If your Air Force could only operate one type of aircraft

>If your Air Force
Simple. They can operate the bus. Back home.

The other branches can handle their own aviation needs. Most self-contained air forces only exist because of protectionist policies that tie the hands of actual military brands.

Throw them into the garbage.

>>35126051
>If your Air Force could only operate one type of aircraft what would it be?
Who's choosing it? If it's the Air Force itself, it'll be the F-35, because supersonic whoosh-boomers are the only type of aircraft its officers are interested in operating.

F-35.

Can do every single role, and is more or less untouchable against anyone else in air to air.

Your country could have one squadron of F-35's and you'll shit on every single slavshit formation the enemy could muster.

>>35126153
This nigga knows

File: 4502282.jpg (123KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x800px

FAMAS

File: Flying Car.webm (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>35126051

>>35126051
AC-130, Thousands of spectre's roaming the skies raining death to anything with a heat signature. Glorious just thinking about it.

Heavy transport helicopters.

Skycranes, specfically, because you can just design a detachable troop compartment.

Air superiority means nothing in the wars we fight today, but mobility does. Having fast logistics putting big things in the right spots in a pinch is a general's wet dream.

File: 22685916_BG1.jpg (153KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1280x720px

>>35126153

>>35126153
Only a year ago shitting on the 35 was in fashion. What changed?

>>35132288
>Only a year ago shitting on the 35 was in fashion
Wat
F-35 shilling on /k/ has been going on for the better part of the decade. I should know, I helped start it.

>>35126153
>F-35. Can't do every single role
FTFY

>>35126091
/thread
Friendly reminder the glory days of the US Air Force was when it was a part of the US Army

>>35126645
>>>/cod/

If an airforce could only operate one type of aircraft, it's budget is probably pretty limited. What about picking up surplus F-15 airframes and becoming the first customer for the Silent Eagle upgrade package?

>>35132574
SE F-15s are more expensive than F-35s

>>35126153
Alright, now use it to transport 100 troops. I'll wait for you to figure out how it can do that.

>>35132742
More capable too.

Helicopters, could work well for my country now that ISIS is here

Side note: guess my country.

File: 04.jpg (72KB, 570x795px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 570x795px

the Mi-26. it can go and steal enemy planes

>>35133000
load them in the internal bay and give them a parachute, duh.

File: how-the-navys-latest-anti-submarine-aircraft-sees-under-the-waves.png (721KB, 1190x574px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1190x574px

737s modified to fire AMRAAMs

>>35126051
A shit ton of F-4 phantoms.

And enlisted can be pilots/rios

>>35126091
How many strategic bombers navy and marines have?

>>35133866
don't need em with missiles.

>>35133875
How many AEW&C planes Marines have?

>>35133901
The Navy has a shit ton. MPA's brother.

>>35133910
>The other branches can handle their own aviation needs.

>>35133912
you're missing the point. all that hardware needs to be given to the army and navy.
>navy doesn't have strategic bombers... hurr durr...
give them some. disband the chairforce and give the real militaries back the capabilities they should've never lost, (or lost the opportunity to develop.)

>>35133941
You're oblivious to the logistics of air operations on a large scale.

That's the reason for separate branches, compartmentalization increases efficiency.

Otherwise what's the point of having Marines? Just merge them with Navy.

>>3513368
UK

>>35134002
I agree on that last point, merge them

>>35133711
747s modified to fire CIWS

Something that could do buddy refueling, if only one kind.

I guess the f-18?

>>35126051
C-130
Airlift is the most versatile, important part of what an Air Force does. Air support can be left to the Army with rotary wing assets and air defense can be left to ground based system. Only airlift requires the air force to operate aircraft.

File: 1468941452-wackytop.gif (733KB, 510x255px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 510x255px

>>35133711
Oh jesus, what about the dc10? Watching the crazy bastards fight fires with these is awesome.

>>35126051
>only one type
Looks like I'm using some mad max looking twin prop cessnas with .30 cals on the sides.

>>35126153
Yeah but you can't do shit with them because you don't have a tanker.
>Mayday fuel 4lyfe

File: 1483496978845.gif (790KB, 375x304px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 375x304px

>>35136778
Im cutting to the chase with my Air Force, the army can be in charge of moving their troops. American doctrine can be ignored.

>>35137648
>Needing fueled while still in the ajr
like nigga lmfao just open up more air bases lmfao

File: Super-Tucano-A-29B-Imminent-Fury-IF-Phase-I-6[1].jpg (538KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1024x768px

>>35137683
My Horde of Super Tucanos are going to fuk your base with their modern weapons and superior linger time.

>>35126091
>t. muhreen

>>35137648
They have excellent range on internal fuel.

>>35126091
You know that satellite you're using? Yeah, Air Force.

>>35137761
Relative to a fighter jet.

If we can only afford to field one plane, get one that can use modern weapons, that you can buy asstons of, you probably have no tanker support or anything like that, you need something you can have assloads of to use for air support. SAMs can protec your shitty air force from other aircraft which is usually the case anyway.


Of course with no constraint like that I'd probably use the F-35 also.

>>35133711
AMRAAMs lack the range for that. Would need some HUGE missiles along we high power radars on all 4 quadrants (AWACS type radar has far too low refresh rate and resolution to give weapons quality tracks.) B-1R was a neat concept but can't lob missiles like an F-15 can or do proper exit maneuvers at defensive response ranges. Maybe with longer range missiles it would come back to life.

File: F15E Strike Eagle wing.jpg (439KB, 1277x1920px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1277x1920px

>>35126051
>type

Fighters.

File: us bombers.jpg (248KB, 3110x2073px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 3110x2073px

>>35134634
Some fuckwit of a Admiral would piss away those funds on a pet project because its not a boat.

The Army is the only branch that has experience with heavy bombers and air transports. And giving them to the Army ensures one branch doesn't become too politically powerful in DC.

>>35134002
No, merge them with the Army. Keep them separate divisionally for mission requirements, muh pride, but lets them have access to real money for equipment that isn't being siphoned for stupid Navy pet project.

>>35126051
i never understood why each branch in the us has its own sets of naval and aerial and land vehicles

it seems rife with inefficiency and departmental in-fighting

>>35137953
>dat unpoleeced moostache

File: sail army.jpg (162KB, 804x603px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 804x603px

>>35140119
Each branch has their own needs and priorities that they believe deserve money and focus. It also cuts down on corruption and little kingdoms that flag officers like to build. Bonus points, it keeps the branches too busy fighting each other for funding to attempt a coupe on its civilian bosses.

>>35126153
>lockheed drunkposting at 2 in the afternoon

another 5 martini lunch with the appropriations chair?

>>35137583
thats absolute insanity

you got a source for that gif?