NATO air forces proposal

Current state

As of fall of 2013, NATO member states were Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Air forces were as follows:

Albania:

no fixed-wing aircraft or attack helicopters

Belgium: 2,32 billion USD

49 F-16A, 10 F-16B (multirole) – 1,77 billion USD

2 Dassault Falcon 20 (transport) – 7 million USD

2 Embraer ERJ-135 (transport) – 33 million USD

2 Embraer ERJ-145 (transport) – 42 million USD

11 Lockheed C-130H (transport) – 472 million USD

Bulgaria: 878 million USD

5 MiG-21bis, 1 MiG-21UM (multirole) – 90 million USD

12 MiG-29S, 3 MiG-29UB (multirole) – 480 million USD

10 Su-25K, 4 Su-25UB (close air support) – 308 million USD

Canada:

72 F-18A, 31 F-18B (multirole) – 3,5 billion USD

3 A-310 (transport) – 240 million USD

2 A-310 (tanker) – 160 million USD

4 C-17 (transport) – 992 million USD

15 C-130 (transport) – 274,5 million USD

17 C-130J (transport) – 1,15 billion USD

Croatia:

6 MiG-21bisD, 4 MiG-21UMD (multirole) – 150 million USD

2 An-32B (transport) – 18 million USD

14 Mi-8 (transport) – 45 million USD

10 Mi-171Sh (multirole) – 130 million USD

Czech Republic:

12 JAS-39C, 2 JAS-39D (multirole) – 462 million USD

19 L-159A (attack) – 173 million USD

4 C-295M (transport) – 122 million USD

10 L-410 (transport) – 8 million USD

Denmark:

24 F-16A, 6 F-16B (multirole) – 900 million USD

4 C-130J (transport) – 271 million USD

Estonia:

2 L-39 (attack) – 11 million USD

2 An-2 (transport) – 18 million USD

France:

44 Rafale C, 34 Rafale B (multirole) – 5,85 billion USD

44 Mirage 2000 5F/C (multirole) – 2,23 billion USD

63 Mirage 2000 D (attack) – 3,19 billion USD

14 KC-135 (tanker) – 784 million USD

27 CN-235 (transport) – 581 million USD

14 C-130H (transport) – 600 million USD

38 C-160F (transport) – not found

1 A-400M (transport) – 122 million USD

38 Rafale M (multirole) – 3,15 billion USD

25 Super Entendard (attack) – 785 million USD

Germany:

103 Typhoon (multirole) – 12,36 billion USD

82 Tornado IDS (multirole), 31 Tornado ECR (EW) – 5,64 billion USD

71 C-160D (transport)

1 A-310-304 (transport) – 70 million USD

4 A-310-304 MRTT (tanker) – 280 million USD

Greece: (smanjiti na trećinu)

116 F-16C, 41 F-16D (multirole) – 10,99 billion USD

17 Mirage 2000EGM, 2 Mirage 2000BGM, 25 Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 (multirole) – 2,23 billion USD

34 F-4E (multirole) – 601,8 million USD

10 C-130H, 3 C-130B (transport) – 461,28 million USD

8 C-27J (transport) – 288,56 million USD

Hungary:

12 JAS-39C, 2 JAS-39D (multirole) – 462 million USD

3 C-17A (transport) – 744 million USD

5 An-26 (transport) – 20 million USD

Iceland:

N/A

Italy:

75 EF-2000 (multirole) – 9 billion USD

42 AMX ACOL A-11A (attack)

60 Tornado IDS (multirole) – 2,88 billion USD

15 Tornado ECR (SEAD) – 825 million USD

12 C-27J (transport) – 433 million USD

4 KC-767A (tanker)

5 C-130J (transport) – 271 million USD

6 KC-130J (tanker) – 424 million USD

10 C-130J-30 (transport) – 677 million USD

Latvia:

2 An-2 (transport) – 18 million USD

1 L-410UVP (transport) – 800.000 USD

Lithuania:

2 L-39ZA (attack) – 11 million USD

3 C-27J (transport) – 108,2 million USD

2 L-410 (transport) – 1,6 million USD

3 An-2 (transport) – 18 million USD

Luxembourg:

N/A

Netherlands:

68 F-16A/B (multirole) – 2,04 billion USD

2 F-35A (attack) – 368 million USD

4 C-130H-4 (transport) – 172 million USD

2 KDC-10 (tanker), 1 DC-10 (transport) – 378 million USD

3 C-17 (transport) – 744 million USD

Norway:

47 F-16A, 10 F-16B (multirole) – 1,71 billion USD

4 C-130J-30 (transport) – 271 million USD

Poland:

36 F-16C, 12 F-16D (multirole) – 3,36 billion USD

26 MiG-29A, 6 MiG-29UB (mutirole) – 722 million USD

26 Su-22M4, 6 Su-22UM3K (attack) – 640 million USD

2 An-28TD (transport) – 11 million USD

10 M28B TD, 11 M28B/PT (transport) – 63 million USD

14 C-295M (transport) – 426 million USD

5 C-130E (transport) – 85 million USD

Portugal:

35 F-16A, F-16B (multirole) – 1,05 billion USD

15 Alpha Jet A (attack) – 420 million USD

3 C-130H (transport) – 129 million USD

3 C-130H-30 (transport) – 129 million USD

7 C-295M (transport) – 213 million USD

Romania:

36 MiG-21 Lancer (multirole) – 540 million USD

6 C-27J (transport) – 216 million USD

5 C-130H (transport) – 215 million USD

Slovakia:

8 MiG-29AS (multirole) – 176 million USD

3 L-39ZAM (attack) – 16,5 million USD

1 An-26 (transport) – 4 million USD

7 L-410 (transport) – 5,6 million USD

Slovenia:

11 PC-9M (attack) – 68,2 million USD

2 PC-6 (transport) – 4 million USD

1 L-410 (transport) – 0,8 million USD

Spain:

50 Eurofighter Typhoon (multirole) – 6 billion USD

86 F/A-18A/B (multirole) – 2,92 billion USD

2 KC-707 (tanker) – 120 million USD

1 C-707 (transport) – 40 million USD

12 C-212 (transport) – 108 million USD

10 CN-235 100M (transport) – 215 million USD

13 C-295 (transport) – 395 million USD

5 KC-130H (tanker) –

7 C-130H (transport) – 300 million USD

Turkey:

179 F-16C, 48 F-16D (multirole) – 12,53 billion USD

152 F-4E (multirole) – 2,69 billion USD

7 KC-135R (tanker) – 392 million USD

43 CN235-100M (transport) – 925 million USD

15 C-130 (transport) – 275 million USD

17 C-160T (transport)

United Kingdom:

85 Eurofighter Typhoon (multirole) – 11,73 billion USD

3 F-35B (attack) – 876 million USD

112 Tornado GR4 (attack) – 6,72 billion USD

8 TriStar (tanker)

6 Voyager (tanker)

8 C-130K (transport) –

24 C-130J (transport) – 1,62 billion USD

8 Globemaster III (transport) –

United States:

USAF:

343 A-10C (attack) – 5,49 billion USD

8 AC-130H, 17 AC-130U, 12 AC-130W (attack) – 2,96 billion USD

66 B-1B (bomber) – 26,6 billion USD

20 B-2A (bomber) – 22,8 billion USD

76 B-52H (bomber) – 5,78 billion USD

29 C-5A, 34 C-5B, 2 C-5C, 12 C-5M (transport) – 19,64 billion USD

16 C-12C, 6 C-12D, 2 C-12F, 4 C-12J (transport) – 168 million USD

223 C-17A (cargo) – 55,3 billion USD

11 C-26 (cargo)

13 C-27J (cargo) – 469 million USD

13 C-130E, 265 C-130H (cargo) – 11,59 billion USD

10 C-130J, 79 C-130J-30 (cargo) – 6,03 billion USD

2 C-144 CN-235-100M (transport) – 82 million USD

8 C-145 M-28B (transport) – 44 million USD

5 C-146A (transport)

222 F-15C, 32 F-15D (air superiority) – 32 billion USD

219 F-15E (strike) – 9,6 billion USD

840 F-16C, 163 F-16D (multirole) – 70,2 billion USD

180 F-22A (air superiority) – 49,14 billion USD

25 F-35A (attack) – 4,6 billion USD

59 KC-10A (tanker) – 7,43 billion USD

363 KC-135R, 54 KC-135T (tanker) – 23,35 billion USD

10 LC-130H (cargo) – 429 million USD

US Army:

17 C-12C, 14 C-12D, 17 C-12F (cargo/transport) – 288 million USD

4 C-20C (cargo/transport) – 66 million USD

43 C-23 (cargo/transport) – 295 million USD

11 C-26E (cargo/transport)

2 C-31A (cargo/transport)

2 C-37A, 1 C-37B (cargo/transport) – 79 million USD

669 AH-64 (attack) – 22,08 billion USD

USMC:

2 C-9B (cargo/transport)

48 F-18A, 86 F-18C, 95 F-18D (multirole) – 13,94 billion

5 KC-130F, 2 KC-130R, 28 KC-130T, 46 KC-130J (transport) – 5,5 billion (est.)

99 AV-8B (strike) – 4,46 billion USD

21 F-35B (strike) – 6,13 billion USD

USN:

34 C-2A (cargo/transport, carrier-capable) – 1,39 billion USD

15 C-9B (cargo/transport)

1 C-20A, 2 C-20D, 5 C-20G (cargo/transport) – 131 million USD

1 C-37A, 3 C-37B (cargo/transport) – 106 million USD

11 C-40A (cargo/transport) – 770 million USD

19 C-130T (cargo/transport) – 1,29 billion USD

1 CT-39G (cargo/transport)

170 EA-6B (electronic warfare) – 8,84 billion USD

96 EA-18G (electronic warfare) – 6,53 billion USD

74 F-18A, 26 F-18B, 286 F-18C, 47 F-18D (multirole) – 26,04 billion USD

488 F-18E/F (strike) – 33,18 billion USD

4 F-35C (strike) – 944 million USD

Total number of aircraft:

Air superiority/multirole: 3.890 aircraft, 4.821 sortie per day

F-16A/B: 219 (263 sorties per day)

F-16C/D: 1.435 (1.722 sorties per day)

MiG-21: 104 (208 sorties per day)

MiG-29: 55 (110 sorties per day)

JAS-39C/D: 56 (112 sorties per day)

F-18A/B: 306 (367 sorties per day)

F-18C/D: 514 (617 sorties per day)

Mirage 2000: 88 (44 5F/C, 17 EGM, 2 BGM, 25 -5 Mk2) (176 sorties per day)

Rafale: 38 (76 sorties per day)

Typhoon: 313 (626 sorties per day)

Tornado: 142 (128 sorties per day)

F-4E: 186 (72 sorties per day)

F-15C/D: 254 (254 sorties per day)

F-22A: 180 (90 sorties per day)

Ground attack: 1.488 aircraft, ~2.300 sorties per day

F-18E/F: 488 (586 sorties per day)

Mirage 2000D: 63 (126 sorties per day)

Super Etendard: 25

Tornado: 112 (101 sortie per day)

AMX ACOL A-11A: 42

L-39ZA: 5

F-35A: 27 (9 sorties per day)

F-35B: 24 (8 sorties per day)

F-35C: 4 (1,3 sorties per day)

A-10C: 343 (1.029 sorties per day)

AC-130: 37

F-15E: 219 (219 sorties per day)
AV-8B: 99 (99 sorties per day)

(NOTE: all aircraft mentioned except A-10 and possibly L-39 and AMX are incapable of carrying out quality CAS).

SEAD/DEAD/EW: 312

Tornado ECR: 46 (41 sortie per day)

EA-6B: 170

EA-18G: 96 (115 sorties per day)

Strategic bombing: 162 aircraft, ~75 sorties per day

B1B: 66

B-2A: 20 (4 sorties per day)

B-52H: 76

Cargo/transport: 1167 aircraft

Aerial refuelling: 534 aircraft

TOTAL: 7.383 aircraft

Aircraft unit flyaway costs in FY-2013 USD:

A-10: 16 million

AC-130: 80 million

AH-64: 33 million

Alpha Jet A: 28 million attack (?), 15 million trainer

AV-8B: 45 million

AV-8B Plus: 50 million

B-1: 403 million

B-2: 1,14 billion

B-52: 76 million

EA-6B: 52 million

EF-2000 T2: 138 million UK, 120 million German (and pres. other variants)

F-4E: 17,7 million

F-15A: 43 million

F-15C: 126 million

F-15E: 44 million

F-16A: 30 million

F-16C: 70 million

F-18A: 34 million

F-18C: 68 million

F-18E: 68 million

F-18G: 68 million

F-22A: 273 million

F-35A: 184 million

F-35B: 292 million

F-35C: 236 million

Gripen A: 30 million

Gripen C: 33 million

Gripen E: 86 million

Harrier II: 50 million

L-39: 5,5 million

L-159A: 9,1 million

L-159B: 24 million

MiG-21-93: 29 million

MiG-21bis: 15 million (?)

MiG-29A: 22 million

MiG-29B: 25 million

MiG-29S: 32 million (?)

MiG-29SMT: 45 million

MiG-29M: 50 million

MiG-29K: 55 million

MiG-35: 60 million

Mirage 2000: 50,7 million

Mirage 2000-9: 71 million

PC-9M: 6,2 million

Rafale C: 75 million

Rafale M: 83 million

Su-17/20/22: 20 million (?)

Su-25: 22 million

Su-30MK: 70 million

Su-33: 70 million

Su-34: 65 million

Su-35: 75 million

Super Entendard: 31,4 million

Tornado ECR: 55 million

Tornado IDS: 48 million

Viggen: 45 million

A-400M: 122 million

An-2: 9 million

An-26: 4 million (?)

An-28: 5,5 million

A-310-304: 70 million

A-310MRTT: 80 million

AN-32: 9 million

C-2A: 40,8 million

C-5A: 217,5 million

C-5B: 254,8 million

C-12: 6 million

C-17: 248 million

C-20: 16,38 million

C-23: 6,86 million

C-27J: 36,07 million

C-37A: 26,4 million

C-40: 70 million

C-130A: 18,3 million

C-130B: 10,76 million

C-130E: 17 million

C-130H: 42,9 million

C-130J: 67,7 million

C-144: 41 million

C-145: 5,5 million

C-212: 9 million

C-295: 30,4 million

C-295M: 80 million

C-707: 40 million (?)

CN-235: 21,5 million

CN-295: 30 million

Dassault Falcon 20: 3,5 million (?)

Embraer ERJ-135: 16,5 million

Embraer ERJ-145: 21 million

KC-10: 126 million

KC-130J: 70,7 million

KC-135: 56 million

KC-707: 60 million (?)

Mi-8: 3,2 million

L-410: 800.000

M-28: 3 million

PC-6: 2 million

Funds avaliable per air force

Belgium: 2,32 billion USD

Bulgaria: 878 million USD

Canada: 6,3 billion USD

Croatia: 373 million USD (adjusts for MiGs crashed)

Czech Republic: 765 million USD

Denmark: 1,17 billion USD

Estonia: 29 million USD

France: 17,4 billion USD

  • Army: 13,46 billion USD
  • Navy: 3,94 billion USD

Germany: 18,5 billion USD (est.)

Greece: 4,86 billion USD (1/3 of current strength cost)

Hungary: 1,23 billion USD

Italy: 15 billion USD (est.)

  • Army: 12 billion USD
  • Navy: 3 billion USD

Latvia: 19 million USD

Lithuania: 139 million USD

Netherlands: 3,7 billion USD

Norway: 1,98 billion USD

Poland: 5,31 billion USD

Portugal: 1,94 billion USD

Romania: 971 million USD

Slovakia: 202 million USD

Slovenia: 73 million USD

Spain: 7,6 billion USD (75% of current strength cost)

Turkey: 16,8 billion USD

United Kingdom: 21 billion USD

  • Army: 17 billion USD
  • Navy: 4 billion USD

United States: 240 billion USD (50% of current strength cost)

  • Army: 168 billion USD
  • Navy: 48 billion USD
  • Marine Corps: 24 billion USD

Proposal

Basic outline

Aircraft used will be these:
Air superiority fighter (FLX “Hawk”) – 22,5 million USD, 25 million USD naval variant (FLX/N)

Close air support fighter (ALX “Hornet”) – 9,2 million USD, 11 million USD naval variant

Forward air controller (OLX “Hawkeye”) – 2 million USD, 2,2 million USD naval variant

Heavy airlifter (C-130J) – 68 million USD

Light dirt strip airlifter (C-123) – 5,17 million USD

STOL air lifter (C-7A) – 6,7 million USD, 7 million USD naval variant (?)

Air refuelling tanker (KC-10) – 178,5 million USD

Relative numbers will be 15 air superiority fighters : 40 close air support fighters : 25 forward air controllers : 2 heavy air lifters : 6 light dirt strip air lifters : 4 STOL air lifters : 1 air refuelling tanker for armies (batch cost: 1.127.820.000 USD), and 4 air superiority fighters : 8 close air support fighters : 5 forward air controllers : 1 STOL air lifter for navies (batch cost: 206.000.000 USD); independent air forces will be merged into armies. USMC will have same structure as navies, and will use navalized aircraft. If funds are not avaliable for even a single batch to be procured, all numbers will be reduced to a percentage of funds that are avaliable (a reduction to 40% for example will result in 6 air superiority fighters, 16 CAS fighters, 10 forward air controllers, 2 SEAD/DEAD fighters, 4 dirt strip air lifters and no air refuelling tankers for army). If there is anything left over after procuring batches, money will be used for buying AWACS. While assault helicopters will be replaced by fixed-wing aircraft, transport helicopters will, in most cases, remain.

It should be noted that CAS fighter (ALX) can act as Forward Air Controller when needed, just like OLX can perform CAS role. Both however have shortcomings when performing roles other than what they are designed for, though OLX is a better choice for both observation and CAS aircraft if opposition is insurgency as opposed to nation-state’s military force, and ALX is a better choice for both roles in nation-state conflicts.

Air forces strengths

Belgium: 2,26 billion USD
30 FLX – 675 million USD
80 ALX – 736 million USD
50 OLX – 100 million USD
4 C-130J – 272 million USD
12 C-123 – 62,04 million USD
8 C-7A – 53,6 million USD
2 KC-10 – 357 million USD

Bulgaria: 877 million USD
12 FLX – 270 million USD
30 ALX – 276 million USD
20 OLX – 40 million USD
1 C-130J – 68 million USD
6 C-123 – 31,02 million USD
2 C-7A – 13,4 million USD
1 KC-10 – 178,5 million USD

Canada: 6,2 billion USD
82 FLX – 1,845 billion USD
220 ALX – 2,024 billion USD
140 OLX – 280 million USD
10 C-130J – 680 million USD
32 C-123 – 165,44 million USD
22 C-7A – 147,4 million USD
6 KC-10 – 1,071 billion USD

Croatia: 372,2 million USD
8 FLX – 180 million USD
12 ALX – 110,4 million USD
12 OLX – 24 million USD
6 C-123 – 31,02 million USD
4 C-7A – 26,8 million USD

Czech Republic: 762,38 million USD
10 FLX – 225 million USD
24 ALX – 220,8 million USD
18 OLX – 36 million USD
1 C-130J – 68 million USD
4 C-123 – 20,68 million USD
2 C-7A – 13,4 million USD
1 KC-10 – 178,5 million USD

Denmark: 1,17 billion USD
15 FLX – 337,5 million USD
40 ALX – 368 million USD
26 OLX – 52 million USD
2 C-130J – 136 million USD
6 C-123 – 31,02 million USD
10 C-7A – 67 million USD
1 KC-10 – 178,5 million USD

Estonia: 29 million USD
12 OLX – 24 million USD
1 C-123 – 5,17 million USD

France: 17,35 billion USD

  • Army: 13,443 billion USD
    • 178 FLX – 4,01 billion USD
    • 476 ALX – 4,379 billion USD
    • 298 OLX – 596 million USD
    • 24 C-130J – 1,632 billion USD
    • 70 C-123 – 362 million USD
    • 48 C-7A – 322 million USD
    • 12 KC-10 – 2,142 billion USD
  • Navy: 3,91 billion USD
    • 76 FLX/N – 1,9 billion USD
    • 152 ALX/N – 1,672 billion USD
    • 95 OLX/N – 209 million USD
    • 19 C-7A – 133 million USD

Germany: 18,43 billion USD
252 FLX – 5,67 billion USD
648 ALX – 5,962 billion USD
410 OLX – 820 million USD
32 C-130J – 2,176 billion USD
98 C-123 – 507 million USD
66 C-7A – 442 million USD
16 KC-10 – 2,856 billion USD

Greece: 4,65 billion USD
60 FLX – 1,35 billion USD
172 ALX – 1,58 billion USD
108 OLX – 216 million USD
8 C-130J – 544 million USD
26 C-123 – 135,98 million USD
16 C-7A – 107 million USD
4 KC-10 – 714 million USD

Hungary: 1,17 billion USD
16 FLX – 360 million USD
42 ALX – 386,4 million USD
26 OLX – 52 million USD
2 C-130J – 136 million USD
6 C-123 – 31 million USD
4 C-7A – 26,8 million USD
1 KC-10 – 178,5 million USD

Italy: 14,83 billion USD (est.)

  • Army: 11,74 billion USD
    • 160 FLX – 3,6 billion USD
    • 420 ALX – 3,864 billion USD
    • 265 OLX – 530 million USD
    • 20 C-130J – 1,36 billion USD
    • 62 C-123 – 321 million USD
    • 42 C-7A – 281 million USD
    • 10 KC-10 – 1,785 billion USD
  • Navy: 3,09 billion USD
    • 60 FLX/N – 1,5 billion USD
    • 120 ALX/N – 1,32 billion USD
    • 75 OLX/N – 165 million USD
    • 15 C-7A – 105 million USD

Latvia: 20 million USD
10 OLX – 20 million USD

Lithuania: 137,74 million USD
12 OLX – 24 million USD
22 C-123 – 113,74 million USD
Netherlands: 3,52 billion USD
50 FLX – 1,125 billion USD
120 ALX – 1,104 billion USD
80 OLX – 160 million USD
6 C-130J – 408 million USD
20 C-123 – 103 million USD
12 C-7A – 80 million USD
3 KC-10 – 535,5 million USD

Norway: 1,87 billion USD
26 FLX – 585 million USD
70 ALX – 644 million USD
44 OLX – 88 million USD
4 C-130J – 272 million USD
10 C-123 – 51,7 million USD
8 C-7A – 53,6 million USD
1 KC-10 – 178,5 million USD

Poland: 5,14 billion USD
70 FLX – 1,575 billion USD
188 ALX – 1,73 billion USD
120 OLX – 240 million USD
9 C-130J – 612 million USD
28 C-123 – 144,8 million USD
18 C-7A – 120,6 million USD
4 KC-10 – 714 million USD

Portugal: 1,95 billion USD
26 FLX – 585 million USD
68 ALX – 625,6 million USD
42 OLX – 84 million USD
3 C-130J – 204 million USD
10 C-123 – 51,7 million USD
6 C-7A – 40,2 million USD
2 KC-10 – 357 million USD

Romania: 957 million USD
12 FLX – 270 million USD
36 ALX – 331,2 million USD
22 OLX – 44 million USD
2 C-130J – 86 million USD
4 C-123 – 20,7 million USD
4 C-7A – 26,8 million USD
1 KC-10 – 178,5 million USD

Slovakia: 193,12 million USD
12 ALX – 110,4 million USD
16 C-123 – 82,72 million USD

Slovenia: 70,53 million USD
12 OLX – 24 million USD
9 C-123 – 46,53 million USD

Spain: 7,52 billion USD
100 FLX – 2,25 billion USD
270 ALX – 2,484 billion USD
168 OLX – 336 million USD
12 C-130J – 816 million USD
40 C-123 – 206,8 million USD
26 C-7A – 174,2 million USD
7 KC-10 – 1,25 billion USD

Turkey: 16,82 billion USD
220 FLX – 4,95 billion USD
600 ALX – 5,52 billion USD
372 OLX – 744 million USD
30 C-130J – 2,04 billion USD
90 C-123 – 465 million USD
60 C-7A – 402 million USD
15 KC-10 – 2,7 billion USD

United Kingdom: 20,83 billion USD

  • Army: 16,92 billion USD
    • 225 FLX – 5,06 billion USD
    • 600 ALX – 5,52 billion USD
    • 375 OLX – 750 million USD
    • 30 C-130J – 2,04 billion USD
    • 90 C-123 – 465 million USD
    • 60 C-7A – 402 million USD
    • 15 KC-10 – 2,68 billion USD
  • Navy: 3,91 billion USD
    • 76 FLX/N – 1,9 billion USD
    • 152 ALX/N – 1,67 billion USD
    • 95 OLX/N – 209 million USD
    • 19 C-7/A – 133 million USD

United States: 240 billion USD

  • Army: 169,05 billion USD
    • 2.220 FLX – 49,95 billion USD
    • 5.920 ALX – 54,46 billion USD
    • 3.700 OLX – 7,4 billion USD
    • 296 C-130J – 20,13 billion USD
    • 900 C-123 – 4,65 billion USD
    • 592 C-7A – 3,97 billion USD
    • 152 KC-10 – 28,5 billion USD
  • Navy: 47,79 billion USD
    • 928 FLX/N – 23,2 billion USD
    • 1.856 ALX/N – 20,42 billion USD
    • 1.160 OLX/N – 2,55 billion USD
    • 232 C-7A – 1,62 billion USD
  • Marine Corps: 23,9 billion USD
    • 464 FLX/N – 11,6 billion USD
    • 928 ALX/N – 10,21 billion USD
    • 580 OLX/N – 1,28 billion USD
    • 116 C-7A – 812 million USD

Total number of aircraft

This proposal would result in following number of aircraft and sorties for NATO:

Air superiority: 5.378 aircraft, 16.134 sorties per day
Close air support / SEAD: 13.256 aircraft, 39,768 sorties per day
Forward air control: 8.347 aircraft, 16.694 sorties per day
Heavy air lift: 496 aircraft
Light air lift: 2.948 aircraft
Air refuelling: 253 aircraft
Total: 30.678 aircraft

Comparision with current force

This proposal gives NATO four times as many aircraft as it currently has, even though total cost of the force is far less. Combat aircraft used in proposal are also far superior to the types being replaced even in one on one comparision; when combined with increase in the force size, it results in multiplication of NATOs air forces’ combat ability. Survivability is also greatly increased, as most if not all types do not require concrete air strips for operation. This also has the effect of reducing costs of maintaining air bases where aircraft are located, including a removal of the need for (ridiculous) “FOD walks”. All combat aircraft can also operate from roads; this includes not only takeoff and landing but also maintenance and repairs. Further, this proposal replaces close to a hundred different aircraft types used across the NATO – many if not most of them used by the United States – with a total of seven different aircraft types, vastly simplifying logistics. Most importantly, simpler and more rugged design of combat part of the force – resulting in lower operating costs and easier maintenance – will lead to easier training and thus improved force effectiveness even if current force is replaced on a 1-for-1 basis and design superiority of proposed aircraft is ignored.

Combat aircraft proposed have endurance and fuel requirements better than types now in use, so need for tankers will be reduced.

Advertisements


Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

25 replies

  1. Romania also has 17 IAR-99 trainers/light attack aircraft. They might be able to provide quality CAS because of their low loiter speed and 23 mm dual-barrled cannon and capacity to carry additional gun pods on the wings. Price for the C variant with modern avionics similar to MiG 21 Lancers is 6 mil dollars.

    • For close air support of the type that Picard suggests you need the pilot’s cockpit to be protected by armor.

      The above list does not include rotary wing or tilt rotors. Both number should be included as they perform transportation and close air support duties.

      • Picard stated and I quote: ” (NOTE: all aircraft mentioned except A-10 and possibly L-39 and AMX are incapable of carrying out quality CAS)”, also he lists L-39s as attack aircraft. L-39 was built as a trainer/light attack aircraft, it has no armor and actually has poorer performance then IAR-99. IAR-99 was actually built to replace L-39s in Romanian service. L-59 which is a derivative of L-39 equals IAR-99 performance and L-159 which is a further derivative with western engine and avionics surpasses it but at twice the cost (about 12 million dollars last time I checked). L-159 actually has a dedicated attack version (single seat). But neither L-39, L-59 or L-159 are armored.

  2. Hello,
    Great blog, very informative and factual, congrats !

    On this topic :
    How many pilots for each plane ? 2, 3, 4 ? I think it is an important issue because the more planes, the more pilots and the more pilots, the more training, and training is both necessary and expensive.
    In order to increase the size of the fleet, you need more mechanics, more officers, more cooks, etc. Those people will impact the defense budget quite heavily in my opinion.

    • Not necessarily, as most crew-heavy aircraft have been reduced in number or eliminated, and since replacements are in most cases easier to maintain than aircraft being replaced, number of support personnell won’t change much if at all.

      • How many people do you think will be needed to maintain your aircraft? FLX, ALX, and OLX?

        I imagine you’d want something like what Sweden has set up from the Gripen – rapid refueling and re-arming with conscripts?

        • Closest counterparts to these aircraft are Gripen, A-10 and Super Tucano, and all three proposals will be easier – perhaps significantly so – to maintain than their extant counterparts.

          And yes, rapid refueling and rearming plus easy in-the-field maintenance is requirement for all three.

  3. Also Roumanian Air Force is severally undersized due to corruption and for a lack of better term embezzlement at the government level (there are no money apparently for defense but there are for highways costing twice as much as in the rest of the world and other stuff like that). In 2008 plan was to purchase 48 multirole fighters either Gripen , EF-2000 or F-16. Funds were in the vicinity of 4.5 billion Euro.

  4. Also if you include L-39 as attack aircraft, why not include RAF Hawk trainers, which have as secondary mission light attack and are better at it then L-39?

    • Andrei, sorry for mentioning the armor canopy but if one is to dive low that would be needed and those aircrafts that will bomb from high altitude need to be rigged to carry those type of bombs and corresponding targeting.

      Many airforces of smaller countries with no aerospace industry are trying to recapitalize themselves. It is coming as a shock to many of them the cost of new aircrafts. They are replacing cheaper F-5 and F-16 or subsidized Soviet exports from the cold-war with far more expensive modern aircrafts.

      One issue that is not mentioned often is the shrinking of choices. In the USA consolidation has placed more defense business on on a smaller number of aerospace firms. With this lack of choices comes risk that if the one or two firms that are left in the business make a mistake in their product there is no other alternative product available to replace it. Fewer vendors have inherent risks.

      The other problem is that many of those smaller countries’ past purchases where what we know now to have been very successful aircrafts that provided many-many years of service for relatively low cost. Now that those existing aircrafts are worn out they these countries are confronted with the need to replace them at a much higher cost with aircrafts they do not know enough about… enough about their long term cost, maintenance and if all the bells-and-whistles will work as advertised.

      So it is interesting what is going on in the procurement area.

  5. Interesting proposal. It will never happen for obvious reasons, but it’s interesting to speculate on what could … and should happen.

    I suppose the huge barriers are largely political. I think that the FLX, ALX, and OLX could be built by most of these nations in their home nations, along with ammunition supplies.

    A few things:
    – For nation state battles, I do recommend making a heavier CAS aircraft for taking out modern 70 ton+ MBTs with a higher caliber gun

    – Could civil aircraft be used for heavy airlift? I’m thinking a converted 747 or An-124/225. The 747s might be cheap. Buy used civilian ones from airliners, who have been selling them owing to the price of oil.

    – What are your plans for AWACS and control aircraft?

    – What about naval aircraft (ex: coastal anti-submarine and sea control)?

    – Will the ALX/FLX/OLX also be used as trainers? This would imply 2 seater variants for the FLX – how many per airforce?

    • Excellent point… maritime patrol aircrafts replace ships in the Navy… for sub hunting and they do carry Harpoons.

      On the A-10, see link below,

      http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/military-spending-cuts/pentagon-wants-cut-troops-1940-levels-ditch-10-u-2-n37086

      And also the list does not include the fleet of drones.

    • “- For nation state battles, I do recommend making a heavier CAS aircraft for taking out modern 70 ton+ MBTs with a higher caliber gun”

      70 ton MBTs are going to be few and far between for obvious reasons.

      “- What are your plans for AWACS and control aircraft?”

      I decided it isn’t worth the investment. If I had to propose one, it would be small turboprop aircraft with massive IRST.

      “- What about naval aircraft (ex: coastal anti-submarine and sea control)?”

      OLX could probably fill in these roles.

      “- Will the ALX/FLX/OLX also be used as trainers? This would imply 2 seater variants for the FLX – how many per airforce?”

      ALX is twin-seater by its nature, so is OLX. As for FLX, twin seat variant would be for training only, so few will be needed.

      • “70 ton MBTs are going to be few and far between for obvious reasons.”

        Yes, but there are still existing inventories of 70 ton MBTs throughout the world. While I don’t think heavy tanks are the right choice, it’s probably prudent to develop something to take them out reliably from the air (Pk of existing air to ground missiles leaves something to be desired). In any event, a heavier CAS aircraft might have uses other than taking out MBTs.

      • “I decided it isn’t worth the investment. If I had to propose one, it would be small turboprop aircraft with massive IRST.”

        Or maybe a more practical solution would be a Hybrid Airship that could stay airborne for weeks, would be cheap to operate and very resistant to damage due to it’s compartmentalized structure and size. It could have operational ceiling of 15 km or higher, and because of it’s size would be capable of mounting really massive IRST, I’m talking telescopes here capable of ddetecting fighters from the front at at least 500 km away, and maybe long range VHF radars for Early warning (beyond the range of IRST) and putting a last nail the coffin of stealth. It would probably have to be unmanned, but it also would be very cheap and maybe even expendable unlike today’s AWACS, and because of the huge sensors with huge range it would probably be able to stay hundreds of km back witch coupled with high operational ceiling would make it very hard to shoot down.

      • “Or maybe a more practical solution would be a Hybrid Airship that could stay airborne for weeks, would be cheap to operate and very resistant to damage due to it’s compartmentalized structure and size. It could have operational ceiling of 15 km or higher, and because of it’s size would be capable of mounting really massive IRST, I’m talking telescopes here capable of ddetecting fighters from the front at at least 500 km away, and maybe long range VHF radars for Early warning (beyond the range of IRST) and putting a last nail the coffin of stealth. It would probably have to be unmanned, but it also would be very cheap and maybe even expendable unlike today’s AWACS, and because of the huge sensors with huge range it would probably be able to stay hundreds of km back witch coupled with high operational ceiling would make it very hard to shoot down.”

        That’s what I was thinking although I thought manned may be an option.

        Give a person a pressure suit and a parachute to jump off if it gets shot down. An airship will have enough room to accommodate a crew for weeks on end with the supplies they need without compromising in my opinion on other characteristics.

        A more expensive option may be to put a satellite in orbit around geostationary orbit with a giant IRST pointed towards the earth.

  6. @Chris

    An-124/225 are military air-lifters. They are used by a civilian operator only because due to the break-up of the Soviet Union they were never delivered to their intended operator and the Ukrainian Air Force doesn’t have the money to use them.

    “Will the ALX/FLX/OLX also be used as trainers? This would imply 2 seater variants for the FLX – how many per airforce?”

    ALX is already a two-seater so it could be used also for training. And Picard already stated, in an answer to one of my questions in an earlier version of the FLX, that the FLX could have a trainer version by lowering the fuel fraction.

    OLX due to it’s nature could probably be used as basic trainer, again like the ALX it’s a two-seater.

    • “An-124/225 are military air-lifters. They are used by a civilian operator only because due to the break-up of the Soviet Union they were never delivered to their intended operator and the Ukrainian Air Force doesn’t have the money to use them.”

      I’m wondering what the need for super heavy airlift would be in armies today?

      I do know that they are being leased around the world for various heavy duty airlift jobs (both commercial and military).

      That’s why I suggested 747s be bought and converted. They may not be the most efficient (they’re passenger jets first), but they can be bought for cheap (used), and can carry a lot more than say, a C-17.

      • An-124 was a ego project of the Russians they wanted the biggest air-lifter around. That being said is somewhat more practical then C-5 and C-17 because it can land and take-off from unprepared runways even grass fields, which is pretty much why much of the business of Antonov Air Lines, their operator, is with Africa.
        An-225 was never meant to be built in huge numbers because it was built for a very specific job, with the Soviet Space Program. That is it was built to carry the Buran Spacecraft on it’s back, and I think an Energia rocket (which serves as the first stages of the Buran, which unlike the US Space Shuttles doesn’t have engines for use on launch only in orbit ) inside. So it’s huge payload is a result of this requirements. It can carry a pretty big load on it’s back and there are plans to use it to ship gas by fighting it with a huge tank in place of the Buran. This conversion comes from it’s rough field operating capacity witch makes it perfect for servicing Siberian fields.

      • “An-124 was a ego project of the Russians they wanted the biggest air-lifter around. That being said is somewhat more practical then C-5 and C-17 because it can land and take-off from unprepared runways even grass fields, which is pretty much why much of the business of Antonov Air Lines, their operator, is with Africa.”

        The thing is, with the An-124 and the larger An-225, they have found their niches. And in a war, I imagine they could either carry a heavy tank (probably 2 or 3 for the An-225) or several lighter vehicles to a scene very quickly.

        The question is, is it worth having some heavy airlift capability?

        The other are the wing in ground aircraft or ekranoplanes – what will their role be?

      • I already expressed my opinion in another post. Hybrid Air-Ships can end-up carrying twice as much as the A-225 has MTOW, that is they can carry about 10 as much as the A-225 and can do this while also having the capacity to land and take-off vertically without any base support, and take several hits from long range AA missiles, and will probably be more cheap in both acquisition and operation. So why use heavy and expensive vulnerable aircraft to carry 2 or 3 heavy tanks to a forward air-field 20 km from the FEBA when you can land a whole battalion of heavy tanks right in the middle of the battle? The only advantage the aircraft has over the hybrid air-ship is speed that is you could probably get those 3 tanks on the aircraft 4 to 12 hours before the battalion on the hybrid air-ship depending on the distance traveled.

        “The other are the wing in ground aircraft or ekranoplanes – what will their role be?”

        Seeing as have to stay within a wingspan of the ground to obtain the necessary lift at MTOW, they will probably be used over the water for fast response amphibian landings. They could probably offer similar advantages in payload as hybrid air-ships , seeing as they too can have payloads close to kiloton, at higher speed, lower ranges and restricted for landing at the shore line. Or they could make one hell of a missile boat in the AShW role.

      • “I already expressed my opinion in another post. Hybrid Air-Ships can end-up carrying twice as much as the A-225 has MTOW, that is they can carry about 10 as much as the A-225 and can do this while also having the capacity to land and take-off vertically without any base support, and take several hits from long range AA missiles, and will probably be more cheap in both acquisition and operation. So why use heavy and expensive vulnerable aircraft to carry 2 or 3 heavy tanks to a forward air-field 20 km from the FEBA when you can land a whole battalion of heavy tanks right in the middle of the battle? The only advantage the aircraft has over the hybrid air-ship is speed that is you could probably get those 3 tanks on the aircraft 4 to 12 hours before the battalion on the hybrid air-ship depending on the distance traveled. ”

        I suppose so. Truth be told, light tanks would probably be a better choice for strategic airlift. You could probably fit like 5-8 in the an An225 and perhaps 15 in an airship.

        “Seeing as have to stay within a wingspan of the ground to obtain the necessary lift at MTOW, they will probably be used over the water for fast response amphibian landings. They could probably offer similar advantages in payload as hybrid air-ships , seeing as they too can have payloads close to kiloton, at higher speed, lower ranges and restricted for landing at the shore line. Or they could make one hell of a missile boat in the AShW role.”

        Yeah that is what I was thinking. Has anybody ever tried to make a warship out of them before?

      • “Yeah that is what I was thinking. Has anybody ever tried to make a warship out of them before?”

        Yup. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan

  7. Totally off-topic, but a fascinating article about the US:

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

    The writer is a former Congressional Staff member of the Republican party who is highly disillusioned with the direction of his nation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: