the US be able to offer to other countries that they might actually be interested in? The US government is effectively a memory. What's left can make promises and treaties, but how much weight would they have?

As for alternate accounting methods, yes, they exist. BUT, the vast majority of records are either electronically stored, or would have been vaporised or buried under piles of rubble when the nukes hit. Yes, the tools may exist, but the value those tools are supposed to handle is effectively gone.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, Gold is the obvious first thought, however how interested is another country going to be in gold when the entire world is in the toilet? What are they going to do with all that gold in the short term? How is it going to be shipped to them in the first place and where exactly is the US going to find it? I would imagine Fort Knox is little more than a steaming crater by this time....

Moving on, "rights" are only worth anything when there are organisations and governments in existence to acknowledge them. Resources (such as food) are not likely to be shipped offshore to foreign countries when they're so badly needed at home. In the year or three post nuke, what sort of resources will the US be able to offer to other countries that they might actually be interested in? The US government is effectively a memory. What's left can make promises and treaties, but how much weight would they have?

As for alternate accounting methods, yes, they exist. BUT, the vast majority of records are either electronically stored, or would have been vaporised or buried under piles of rubble when the nukes hit. Yes, the tools may exist, but the value those tools are supposed to handle is effectively gone.

Leg,

Although it seems natural to us that the only worthwhile investments are "canned food and shotguns" (per Gremlins 2), the Twilight war passed the threshold of civilisational collapse without really anyone noticing. This is one of the keys of the background. Protecting important databases from EMP is hardly rocket science.

Governments at least would be interested in doing business as usual, even during wartime, as they tend to see things in the long term. It's vague how the economy in South America fared, but it's possible there was some kind of exchange of gold at the national level or trade in minerals or oil. Further, they knew (or at least hoped) the war was going to end at some point, if the USA took decades to pay off its debt, so what? The UK just finished paying off its WWII debt, one where civilisation didn't collapse. Obligations could be put off for quite a while.

Perhaps it's like this: if the USA can make good on its promises, then all well and good. If it can't because there is no government or a weak government, then they can pretty much do what they like without retaliation. (For example, nationalise American assets outside the USA.) There might not be many working refineries in (say) 1999 in the USA but a tanker full of crude from the strategic reserve would buy a nice bunch of Pucaras and spare parts from Argentina or a number of then-new Super Tucanos from Embrauer in Brasil.

As for Ft. Knox, it's more than likely the gold was evacuated; it wasn't like no one thought a nuclear war was a possibility. After all, someone tried (and at least partially failed) to recover the gold in Manhattan. Ft. Knox would have a higher priority and easier security.

Tony

[Targan]

I kind of lean towards where Leg is coming from on this one. I just can't see countries trading hardware like aircraft to other countries, even very friendly ones, after the nukes have started flying. It may happen but I think it would be very rare.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

I kind of lean towards where Leg is coming from on this one. I just can't see countries trading hardware like aircraft to other countries, even very friendly ones, after the nukes have started flying. It may happen but I think it would be very rare.

I agree as well. A deal could be struck, but getting the aircraft back to the U.S. is not going to be easy. Also, I'm not sure why, in a deteriorating global security situation, a country would want to part with relatively simple, easy to maintain, combat aircraft.

On a side note, I used to live in Uruguay and they had a few Pucaras. I've seen a couple both on the runway and in the air.

Back to the main question, I think that a couple of tactical nuke strikes (at the very least) would be directed at airfields and/or aviation fuel storage areas. This could only have a detrimental effect on aviation operations.

[Abbott Shaull]

Once the nuke start flying anyone trying to buy military hardware from anyone would be called off. As I recall there were some Cadillac Cage Stingrays that some country had order that made their way into the US Inventory after the start of the war.

That is one of the thing where this war would be very different from WWII. There isn't going to be one nation supplying the bulk of either allied, they would have to fend for themselves. Soviets supply lines to Pact allies would dry up quickly, and supplies from the US to other allies would be drastically reduced too after they started seeing action too.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

A10 would remain flyable for a long period. OV10s would become formidable air support a/c. The working theory was that AV/8B and Gr.2 Harriers would operate from "wherever", so no airfields per se would be needed for them, so you'd probably see those for a while. Less sophisticated helos (more Mi24 and Cobra, less Mi28 and Apache, more Mi4 and A/O/H6 and less OH58) would stay up for a while.

I find the RDF Sourcebook interesting as it outlines a completely different scenario - wings of modern fighter jets, indeed, a carrier with some operational jets onboard.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Once the nuke start flying anyone trying to buy military hardware from anyone would be called off. As I recall there were some Cadillac Cage Stingrays that some country had order that made their way into the US Inventory after the start of the war.

Thailand. In real life they got their 100+ mini-tanks

[Sanjuro]

In 1985 I took part in an exercise called Brave Defender. This was largely an exercise of using non-combat assets (in my case the Bulldog training aircraft) to counter Soviet spetsnatz infiltrators around military bases in remote areas, leaving combat aircraft for frontline use.
Another implication was that, as the war went on, aircraft like the Bulldog might be the last things flying, especially as they could operate from almost anywhere, with limited engineering support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Aviation_Bulldog

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Once the nuke start flying anyone trying to buy military hardware from anyone would be called off. As I recall there were some Cadillac Cage Stingrays that some country had order that made their way into the US Inventory after the start of the war.

According to the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, the Stingrays were originally destined for Pakistan.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

In 1985 I took part in an exercise called Brave Defender. This was largely an exercise of using non-combat assets (in my case the Bulldog training aircraft) to counter Soviet spetsnatz infiltrators around military bases in remote areas, leaving combat aircraft for frontline use.
Another implication was that, as the war went on, aircraft like the Bulldog might be the last things flying, especially as they could operate from almost anywhere, with limited engineering support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Aviation_Bulldog

I've always thought that by the year 2000 the most common Royal Air Force aircraft (in the UK at least) would be the Shorts Tucano, possibly with some sort of jury rigged underwing pylons to carry a basic weaponry load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Tucano

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Once the nuke start flying anyone trying to buy military hardware from anyone would be called off. As I recall there were some Cadillac Cage Stingrays that some country had order that made their way into the US Inventory after the start of the war.

Abbott,

I'm sick and hopped up cold medication, so please take my comments with a grain of salt!

This is completely opposite case. The US, as a direct combatant with a damaged or destroyed industrial infrastructure, would have reason to appropriate vehicles already in inventory destined for someplace else. If Argentina or Brasil were at war with someone or each other it might be different, but they aren't as far as I'm aware. In other words, they have capacity to spare.

After all, it's not the US selling anything to Argentina, it's an intact Argentina selling Pucaras (and/or Brasilian Super Tucanos) to the USA. The crucial difference being these are not active combatants and they have (supposedly) intact industrial bases. Therefore if the US has something others want (either in the future or currently) then this kind of deal would (or at least could) happen because everyone benefits. Besides, it doesn't have to be hundreds of airframes but a dozen, plus spares and a licence to build more (which could be done even with a damaged industrial base).

As a note regarding the Royal Thai Stingrays, I'm unable to find reference if they were in action against the Burmese incursions in 2001. I'd think they would be effective against the Burmese T-54/55s but not so much against T-72s and upgraded Type-69s. As a personal note when I was in Myanmar I had a great opportunity to take pictures of a Chinese-made Nanchang Q-5 taxiing for takeoff at less than 50m range but my camera crapped out. Bummer!

Tony

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Abbott,

As a note regarding the Royal Thai Stingrays, I'm unable to find reference if they were in action against the Burmese incursions in 2001. I'd think they would be effective against the Burmese T-54/55s but not so much against T-72s and upgraded Type-69s.

They weren't. But the their Stingrays could handle T72s and anything else the Burmese have if they had to.

[James Langham]

Most western countries have a large number of civilian aircraft and helicopters. I can see many of these being pressed into service. Jury rigging a GPMG onto a door mount of a helicopter would be easy enough. The aircraft can be used in a liaison or scouting role. Ground attack would be unlikely as the air defenses used against them (even GPMGs and rifles) would make it next to lethal.

By 2000 I can see the English government using them heavily to find marauders etc as long as fuel can be obtained.

As an aside, Luftwaffe training in 1945 for the Me262 was basically this button does this, this pedal does that, off you go... Makes you wonder how far training could be truncated in 1996 onwards.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by helbent4

If Argentina or Brasil were at war with someone or each other it might be different, but they aren't as far as I'm aware. In other words, they have capacity to spare.

I can't be 100% sure about V1, but in V2.X Brazil and Argentina actually go to War with each other. It appears that Argentina might also have declared War on the United Kingdom in 1996.

From pg 242 of the BYB (V2; it's page 241 in V2.2)

Argentina / Brazil

The Argentineans attempted to reoccupy the Falklands after 1996 and the British were unable to spare more than a token force for the Islands' defence. Argentina itself withdrew when War broke out with Brazil in 1998 and a small scale exchange of low yield nuclear weapons between the two countries completed their slide into chaos. Central Government in noth countries has broken down and both are now divided into semifeudal territories ruled by military juntas or local community governments.

Reading that, it looks like the Argentineans manage to take and hold the Falklands for several years. Not quite where either side got the nukes from though. As I said I can't be sure for V1 as I haven't seen my V1 ref's book for years, but I would be surprised if it was drastically different...

I'm aware that the suggestion is that the Argentine Government supply aircraft to the United States after the 1997 nuclear attacks, which obviously predates the 1998 War with Brazil, but I have to agree with those who think any sort of trade of this nature taking place after Nov 1997 is highly unlikely.

Dave

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Protecting important databases from EMP is hardly rocket science.

Ok, the data may be safely backed up, but the ability to share that information is gone. Even if that information could be shared, how can it be verified quickly, or easily? There may be ways, but there are many more ways to falsify the data - therefore the data, correct or otherwise, is essentially worthless in proving the wealth, or otherwise of a nation, corporation, organisation, or individual in a trade situation.

Originally Posted by helbent4

Governments at least would be interested in doing business as usual, even during wartime, as they tend to see things in the long term.

What government is this exactly? Page 13 of the 2.2 BYB and pg 26 of the 1.0 Referees Manual state "Peace might have come, but there were no surviving governments to negotiate it."
Yes, there is Milgov and Civgov in the US, however these were not formed until after the Spring planting in 1999 was finished, and certainly wouldn't have been in any shape whatsoever to carry out international negotiations for quite some time (chances are because of the same reasons that caused the split, foreign nations would have refused to deal with either one for fear of backing the wrong horse and having the payment fall through).

Originally Posted by helbent4

As for Ft. Knox, it's more than likely the gold was evacuated; it wasn't like no one thought a nuclear war was a possibility. After all, someone tried (and at least partially failed) to recover the gold in Manhattan. Ft. Knox would have a higher priority and easier security.

How? Where to? There is over 4,176 (according to Wiki) tonnes of the stuff in there - not a simple task to carry out unnoticed...

Originally Posted by helbent4

This is completely opposite case. The US, as a direct combatant with a damaged or destroyed industrial infrastructure, would have reason to appropriate vehicles already in inventory destined for someplace else.

Correct, and we see this several times in the books (the Cadillac Gage tanks for example). What we do not see is the US retaining anything even close to the ability to seize the goods and possessions not within shooting distance of a US military unit strong enough to throw it's weight about on foreign soil.

Originally Posted by helbent4

After all, it's not the US selling anything to Argentina, it's an intact Argentina selling Pucaras (and/or Brasilian Super Tucanos) to the USA.

Originally Posted by helbent4

The crucial difference being these are not active combatants and they have (supposedly) intact industrial bases.

To quote page 241 of the 2.2 BYB:
"Agentina itself withdrew (from the Falklands) when war broke out with Brazil in 1998, and a small scale exchange of low-yield nuclear weapons between the two countries completed their slide into chaos. Central government in both countries has broken down, and both are now divided into semi-feudal territories ruled by military juntas or local community governments."