So i heard B-52 is a good CAS jet~~~Originally Posted by Sandzibar
Skyraider can carry 4 times the payload though.. Id imagine its fairly helpful when doing CAS if you actually have something to drop on/shoot at the enemy.
Also
Skyraider: 3.6 tonnes @ 11.3 max takeoff
Tucano: 1.5 tonnes @ 5.4 max takeoff
And while we are on the subject of 40s assault planes...
lolwat
Last edited by RazoR; July 4 2012 at 01:26:29 PM.
I love the Skyraider as much as anyone but it really is obsolete, the Super Tucano is not undergunned for it's role, far from it really, those 2x.50s are more than enough gun for COIN, they have enough penetration to deal with light makeshift bunkers or more or less any civilian-grade construction, if they turn out not to be enough then it has the rocket pods, 4 rockets pods is quite a few rockets tbh.
If the Super Tucano is going to find itself undergunned for an engagement you should probably be thinking about employing A-10s instead/ as well.
Last edited by Paradox; July 4 2012 at 01:52:47 PM.
Yes, the B52 would be an excellent CAS jet.. if it wasnt designed as a long range multi engined strategic bomber, and thus completely unsuited to the task of low level target acquisition and engagement.
K mate.
Don't know what century you live in but 4x20mm (or a 30mm rotary, for that matter) only look cool on paper.
IRL these are dead weight unless you plan on repelling a chinese tank rush. And even then there are MRLS with anti-armor self-guided missiles.
In soviet russia CAS is about supporting light armor and infrantry.
So if I say the sandy was good because it carried lots of toys - that allowed it to be effective for a longer period of time - im some sort of "stupid pro americun".
And if i respond to your remark that if its all about big load outs, then the B52 is obviously CAS awesum - then im stupid AND smug.
Im not really sure what point is that you are trying to make? the A1 wasnt good because its load out is actually too much for CAS? The Turcano is better because its smaller/cheaper?
Herp a derp?Today, close support is typically carried out by fighter-bombers or dedicated ground attack aircraft, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog or Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot, but even large high-altitude bombers can occasionally fill close support roles using precision guided munitions. During Operation Enduring Freedom, the lack of fighter aircraft forced military planners to rely heavily on US bombers, particularly the B-1B Lancer and B52H Stratofortress, to fill the CAS role. Bomber CAS, relying mainly on GPS guided weapons, has evolved into a devastating tactical employment methodology and has changed US doctrinal thinking regarding CAS in general. After the initial collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, airfields in Afghanistan became available for continuing operations against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. This resulted in the majority of CAS operations being undertaken by aircraft from Belgium (F-16 Fighting Falcon), Denmark (F-16), France (Mirage 2000D), the Netherlands (F-16), Norway (F-16), the United Kingdom (Harrier GR7s,GR9s and Tornado GR4s) and the United States (A-10, F-16, AV-8B Harrier II, F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18 Super Hornet, UH-1Y).
Close Air Support = shit falling from the skies in proximity to friendly forces.
An assault plane is supposed to be small and have just enough presents on board for immediate threats. And in Brasil that is a dozen of hungry negroes in a jungle.
Everything else can be dealt with dedicated frontline bombers and anti-armor choppers.
A-1 may look like a good idea but it's too slow for it's size.
While Tucano is: small, a two-seater, turboprop.
Last edited by RazoR; July 4 2012 at 03:52:49 PM.
Well why didnt you say so 3 posts ago....
5 niggers with AKs = lightly armed, fast turboprop.
anything else = $25k JDAM
Spad is still cooler though.
Pistonprops are cool and all but they have no place in modern warfare tbh.
Unless it's an An-2 dropping grenades. That would be a sight to behold.
Not rusty but thanks for those. I find it interesting to see how they're progressing, even though I'm not crazy about the idea of the chinese having fancy toys of their own. Does Russia do drones at all?J-20
Spoiler:
It was kind of implied. I didn't even know what CAS stood for until I thought about it, and yet that plane is obviously about a combination of cost, pilot visibility, accuracy, maneuverability, loiter time, etc, and not busting tanks or taking out swathes of dudes.
Must be nice to have a big bubble canopy like that and I bet it's nice to fly.
Last edited by Frug; July 4 2012 at 04:23:10 PM.
Motherland did drones before it was cool.
God damn.
The Tu-123 was a development of the proposed Tupolev Tu-121 supersonic nuclear-armed cruise missile program. After the cancellation of that project in favor of ballistic missiles, the design was modified for a high altitude reconnaissance role.
Nowadays it's all tactical though:
Supposed to give intel to artillery units.
Last edited by RazoR; July 4 2012 at 04:32:36 PM.
The US had something similar in the D-21 before we realized that it was p shit and that satellites were better:
Russians just put together two engines with a few control surfaces and placed a pilot on top~~
F-104 Starfighter:
Yeah...best not mention that one. On a percentage basis, the starfighter killed more luftwaffe pilots than the mustang or spitfire combined.
Speaking of WW2 planes, here's one that got sent out by the bucket loads to the Chinese and Russians, till they wised up and asked for something that might have actual windows for the cockpit.
Nope.avi
Peashooter was interwar not WWII.
The Starfighter was used in testing the first fly by wire setups because it was so stable and flew so well. They had to strap fuck-off huge lead weights and extra wingy bits to it to make it less stable.
Luftwaffe was just an under-trained, under-funded joke then.
The peashooter was not interwar for the chineese.
And Manchuria isn't considered WWII, just as the Spanish Civil war isn't.
Just because a handful of them were still in use doesn't make an aircraft built on 1920s tech a "WW2 plane".
When talking to Razor you need to realize he has Russian patriotism oozing from every pore in his body and a posting style and reasoning to match. So when you find yourself in a situation where you might debate Russian hardware vs anything else you have two choices ignore it, or talk around him.So if I say the sandy was good because it carried lots of toys - that allowed it to be effective for a longer period of time - im some sort of "stupid pro americun".
And if i respond to your remark that if its all about big load outs, then the B52 is obviously CAS awesum - then im stupid AND smug.
Im not really sure what point is that you are trying to make? the A1 wasnt good because its load out is actually too much for CAS? The Turcano is better because its smaller/cheaper?
Uh, actually it was built in the 30's, as the first American metal monoplane Fighter. Besides selling them to the Chinese and other client countries, the US Army Air Corps still had several squadrons in service at the outbreak of the war. Most were destroyed on the ground in the Philipinnes, but the survivors were sent into action and achieved several victories before the fall of the islands. And other countries kept them in service throughout the 50's.And Manchuria isn't considered WWII, just as the Spanish Civil war isn't.
Just because a handful of them were still in use doesn't make an aircraft built on 1920s tech a "WW2 plane".
God bless Wikipedia.
Starfighter had the worst safety record of any century fighter, and the poor Canadians had even worse results than the Germans, losing a full 50% of their aircraft to crashes.F-104 Starfighter:
Yeah...best not mention that one. On a percentage basis, the starfighter killed more luftwaffe pilots than the mustang or spitfire combined.
Speaking of WW2 planes, here's one that got sent out by the bucket loads to the Chinese and Russians, till they wised up and asked for something that might have actual windows for the cockpit.
Nope.avi
Peashooter was interwar not WWII.
The Starfighter was used in testing the first fly by wire setups because it was so stable and flew so well. They had to strap fuck-off huge lead weights and extra wingy bits to it to make it less stable.
Luftwaffe was just an under-trained, under-funded joke then.
Every aerodynamic law just screams that Starfighter can't be more stable than Tu-22.
And it was pretty shit at everything except acceleration.
Makes up for all its failings with a cool name (and the fact it killed its own German pilots)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks