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.