Jump to content

pieve
 Share

A-10 Thunderbolt II  

412 members have voted

  1. 1. do you support the entrance to the A-10 Thunderbolt II?

    • Yes. I support this Suggestion.
    • No. I dont support this Suggestion
  2. 2. what level should it be?

  3. 3. What battle rating?



300px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png             

                        American

 

I ask that the moderators read carefully the suggestion of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, thank you for the attention :good: :salute:

                                                     A-10 Thunderbolt II

https://i.imgur.com/6zcYuXE.png

 

The A-10 Thunderbolt II, affectionately nicknamed “The Warthog,” was developed for the United States Air Force by the OEM Team from Fairchild Republic Company, now a part of Northrop Grumman Corporation Aerospace Systems Eastern Region located in Bethpage NY and St. Augustine FL. Following in the footsteps of the legendary P47 Thunderbolt, the OEM Team was awarded a study contract in the 1960s to define requirements for a new Close Air Support aircraft, rugged and survivable, to protect combat troops on the ground. This initial study was followed up by a prototype development contract for the A-X, and a final flyoff competition resulting in the selection of the A-10 Thunderbolt II

 

The A-10 was born of the Attack-Experimental (A-X) program office, which launched in 1966 to develop a ground-attack aircraft to replace the Douglas A-1 Skyraider.

In 1970, the threat posed by the Soviet Union’s overwhelming number of tanks along the borders of Western Europe led the Air Force to request contractor proposals for an airframe specifically designed to conduct the CAS mission and destroy enemy armor.

The call for designs stipulated a low-cost aerial weapons platform – less than $3 million per unit – capable of loitering above the battlefield and engaging enemy targets at low altitude and speed with a high-speed rotary cannon, while providing extreme crew and aircraft survivability.

Later, the requirements would be further specified to include a maximum speed of 450mph and a normal operating speed of 300mph in combat to enable easier engagement of slow moving ground targets.

Furthermore, the new aircraft was required to take off in less than 4,000 feet, enabling operations from small airfields close to the front lines, carry an external load of 16,000 pounds and have a mission radius of 285 miles, all for a final cost of $1.4 million per aircraft.

Of the six proposals submitted to the Air Force, Northrop and Fairchild Republic were selected to build prototypes.

 

Specific ground rules were established by the Air Force to ensure fair competition during the competitive prototype phase. Performance goals were established by the Air Force Headquarters, and revisions to those goals could only result from joint contractor SECAF-appointed panel discussions. There was to be no communication between the contractors, and the SPO would provide equal distribution of information to them. The contractors were authorized to initiate design changes they deemed necessary as long as these changes were in the context of the specifics of the contracts.The Air Force designated the two contractor’s designs as the A-9A (Northrop) and A-10A (Fairchild)

 

A-09-YA-9_YA-10.jpg

 

The Prototypes The A-9A was a twin turbofan aircraft using the non-afterburning YF102 engines rated at 7500 lbs of thrust per engine.It was a high wing design with the engines located under the wing root adjacent to the fuselage (see Figure 13.) The lower thrust YF102 engine cost less than the TF34, but the lower thrust required an increase in wing spanto meet the low-speed maneuvering and take-off distance requirements.xxivThe design-to-cost goals were evident not only in the selection of the lower cost engine, but in the selection of off-the-shelf equipment such as the main landing gear struts from the McDonnell Douglas A-4, wheels and brakes from the Grumman Gulfstream 2, nose landing gear from the Northrop A-5, and ejection seat from the McDonnell Douglas S-3A.  Further evidence of attention paid to production cost was the use of interchangeable left and right side parts for engines, control surfaces, and other parts.

Spoiler

A-10_Airwar.ru--ugolok-neba_PAGE64.JPG

Survivability features of the A-9A included redundant critical structural members, access doors designed to blow out in the event of an internal explosion, redundant hydraulic flight controls with manual back-up, foam filled and selfsealing fuel tanks, and a “bathtub” of armor plating around the cockpit. Maintenance features included chest high engine placement for ease of ground-level service; Northrop engineers speculated that an engine replacement could be accomplished in 30 minutes.

 

Northrop YA-9

051123-F-1234P-060.jpg

Figure 13. The YA-9A Prototype

Spoiler

Ya-9-proto-northrop-1.jpg

The Northrop YA-9 was a prototype attack aircraft developed for the United States Air Force A-X program. The YA-9 was passed over in preference for the Fairchild Republic YA-10 that entered production as the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

Spoiler

6029320411_577df7a233_b.jpg

Northrop YA-9A, the first flight of the aircraft occurred on May 30, 1972. USAF

Background: Criticism that the U.S. Air Force did not take close air support seriously prompted a few service members to seek a specialized attack aircraft. In the Vietnam War, large numbers of ground-attack aircraft were shot down by small arms, surface-to-air missiles, and low-level anti-aircraft gunfire, prompting the development of an aircraft better able to survive such weapons. Fast jets such as the North American F-100 Super Sabre, Republic F-105 Thunderchief, and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II proved for the most part to be ineffective for close air support. The Douglas A-1 Skyraider was the USAF's primary close air support aircraft.

YA-10A Prototype

051123-F-1234P-067.JPG

Fairchild Republic YA-10A (S/N 71-1370) in flight. (U.S. Air Force photo)

 

The A-10A was also a twin-engine turbofan design, with the biggest difference between it and the A-9A being the placement of the wing and engines, and the tail configuration (see Figure 14.) The TF34 was a non-afterburning turbofan rated at over 9,000 lbs of thrust, and the engines were placed above and behind the wing in pods attached to the outside of the fuselage. The high placement of the engines reduced the chance of Foreign Object Damage (FOD) during take-off and landing, and also enabled rapid mission turn around on the ground as the engines could be left running while rearming. The rearward placement of the engines reduced the IR signature as the exhaust from the engine was partially shielded from view by the tail.  The low wing allowed for ease of store loading, and also allowed wing mounted landing gear for a wider track and better stability on rough forward area landing strips.Fairchild also used interchangeable left and right side parts for cost control. Survivability features included redundant hydraulic flight controls with mechanical back-up, a titanium “bathtub” around the cockpit, twin vertical stabilizers, foam filled self sealing fuel tanks, and main landing gears that partially protruded from nacelles on the wings making gear-up landing less hazardous. “The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off.”

 

Figure 14. The YA-10A Prototype. 

Fairchild-Republic-YA-10A-SN-71-1369-the

Presentation of the 1st prototype of Fairchild Republic A-10A (Serial No. 71-1369) / USAF

 

On 10 August 1972, the Air Force released proposal instructions for the continued development and testing of the CAS aircraft. Each of the contractors submitted technical and cost proposals in October 1972 which were to be used with the results of the competitive fly-off to select the single contractor that would go forward with advanced development.  

 

Competitive Fly-offs and Shoot-offs The YA-10A made its first flight on 10 May 1972, approximately 17 months after contract award. The YA-9A made its first flight 10 days later. (See Figures 15, 16.)

Between May and October 1972 the contractors flight tested their aircraft, accumulating 162 hours on the YA-9A and 190 hours on the YA-10A. The fly-off between the two aircraft was conducted at Edwards AFB, CA between 10 October and 9 December 1972. “During this period the A-9A crews flew 123 sorties for a total of 146 flight hours and the A-10A was flown 87 sorties for a total of 138.5 flight hours.”Both aircraft utilized an internal M61 20mm Gatling Gun in place of the developmental GAU-8/A which was not ready for testing.  The fly-off was intended to task the aircraft with difficult flying conditions in order to magnify the differences in design. While not a primary goal of the fly-off, weapon delivery accuracy was evaluated and both aircraft were found to perform adequately with only minor differences between them.

Figure 15. YA-9A Flight Test

Spoiler

A-9A-b.jpg

Northrop YA-9A, the first flight of the aircraft occurred on May 30, 1972. USAF

 

Figure 16. The YA-10A on Landing

Spoiler

vpscl1R.jpg

Moments before landing at Edwards Air Base at the end of the 1st flight on May 10, 1972, with Fairchild Republic test pilot Sam Nelson in command. / USAF

LAlZj6n.jpg

Front view of the 1º prototype Fairchild Republic YA-10A (Serial No. 71-1369), armed, showing the provisional General Electric M61A1 "vulcan", 20mm. Observe the lateral displacement of the landing gear, a necessary feature to enable the installation of the cannon in the nose of the aircraft. / USAF

wh-8-YA-10A-Thunderbolt-II.jpg

 

WYOQKxL.jpg

1º prototype of the Fairchild Republic A-10A (Serial No. 71-1369) during a test flight. / USAF

 

Shortly after the competitive A-X fly-off, the GAU-8/A “shoot-off” between GE and Philco Ford began.The gun competition was conducted at Eglin AFB from 3 January to 6 April 1973. Air Force evaluation teams fired and maintained the guns, with contractors acting only in an advisory capacity. Each contractor supplied three guns (two for evaluation, one for backup and spare parts) and 100,000 rounds of Target Practice ammunition.The programmed test called for 70,000 rounds to be fired for each design – 35,000 rounds each for the two guns supplied for testing by each contractor.  The GE supplied guns fired over 70,000 rounds, but the Philco Ford guns fired less than 16,000 rounds due to repeated jamming.The GE guns averaged 8,800 rounds between failure, while the Philco Ford guns averaged only 728.The GE design met or exceeded the performance expectations in all areas except weight.  The gun weight increased from 367 to 591 lbs, and the total system weight from 2607 to 3885. Despite this weight growth, the GE design was declared operationally suitable and GE was declared the winner of the prototype competition.

 

GE handily beat Philco Ford in the GAU-8/A competition, but still had to wait forconclusion of the test firings of the Oerlikon 304RK gun (designated the GAU-9/A). The Oerlikon gun didn’t fare much better than the Philco Ford design.  Table 10 shows the comparison of the test results for the GAU-8 and GAU-9 gun competition. The GAU-8 numbers correspond to the GE designed system. The DSARC reviewed the GAU-8/A program on 5 June 1973 and recommended proceeding with full-scale development of the gun and ammunition. On 21 June GE was awarded a fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for approximately $24M. The contract was to deliver seven preproduction gun assemblies and to refurbish the three prototype guns. GE was also responsible for the development and limited production of a family of 30mm ammunition. One of the provisions of the contract approval was that GE bring on a second subcontractor for ammunition development. Already teamed with Aerojet for ammunition development, GE subcontracted with Honeywell to provide a second source. Honeywell was well positioned to do this as they were subcontracted to Philco Ford for the competitive prototype development phase. The cost of the second source for the ammunition development was $17M in RDT&E. 

 

a10_avenger-www.cnv.hu_free.jpg

 Performance Comparison of the GAU-8/A and GAU-9/A

QITR8tD.png

 

051128-F-1234P-008-www.edwards.af.mil-ph

HL3kamx.jpg

Comparison between the size of a General Electric GAU-8 / A Avenger cannon with a Beetle. The Avenger weighs 281 kg and is 6.06m long.

 

The General Electric GE GAU-8/A Avenger is a 30 mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-type autocannonthat is typically mounted in the United States Air Force's Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. Designed specifically for the anti-tank role, the Avenger delivers very powerful rounds at a high rate of fire. The GAU-8/A is also used in the Goalkeeper CIWS ship weapon system, which provides defense against short-range threats such as highly maneuverable missiles, aircraft and fast maneuvering surface vessels.

GAU-10_Drawing.jpg

The General Electric GAU-8 / A Avenger is the most powerful cannon ever installed on a tactical plane, around which the A-10 was practically built. The installation of the huge 30mm piece at the front of the aircraft, tilted down by two degrees, required larmer displacement of the front landing gear. Rarely has a single weapon been so important to a fighter plane.

M60-vulcan.jpg

 

wSu6T6i.png

 

Spoiler

30mm-depleded-uranum-image1.jpg30mm-DU-anatomy-veteranstoday.com.jpg


    Precision: 80% of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200m) range hit within a 40-foot (12m) diameter circle
    Ammo:
        PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary (DU)
        PGU-13/B HEI High explosive incendiary
        PGU-15/B TP Target Practice
    Armor penetration of Armor-Piercing Incendiary ammunition, BHN-300 RHA, attack angle 30 degrees from vertical:
        76mm at 300 meters
        69mm at 600 meters
        64mm at 800 meters
        59mm at 1,000 meters
        55mm at 1,220 meters

 

On January 18, 1973, the USAF selected the Fairchild Republic aircraft as winner of the A-X. In June of the same year, General Electric was selected to manufacture the GAU-8 Avenger

 

CeCieGZ.jpg

1º prototype of the Fairchild Republic YA-10A (serial number 71-1369), on December 18, 1974, during a test flight near Edwards Air Base, armed with 28 MK-82 bombs / National Archive, Washington DC

 

Production

The first A-10 production thunderbolt II flew in late 1975. In 1976, the 333th tactical Fighter Training Squadron, belonging to the 335 tactical Fighter Traning wing of Tactical Air Command, received the first A- at the base of Davis-Monthan, Arizona . the first squadron to use the A-10s made it operational in late 1977. counting the two prototypes and six pre-series aircraft, only 721 units were built, the last of which was delivered to the USAF in March 1984.

 

051128-F-1234P-018.JPG

1*hh0L7oe8082bZFv2QCnB_w.jpeg

Spoiler

DSCN9411.JPG

 

 

 

A-10-Warthog-Callout.jpg

A:Two General Electric TF34 turbofans power the A-10 and are high-mounted in pods to the rear of the aircraft to avoid debris when using rough airstrips.

B: In its original 'tank-busting' role the A-10's main weapon was the General Electric GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm seven-barrelled Gatling-type Cannon.

C: For the FAC role the OA-10 carries few weapons apart from two rocket pods for target marking and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.

D:The main undercarriage retracts forwards into an underwing bay. In theory, once the aircraft's weapon load has been dropped, a safe wheels up landing can be made with minimal wing damage.

 

 

a-10-00-2-www.airwar.ru-ugolok.nyeba.gif

Spoiler

a-10-ru__www.forum.worldtanks.ru-98fa9ad

 

a-10_2_3v.jpg

A-10_Airwar.ru--ugolok-neba_PAGE41.JPG

 

Spoiler

A-10-Cut+Fairchild+Republic+A-10+Thunder

 

Spoiler

www.combatreform.org-A10cutaway.jpg

 

Spoiler

A-10_001_front.jpg

A-10A instrument panel 

A-10_Airwar.ru--ugolok-neba_PAGE14.JPG

 

                                                                 Contemporary friend of the A-10 Thunderbolt II is Sukhoi Su-25

                                                       Comparison ordnance; Left: Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot"   Right: A-10 "Thunderbolt-II"

a-10-00-su25-2-airwar.ru.gifA-10-000014.jpg

                                                                 Comparison ordnance; Left: Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot"   Right: A-10 "Thunderbolt-II"

 

 

3_14.jpg

Specifications (A-10 Thunderbolt II)

Spoiler

General characteristics

 Crew:1
 Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
 Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
 Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
 Wing area: 506 ft² (47.0 m²)
 Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip
 Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
 Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
 CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
 Anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
 Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)
 Internal fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg)
 Powerplant: 2 × General Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofans, 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) each

Performance

 Never exceed speed: 450 knots (518 mph, 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mk 82 bombs
 Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean
 Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
 Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h)
 Combat radius: CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
 Anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nmi (45 mi, 75 km)) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat
 Ferry range: 2,240 nmi (2,580 mi, 4,150 km) with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve
 Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,700 m)
 Rate of climb: 6,000 ft/min (30 m/s)
 Wing loading: 99 lb/ft² (482 kg/m²)
 Thrust/weight: 0.36

Armament

 Guns: 1×30mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger rotary cannon with 1,174 rounds (capacity 1,350 rd)
 Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
 Rockets:  4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19×/7× Hydra 70 mm/APKWS rockets, respectively) 6x LAU-131 rocket pods (each with 7x Hydra 70 rockets)
 Missiles:  2× AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense 6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
 Bombs:  Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs or Mk 77 incendiary bombs or BLU-1, BLU-27/B, CBU-20 Rockeye II, BL755[197] and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
 Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) (A-10C) or Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C)
Other: SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods (A-10C) or
 2× 600 US gal (2,300 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.

 

source:

 

Edited by pieve
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 20
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Senior Suggestion Moderator

Open for discussion. :salute:

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leroyonly said:

Open for discussion. :salute:

Thank you very much for the attention leroyonly :salute:

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only point of that plane is it's guided AT missiles and ordinance arsenal, while gun is power full it isn't lolpen againt MBT and then other plane guns can also deal with spaa, light tanks and tank destroyers..

 

30mm AP-I is HVAP styled projectile with DU armor piercing core, no long rod projectiles available.

 

Quote

Later there were experiments conducted in order to increase penetration with ammunition 30 mm PGU-14/B API (fig. 3), with aircraft velocity of 128,61 m/s (250 Knot) and with attack angle of 30 degrees on armour plate with hardness BHN 300. Achieved penetrations were 55 mm on distance from target of 1220 m, to 76 mm on distance from target of 300 m. For this type of ammunition penetration of 54 mm was demanded on distance of 1220m [24].

[Quote/]

Edited by arczer25
  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great for the USA to get an actual CAS plane that has a good cannon on it and a nice selection of heavy weapons as right now top tier US CAS doesn't really stack up to Germany especially with all the cannon planes arados and migs or USSR with the migs and tiny ivans.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Senior Forum Moderator

+

 

:DD

  • Haha 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get a like for actually doing research, but there's no need for a useless BRRRRT meme machine whose drivers are going to be xxxxxxxx that they can't vaporize tanks frontally with the gun and SPAAGs keep killing them.

 

Actual test of A-10 against tanks: If you allow unlimited passes and attack from the side against obsolete tanks stopped in the open with no AAA and open fire at 800 meters...you can K-kill 3 tanks, M-kill 4 more, and 3 more were lightly damaged. 

 

17 minutes ago, TyphoonCro said:

We need something to crack open those Leopard 2s...

I vote yes

And how is an A-10 going to kill a Leopard 2? The gun isn't going to cut it.

 

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully support this vehicle. 

 

It's slow, propeller planes can catch it.

acceleration, diving / acceleration / none.

833 km/h / 706 km/h / 560 km/h

 

I think the main reason as to why many don't want this vehicle, is due to the armament.

 

(2) problems, with it's armament.

80% of rounds fired at 1,200m hit within a 50-foot diameter.

No matter 9.0, 9.3, 9.7, past a certain BR, (basically) every vehicle has a weapon capable of attacking low-flying, or low-speed aircraft.

Therefore, we can say that you're typical range is between 600m - 1200m without being in danger of the ground vehicles.

Meaning, at best, you have 69mm of penetration. at worst, 55mm.

 

Its hardpoints?

 

We've seen more rockets on aircraft of that BR. Only thing I would say that would be different, is the laser guided bomb.

 

I think it would fit perfectly.

 

 


 

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brahvoh said:

I fully support this vehicle. 

 

It's slow, propeller planes can catch it.

acceleration, diving / acceleration / none.

833 km/h / 706 km/h / 560 km/h

 

I think the main reason as to why many don't want this vehicle, is due to the armament.

 

(2) problems, with it's armament.

80% of rounds fired at 1,200m hit within a 50-foot diameter.

No matter 9.0, 9.3, 9.7, past a certain BR, (basically) every vehicle has a weapon capable of attacking low-flying, or low-speed aircraft.

Therefore, we can say that you're typical range is between 600m - 1200m without being in danger of the ground vehicles.

Meaning, at best, you have 69mm of penetration. at worst, 55mm.

 

Its hardpoints?

 

We've seen more rockets on aircraft of that BR. Only thing I would say that would be different, is the laser guided bomb.

 

I think it would fit perfectly.

very good boy, you at least understood the real reason for this suggestion.

he can come with the most basic configuration of his armament, do not need to have the guided bombs or even guided missiles, just give conventional weaponry

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1
Since air modes especially air realistic battles are currently most focused on air superiority, I believe the objectives needs a rework to make the bombers and attackers to pose as much of a threat as air superiority fighters in terms of winning a battle before this thing can be fun in War Thunder. 
Also, the guided munitions in my opinion are important and I'm willing to wait a year for them to add this thing with it.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1.

I don´t think this aircraft would be a problem-we already have some aircraft with comparable rocket loads (i.e. FJ-4B),and while its bombload is certainly impressive,loading this thing up to max with bombs turns it into a even easier target than it already is (hell-some superprops would probably be a threat to this,even if its unloaded).

If they implement the GBU´s Fritz-X style,they won´t really be a problem either.

Also,SPAAG´s will still very much be capable of ripping this thing apart,especially Gepard or Type 87.

That said-if this were to happen,i´d hope that we would also see the Su-25 and the Alphajet.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 I'd have to say this would be a tier VI 10.0 aircraft, just because of the possible payload it could carry.... the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger is nice, but it's the payload that makes this thing a true ground killer, and having 2x Sidewinders would also give it a small ability to defend itself from other aircraft. So I'd say as of now, this shouldn't be added until tier VI aircraft are developed into the game

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don´t see a problem with the plane in general, I dont see a real reason for it either. The US already have 4 Jet attackers, 2 heavy prop attackers, 2 Jet bombers and all 9 Jet fighters can be equipped with additional bombs and/or rockets. On top of that nearly all T4 props can carry bombs and/or rockets. Where exactly is the need now for another attacker? The only new thing would be the 30mm cannon, which will be quite ineffective against most tanks and requires a quite long "on target" time, which will make it very vournable. While we have the Fritz X in the game, I think we are still a bit far away from modern laser guided bombs.

  • Confused 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FaafVonFasslich said:

While I don´t see a problem with the plane in general, I dont see a real reason for it either. The US already have 4 Jet attackers, 2 heavy prop attackers, 2 Jet bombers and all 9 Jet fighters can be equipped with additional bombs and/or rockets. On top of that nearly all T4 props can carry bombs and/or rockets. Where exactly is the need now for another attacker? The only new thing would be the 30mm cannon, which will be quite ineffective against most tanks and requires a quite long "on target" time, which will make it very vournable. While we have the Fritz X in the game, I think we are still a bit far away from modern laser guided bombs.

4 jet attackers? there's only 1 that can actually be called that and that the FJ4B and even that's a stretch.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SkyEye said:

4 jet attackers? there's only 1 that can actually be called that and that the FJ4B and even that's a stretch.

 

In that case i think we have different views of an attacker. There are two F84s, both with a huge rocketload. The FJ4 has six Hydra Pods. The F3D can at least carry Tiny Tims.

  • Confused 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FaafVonFasslich said:

 

In that case i think we have different views of an attacker. There are two F84s, both with a huge rocketload. The FJ4 has six Hydra Pods. The F3D can at least carry Tiny Tims.

the F3D-1 is in no earthly way an attacker its a night fighter that they put in the attacker branch because they dont want to go into the 1960s where a lot of the true jet attackers emerge. they really should put it at the start of T5 on the navy line.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FaafVonFasslich said:

 

In that case i think we have different views of an attacker. There are two F84s, both with a huge rocketload. The FJ4 has six Hydra Pods. The F3D can at least carry Tiny Tims.

Attacker =/= CAS capable aircraft.None of those are purpose built Attack aircraft,not even the FJ-4B.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 on both the a-9 and a-10 also they both should start out with the 20mm gatling gun since that's what they where both tested with since the 30mm gatling gun was still being worked on and should be a unlock.

Edited by *seadogpirate
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...