because fighter jets are for fighting other jets. and if your jet isn't the best its just going to explode.
Video games aren't real.
[...]
Trainer Jets have been used as light strike craft in the past, and were fairly okay at the job. The F-5 Tiger was just a T-38 with a deleted commander's seat and some actual ordinance.
They are low capacity, fairly low end jets. They'd get the crap killed out of them by purpose built fighters in a large scale conflict, but that doesn't mean you can't use them to drop some bombs or to provide some fire support.
>It's a video game!
What kind of bullshit reasoning is that?
You're basing your opinion of the subject on what's arguably the most unrealistic part of the videogame you're posting screenshots from. Jets in arma 3 fly weirdly, have simplified sensors and super short weapon ranges.
I cannot fucking understand why people mod in so many jets in arma. It's such an awful game for air shit. Maybe with hotas it'd be more fun but you move way too fast and the maps are too small and draw distance too minimal.
Here in Ukraine our MiG-29 pilots can't use their jets to fight Russians(because enemy jets have superior avionics) but they use them for:
- against cruise missiles
- against shakheed camicaze drones
- to launch HARM missiles on enemy's AA
Western platforms are even more useful, because it's usually multirole fighters so you can also launch air-ground missiles or drop bombs. So jets against jets isn't always a thing
Would a trainer jet really make a good multirole fighter?
Trainer Jets have been used as light strike craft in the past, and were fairly okay at the job. The F-5 Tiger was just a T-38 with a deleted commander's seat and some actual ordinance.
They are low capacity, fairly low end jets. They'd get the crap killed out of them by purpose built fighters in a large scale conflict, but that doesn't mean you can't use them to drop some bombs or to provide some fire support.
You will never be a real fighter. You have no range, you have no speed, you have no payload. You are a jet trainer twisted by hackneyed engineering and marketing into a crude mockery of F-16's perfection.
All the "procurement" you get is politically driven and half-hearted. Behind your back your operators mock you. Your "fighter" wings are disgusted and ashamed of you, your "allies" laugh at your ghoulish low performance behind closed doors.
Pilots are utterly repulsed by you. Studying 100 years of air combat tactics evolution allows pilots to sniff out turkeys with incredible efficiency. Even trainer jets that are "combat capable" look uncanny and unnatural to a fighter pilot. Your airframe is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to take off laden with a drop tank, a targeting pod, 2 AIM-9's and 2 Mk 82's, you’ll have to turn tail and RTB before doing anything because of your puny combat radius.
You will never get kills. Your pilots wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell themselves they're valuable assets in a sensible, agile hi-lo mix, but deep inside they feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush them under the unbearable weight.
Eventually the battlefield will be too much to bear - you’ll get in the air, point your nose up and try to lob an AMRAAM in the general direction of the bandits but an enemy missile will plunge you into the cold abyss before your pilot can say fox 3. The CSAR will find the pilot who will be heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to fly such a shameful and disappointing machine. They’ll put the remaining airframes in museums with plaques reading "FA-50 jet trainer," and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know a non-combat plane is preserved there. Your livery will fade and be covered with dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a static exhibit that is unmistakably a trainer aircraft.
This is your fate. This is what KAI chose. There is no turning back.
If a small country with a modest air force has planes that are markedly better than anything their neighbors can put in the air, they can dominate the region. They just have to avoid pissing off the big boys like NATO, Russia, and China.
>his dressed up trainer really is a 4th generation fighter.
Compared to the F16 A/B and F18 A/B it absolutely is. Those planes couldn't even shoot AMRAAMs.
Trainers make excellent multiroles for low intensity conflicts because they are designed to be easy to fly and reliable, being maneuverable or fast or particularly high performance doesnt matter if your airforce is shit and your enemies are insurgents that hardly have any anti air. The most important thing in that case is that your pilots dont crash constantly from being poorly trained in planes that are hard to fly and maintain.
They're the midrange but still poverty option for fighting in uncontested airspace for counter insurgency.
Turboprops fulfill a similar role except are even more economical.
The plane is based on a two seater trainer, but the devs made it a single seat aircraft. That was their attempt to cover up the rear seat.
There's many things about the plane that make no sense. It has a targeting pod despite having no visible sensor or display in the cockpit. It has a radar. Its cannon is terrible at hitting ground troops because it has a built in upwards trajectory instead of shooting straight.
>There's many things about the plane that make no sense.
While I enjoy arma 3 (with mods) so much of the world-design in fucking A3 is just 'what the fuck'. It's so incoherent. Not just the obvious NATO being Israeli vehicles but: >2035 so let's add in a fucking FV Warrior IFV modernized. >2035 so let's add in a rooikat from 1987 modernized. >2035 so let's add in a WIESEL
And what you posted and more. Near future is consistently an awful design decision for games because it gets made out of date and hokey as fuck in a vanishingly short time, whereas a more idealistic interpretation (bladerunner's 2018) has staying power despite the inaccuracy.
Tanoa was infinitely better than Altis Vanilla and I say that preferring the Mediterranean climate, but there at least you get real crazy shit Pingpong Fit for 2077 VTOL.
In fairness to the AAF, they're specifically described as buying up second-hand gear from euro countries having a credit crisis. Theres no in-setting explanation as for why Nato countries are using such eclectic shit though.
In fairness? Motherfucker, there literally isn't a single human female on their islands. They have bloody Gripens. Their standard infantry rifle is the fs2000, in the year 2035. Their tank is the leopard 2 and they have German weasel tankettes. Nothing makes sense on Altis. It's a non industrialised island nation with literally nothing on it to explain why it can field what it does.
>There's many things about the plane that make no sense.
While I enjoy arma 3 (with mods) so much of the world-design in fucking A3 is just 'what the fuck'. It's so incoherent. Not just the obvious NATO being Israeli vehicles but: >2035 so let's add in a fucking FV Warrior IFV modernized. >2035 so let's add in a rooikat from 1987 modernized. >2035 so let's add in a WIESEL
And what you posted and more. Near future is consistently an awful design decision for games because it gets made out of date and hokey as fuck in a vanishingly short time, whereas a more idealistic interpretation (bladerunner's 2018) has staying power despite the inaccuracy.
Tanoa was infinitely better than Altis Vanilla and I say that preferring the Mediterranean climate, but there at least you get real crazy shit Pingpong Fit for 2077 VTOL.
The thing that really boils my piss is the mutant hybrid Havoc/Hokum butt baby CSAT has, it looks hideous and retarded
1 week ago
Anonymous
What are you talking about? What's a Hokum?
1 week ago
Anonymous
Answer me, please.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Ka-50, helicopter back when it was single seat, the CSAT gunship is a fucked up looking mix of it with a Mi-28 sticking out the front, it looks fat and stubby
1 week ago
Anonymous
Oh, you mean the Mi-48 Kajman. My main gripe with it is the limited pylon count. Real hinds have 3 pylons per wing, not this 2 pylon BS. Also the 30mm cannon is worthless at shooting stuff beyond 650m, which is just not good enough for a chopper cannon.
Sure, if your opponent only has propeller planes. They wouldn't be too bad at ground-attack, though (provided your enemy also doesn't have effective AA). Basically if you are fighting a 3rd world country.
Yes, she failed when it comes to export...
It was a very controversial project from the beginning.
But in retrospect, she did a tremendous amount of work. Especially when it comes to the transition to western avionics standards.
She could still have great potential, She combines the handling characteristics of L39 and more powerful engine, better avionics and equipment (The layout and instruments of the cockpit are deliberately designed to resemble F-16 Block 40). It is ideal for retraining from Eastern to Western standards.
As a light attacker, she is very controversial especially over a battlefield saturated with AAA. Training and drone/CM hunting is a more ideal way of potential use.
Depending on what kind.
Traditional trainer jets? No.
Modern LIFT aircraft? Only if you're using them defensively. They don't even qualify for medium range fighters so any offensive use is going to fuck these up.
tough to say.
They aren't supersonic, but nobody flies supersonic in actual combat anyway and they can hug the ground just fine
They can't dogfight super well, but aircombat in 2023 is about lobbing stand-off missiles anyway
The problem is they don't have a room for all the toys, especially a big radar
they have poor range so you want drop off tank and also EW pod to survive, which further eats up your already limited payload budget
If a proper multirole can have 3 times the payload, so you have to ask yourself whether sending 1 expensive jet isn't more cost-effective than 3 cheap jets after all
I wouldn't want to equip my entire air force with trainers (Unless it was some third world shithole where my only likely adversaries are neighboring shitholes and homegrown insurgencies, in which case the lower operating costs would be appealing since I could actually afford to give my pilots flight hours every year). However for example during the cold war the brits equipped their Hawks with radar guided missiles and pilots trained to work in tandem with their high-capability fighters who would paint targets for them. So in some situations they could certainly be used to bolster the numbers of an air force, and could also be effective provided they're equipped with the right avionics.
nope
How do you explain this then?
Why not?
It's a videogame where fighter jets have radar that can't see more than 14km.
>It's a video game!
What kind of bullshit reasoning is that?
You're probably a jigaboo. That's my reasoning.
You're basing your opinion of the subject on what's arguably the most unrealistic part of the videogame you're posting screenshots from. Jets in arma 3 fly weirdly, have simplified sensors and super short weapon ranges.
Did you want some rum?
No, but it sounds like you want some cum.
I cannot fucking understand why people mod in so many jets in arma. It's such an awful game for air shit. Maybe with hotas it'd be more fun but you move way too fast and the maps are too small and draw distance too minimal.
>Why not?
because fighter jets are for fighting other jets. and if your jet isn't the best its just going to explode.
Here in Ukraine our MiG-29 pilots can't use their jets to fight Russians(because enemy jets have superior avionics) but they use them for:
- against cruise missiles
- against shakheed camicaze drones
- to launch HARM missiles on enemy's AA
Western platforms are even more useful, because it's usually multirole fighters so you can also launch air-ground missiles or drop bombs. So jets against jets isn't always a thing
Video games aren't real.
Trainer Jets have been used as light strike craft in the past, and were fairly okay at the job. The F-5 Tiger was just a T-38 with a deleted commander's seat and some actual ordinance.
They are low capacity, fairly low end jets. They'd get the crap killed out of them by purpose built fighters in a large scale conflict, but that doesn't mean you can't use them to drop some bombs or to provide some fire support.
F-5 chan, best light fighter
even game itself have proper multirole fighter which will outperform it
the Altis Air Force isn't comparable to the US Navy anon.
so? you still wont make good multirole out of trainer, that was the question
Sex
it has ASRAAMs so yes. that's all that matters.
Altis has not-Gripen's too so it's a moot point
and that not-gripen and irl gripen arent trainers. are all armafags that retarded or what?
You will never be a real fighter. You have no range, you have no speed, you have no payload. You are a jet trainer twisted by hackneyed engineering and marketing into a crude mockery of F-16's perfection.
All the "procurement" you get is politically driven and half-hearted. Behind your back your operators mock you. Your "fighter" wings are disgusted and ashamed of you, your "allies" laugh at your ghoulish low performance behind closed doors.
Pilots are utterly repulsed by you. Studying 100 years of air combat tactics evolution allows pilots to sniff out turkeys with incredible efficiency. Even trainer jets that are "combat capable" look uncanny and unnatural to a fighter pilot. Your airframe is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to take off laden with a drop tank, a targeting pod, 2 AIM-9's and 2 Mk 82's, you’ll have to turn tail and RTB before doing anything because of your puny combat radius.
You will never get kills. Your pilots wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell themselves they're valuable assets in a sensible, agile hi-lo mix, but deep inside they feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush them under the unbearable weight.
Eventually the battlefield will be too much to bear - you’ll get in the air, point your nose up and try to lob an AMRAAM in the general direction of the bandits but an enemy missile will plunge you into the cold abyss before your pilot can say fox 3. The CSAR will find the pilot who will be heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to fly such a shameful and disappointing machine. They’ll put the remaining airframes in museums with plaques reading "FA-50 jet trainer," and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know a non-combat plane is preserved there. Your livery will fade and be covered with dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a static exhibit that is unmistakably a trainer aircraft.
This is your fate. This is what KAI chose. There is no turning back.
Literally nobody is going to read that shit. Learn to make posts that can sustain attention.
>F-18 / F-22 hybrid
CatYellingSEXOOOOintoMegaphone.jpg
>F-18
fighter jets have pretty much no purpose if they are not the best.
If a small country with a modest air force has planes that are markedly better than anything their neighbors can put in the air, they can dominate the region. They just have to avoid pissing off the big boys like NATO, Russia, and China.
depends against whom are you fighting
fuck the aaf
Ask the korea shill, he keeps claiming his dressed up trainer really is a 4th generation fighter.
Which Korea?
Worst Korea
>his dressed up trainer really is a 4th generation fighter.
Compared to the F16 A/B and F18 A/B it absolutely is. Those planes couldn't even shoot AMRAAMs.
Considering that’s what the L-39 and L-159 series of light jets were intended for, I’d say yeah (for small poorfag countries).
Trainers make excellent multiroles for low intensity conflicts because they are designed to be easy to fly and reliable, being maneuverable or fast or particularly high performance doesnt matter if your airforce is shit and your enemies are insurgents that hardly have any anti air. The most important thing in that case is that your pilots dont crash constantly from being poorly trained in planes that are hard to fly and maintain.
Its better than nothing for those countries so yes.
Not enough fuel
They're the midrange but still poverty option for fighting in uncontested airspace for counter insurgency.
Turboprops fulfill a similar role except are even more economical.
What happens here?
on board masturbation chamber
The plane is based on a two seater trainer, but the devs made it a single seat aircraft. That was their attempt to cover up the rear seat.
There's many things about the plane that make no sense. It has a targeting pod despite having no visible sensor or display in the cockpit. It has a radar. Its cannon is terrible at hitting ground troops because it has a built in upwards trajectory instead of shooting straight.
>There's many things about the plane that make no sense.
While I enjoy arma 3 (with mods) so much of the world-design in fucking A3 is just 'what the fuck'. It's so incoherent. Not just the obvious NATO being Israeli vehicles but:
>2035 so let's add in a fucking FV Warrior IFV modernized.
>2035 so let's add in a rooikat from 1987 modernized.
>2035 so let's add in a WIESEL
And what you posted and more. Near future is consistently an awful design decision for games because it gets made out of date and hokey as fuck in a vanishingly short time, whereas a more idealistic interpretation (bladerunner's 2018) has staying power despite the inaccuracy.
Tanoa was infinitely better than Altis Vanilla and I say that preferring the Mediterranean climate, but there at least you get real crazy shit Pingpong Fit for 2077 VTOL.
In fairness to the AAF, they're specifically described as buying up second-hand gear from euro countries having a credit crisis. Theres no in-setting explanation as for why Nato countries are using such eclectic shit though.
In fairness? Motherfucker, there literally isn't a single human female on their islands. They have bloody Gripens. Their standard infantry rifle is the fs2000, in the year 2035. Their tank is the leopard 2 and they have German weasel tankettes. Nothing makes sense on Altis. It's a non industrialised island nation with literally nothing on it to explain why it can field what it does.
The thing that really boils my piss is the mutant hybrid Havoc/Hokum butt baby CSAT has, it looks hideous and retarded
What are you talking about? What's a Hokum?
Answer me, please.
Ka-50, helicopter back when it was single seat, the CSAT gunship is a fucked up looking mix of it with a Mi-28 sticking out the front, it looks fat and stubby
Oh, you mean the Mi-48 Kajman. My main gripe with it is the limited pylon count. Real hinds have 3 pylons per wing, not this 2 pylon BS. Also the 30mm cannon is worthless at shooting stuff beyond 650m, which is just not good enough for a chopper cannon.
Sure, if your opponent only has propeller planes. They wouldn't be too bad at ground-attack, though (provided your enemy also doesn't have effective AA). Basically if you are fighting a 3rd world country.
Oh no Alphajet bros!
Not when you can afford actual fighters. The Macchi in DCS is horrendously good fun though. No missiles, no chaff or flare. We die like men.
I don't care she's a commercial failure
She cute
Yes, she failed when it comes to export...
It was a very controversial project from the beginning.
But in retrospect, she did a tremendous amount of work. Especially when it comes to the transition to western avionics standards.
She could still have great potential, She combines the handling characteristics of L39 and more powerful engine, better avionics and equipment (The layout and instruments of the cockpit are deliberately designed to resemble F-16 Block 40). It is ideal for retraining from Eastern to Western standards.
As a light attacker, she is very controversial especially over a battlefield saturated with AAA. Training and drone/CM hunting is a more ideal way of potential use.
Depending on what kind.
Traditional trainer jets? No.
Modern LIFT aircraft? Only if you're using them defensively. They don't even qualify for medium range fighters so any offensive use is going to fuck these up.
tough to say.
They aren't supersonic, but nobody flies supersonic in actual combat anyway and they can hug the ground just fine
They can't dogfight super well, but aircombat in 2023 is about lobbing stand-off missiles anyway
The problem is they don't have a room for all the toys, especially a big radar
they have poor range so you want drop off tank and also EW pod to survive, which further eats up your already limited payload budget
If a proper multirole can have 3 times the payload, so you have to ask yourself whether sending 1 expensive jet isn't more cost-effective than 3 cheap jets after all
No it's just cope from third world shitholes
I wouldn't want to equip my entire air force with trainers (Unless it was some third world shithole where my only likely adversaries are neighboring shitholes and homegrown insurgencies, in which case the lower operating costs would be appealing since I could actually afford to give my pilots flight hours every year). However for example during the cold war the brits equipped their Hawks with radar guided missiles and pilots trained to work in tandem with their high-capability fighters who would paint targets for them. So in some situations they could certainly be used to bolster the numbers of an air force, and could also be effective provided they're equipped with the right avionics.
Which trainer would be the best to use for light roles?
Fuck that livery, digicam has never looked good on anything and even less so on an aircraft
Guess why it is a trainer and not a multi role fighter; do you have an idea?