WesWorld

How large do you think the RSAF would be in peace time? How many fighters would such an airforce have at a time (front line units, second line units, reserve and training)? How do you calculate the seize of an airforce?

Interesting question. I'm curious as to the answers.

As a variant on that, I'm thinking that a nation could field far more fighters for the same $ and personnel than bombers, so the answer may change based on the mix ???

Yes, very interesting seeing as I will likely be asking the same question in regards to the Brazilian Air Force strength soonish. My thought would be that the RSAF would be superior to any two of the ABC powers airforce, but either parity or slightly less than their combined strength.

Well, the historical Luftwaffe of summer 1939 (according to Wikipedia) had a aircraft strength was 4,201 operational aircraft; 1,191 bombers, 361 dive bombers, 788 fighters, 431 heavy fighters, and 488 transports. The RAF on 1 Jan 1939 stood at 135 squadrons (74 Bomber, 27 Fighter, 12 Army co-operation, 17 Reconnaissance, 4 Torpedo-bomber and 1 Communications). On Jan 12, 1939, President Roosevelt recommended to Congress an expansion of the USAAC from the current recommended 980 planes to 6000, this was approved in April 1939.

For the British - how many planes are 27 fighter squadrons?

What to do with planes that were just replaced by new models? For example, the F-6E replaced the F-6D. Of course this will take some time but one day I would expect all fighter squadrons to be equiped with the newer model. So what happens to the remaining F-6D? Sold to foreign air forces? Fighter schools? Second rate units (i.e. National Guard if existing)? Scrap?

During peace times - is 20 planes per month of a specific fighter aircraft too high a production rate for a major plant that is in mass production mode?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
For the British - how many planes are 27 fighter squadrons?

More informed people might correct me, but I recall RAF fighter squadrons usually had 12-18 planes assigned, with a liaison plane or two for each base.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
During peace times - is 20 planes per month of a specific fighter aircraft too high a production rate for a major plant that is in mass production mode?

I've actually been thinking about using manhours to chart aircraft construction - each factory has X Manhours per month, and each plane costs Y Manhours to build. Of course there's not an easy way to "sim" how many manhours it takes to build a plane, for instance in something like Springsharp... I've acquired some economic data that shows a few different types of WWII fighters and bombers, so it's a "best guess" scenario.

Tactical air support for mobile operations suppliments or replaces artillery, so the desired weight of fire per day, divided by the bombload the aircraft can carry, divided again by the sustainable sortie rate per day should give the number of strike aircraft needed to support ground operations in a theater.

Strategic bombing works from assumptions about the bombing needed to destroy a target set. Here's an example from "Operation Pike", the proposed 1940 Anglo-French bombing campaign against the Soviet oil industry at Baku:

The Anglo-French planners assumed 50 220-lb bombs would destroy an oil refinery. As for the percent of bombs hitting the target, the French were relatively conservative. They figured that from an altitude of 5000m and at 250 kph, 15% of the bombs would hit. The RAF thought it would be 35%. Under the French assumption, one Bomber Group (11 AC) would require 3 sorties by the Group to destroy a
refinery. Thus,

"The destruction of 120 refineries would call for 360 Group sorties. Assuming that 12 Groups are available, each group would have to carry out 30 sorties. If each group carries out 3 sorties a week, the total time required would be 10 weeks."

Patrick Osborne "Operation Pike" Greenwood Press, 2000, pg 152, citing "Note by the French Representatives to the Allied Military Committee, - Study of a Possible Air Attack on the Caucasus Oil Industry" of 26 March 1940.

So you basically designate a target set, estimate the tonnage of bombs necessary to damage it to the level you desire, designate a desired time limit, determine the number of sorties per day your aircraft can maintain for that period, and that gives you the strategic bomber force you need to start with.

For fighters, you work out what is required to escort your bombers, and add your estimate of what it would take to prevent enemy bombers accomplishing their mission.

Well from memory Poland had
1939= 300 planes
1989= 800 planes
2010= under 200 and dropping.

My plans are for 800 strong air force in wesworld.
A number that I think is extensive, and only possible with all factories working at capacity.

My force is defensive in nature.
Used like light cavalry of old.
No close support force.
No strategic bombing
Airplanes are a tactical tool.
Air defense by fighters and tactical pinpoint strikes by dive bombers.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
For the British - how many planes are 27 fighter squadrons?

Another set of numbers I just found says that in September 1939, the RAF had 39 fighter squadrons, with 600 aircraft.

Quoted

What to do with planes that were just replaced by new models? For example, the F-6E replaced the F-6D. Of course this will take some time but one day I would expect all fighter squadrons to be equiped with the newer model. So what happens to the remaining F-6D? Sold to foreign air forces? Fighter schools? Second rate units (i.e. National Guard if existing)? Scrap?

Any or all of those, assuming that there's enough of a difference between the models to re-equip the older squadrons with the newer aircraft (instead of waiting for another model or aircraft).

Quoted

During peace times - is 20 planes per month of a specific fighter aircraft too high a production rate for a major plant that is in mass production mode?

That translates to 240 aircraft a year, perhaps a touch high if you're in true peacetime with no threats on the horizon. On the other hand, if it's peacetime but you're feeling threatened (see the USAAC increase in 1939 for an example), it might be low.

I think that taking historical numbers from the 1930s is probably a bit off. We don't really have the same plunge into re-armament or the likely need to fight a major, prolonged war.

For South Africa, I'd guess at around 2000-3000 aircraft with most in South America. There just isn't really the need to base many planes in Africa when no one else is around. Historically the RAF had around 20-30planes for the whole of the Sudan. It's much more the transport/liason aircraft that you'd want given the lack of an enemy.

You want low density production runs to keep people in work and maintain talent. The cost savings of a high density production run (e.g. JSF) don't really apply quite the same in the 1930s. How do you keep enough capacity to keep people employed and replace current aircraft in a timely fashion, whilst retaining surge production capability for war losses.

Always need to bear in mind that aircraft cost a lot to run as well. As do airfields. Maintenance requirements go up as number of aircraft types increase.

Also to bear in mind aircraft in the pre-1950 days tended to have shorter lives.
Most 1920s and 1930s types usually only lasted 2-5 years in service. Only with the advent of more advanced types did thise figure lengthen. Even so had there been no WW2 it is unlikely the Spitfire would have been around in 1945 in frontline service.

Old airframes can go to technical schools as instructor airframes, sold or more than likely sold to the scrapman. Of course OTUs and specialised schools will have older models for serveral years for training until a young pilot prangs them!

I also think shorter life spans and higher loss rates (accidents etc.) compared to modern age will have some impact on the number of aircraft build.

Total strength of the Argentine Air Force of all types including trainers and transports its 1,219. Plus the naval air arm has 472 aircraft of all types. Realistically these figures won't increase and I'm hoping to reduce. The wartime peak I think was about 2,000-2,250 aircraft.

I'd agree most RSAF units would be in South America with most long-range types at home and of course naval recon and naval strike units along the coasts of the Empire. Most training schools would likely be at home due to better weather and open spaces.

Okay, thanks. Guess I have some surplus planes thann.

Anybody interested to buy some F-6E or F-8B fighters?

*Looks at F-8B*
I doubt you'd see a Japanese crew working on arming a SAE plane.

.. and I doubt a Japanese Sentai would be using SAE planes.

These are not japanese crews - those are cheap chinese workers. Cost reduction, you know.... ;o)

Yeah, sure. And how do you explain the Sentai markings?

Well, one of these guys must have worked for the Japanese before - and mixed it up later. You know, it is damn difficult to talk to these guys and explain things. They only smile and nod..... But hey are cheap.

They ought to go out on the streets and strike, demanding more money for their hard work.

BTW, did you base the F-8 data on the Ki-44 data as well. Just curious as it does not match the data I have on it.

Beware Hoo I think its the same spy who stole the plans of my Lancaster!