Foxhound

I would retire the MiG-31, if I had to get rid of one type. The Su-27 is more versatile than the MiG-31 and can return more in capability.

My Air Arm

Taking the example of a small island nation…

I really like the Su-27 family of fighters, but do not think they are the best choice for an air arm. A dozen F/A-18E/F Super Hornets would form the core multi-role fighter force. Second squadron would be equipped with a dozen Saab Gripen fighters.

Transport around the island and internationally is covered by six Il-76MF transports. Two of these aircraft are configured for inflight refueling (Il-78). Two C-235s cover smaller transport roles and paratroop training.

Two Beriev A-50 Mainstay aircraft provide AEW and electronic reconnaissance. Twelve locally-modified Il-114 airliners provide maritime patrol and SAR coverage around the island. Eight SAR-configured Mi-17s, flown by the Navy, provide rescue services to the military and civilian clients. Twelve more Mi-17 provide troop transport services to the Army and are flown by composite crews. One ERJ is on hand for executive and VIP transport.

Training is done in-house on Diamond DA-20 basic trainers (8), Embraer Tucano turboprops (12), and second-hand French Alpha Jets (8). The Alpha Jets could be reconfigured to carry weapons, if necessary.

The Tucanos are due for an avionics upgrade to make them more compatible with the digital cockpits of the Gripen and Hornet. Plans exist to acquire five EC-135 helicopters for training and utility work.

How about counting the 9 cancelled USN VH-71 Kestrels (4 test models and 5 production machines) sold to Canada to be cannibalised as spares for their AW101 fleet? Seemed a terrible waste to me…

I agree, such a waste

Interest is not “operation”, that’s a stretch.

I believe the Iraqis thought their air force was a valid contender. The IrAF has measurable success against Iran, during the eighties, and had no reason to think they could not at least face a Western force. Intimidation is a big factor in any confrontation, but that has to be honed down to the point where the force may actually have to go to war. Organizing a force, just to appear formidable seems like a tremendous waste of resources.

No nation is immune to attack. A large ocean might make military action improbable, but the possibility of ICBM/SLBM attack, cyber attack, and terrorist action make any nation vulnerable.

Location is a key factor next to doctrine. Island states would do well with a force that can operate over vast expanses of ocean. Land-locked states would not need such measures applied to their forces. I would be more comfortable with single engined aircraft over land than over the sea, despite however reliable jet engines are today. Inflight refueling becomes even more important when operating over the ocean.

My air force would be tasked with the air defense of the nation, first and foremost. Duties like reconnaissance, SAR, and transport, will be a substantial part of the mission as well. No interceptor is to engage any aircraft without visual identification. Wherever possible, the intruding aircraft will be escorted out of protected air space, or be made to land. Pursuit across international boundaries is not allowed except in times of war. If an interceptor is engaged and fired upon, the interceptor would be required to defend.

AWACS is a key part of any modern, net-centric battle plan.

Norway is purchasing the EH-101?

Tokyo Police

One example was also sold to the Tokyo Metropolitan Police

Defense

I would organize my air arm around the defense of the nation, as would most countries. I would want two types of aircraft, ideally.

F/A-18E/F and Saab Gripen combo would be my first choice.

Fighters would not be the primary focus. A concise air defense network of RADARS and SAM sites would be just as important as a squadron of interceptors.

I would have no intention of attacking my neighbors, but would like to know what they’re up to. A sizable reconnaissance component would be a part of my air force.