Would a trainer jet really make a good multirole fighter?

Would a trainer jet really make a good multirole fighter?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    nope

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      How do you explain this then?

      fighter jets have pretty much no purpose if they are not the best.

      Why not?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's a videogame where fighter jets have radar that can't see more than 14km.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Why not?

          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?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're probably a jigaboo. That's my reasoning.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Did you want some rum?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No, but it sounds like you want some cum.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I cannot fricking 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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Why not?

        because fighter jets are for fighting other jets. and if your jet isn't the best its just going to explode.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Video games aren't real.

        https://i.imgur.com/WXwgSsS.jpg

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          F-5 chan, best light fighter

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        even game itself have proper multirole fighter which will outperform it

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          the Altis Air Force isn't comparable to the US Navy anon.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            so? you still wont make good multirole out of trainer, that was the question

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Sex

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          it has ASRAAMs so yes. that's all that matters.

          the Altis Air Force isn't comparable to the US Navy anon.

          https://i.imgur.com/MqqNjTI.jpg

          so? you still wont make good multirole out of trainer, that was the question

          Altis has not-Gripen's too so it's a moot point

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            and that not-gripen and irl gripen arent trainers. are all armagays that moronic or what?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Literally nobody is going to read that shit. Learn to make posts that can sustain attention.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >F-18 / F-22 hybrid
          CatYellingSEXOOOOintoMegaphone.jpg

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >F-18

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    fighter jets have pretty much no purpose if they are not the best.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    depends against whom are you fighting

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    frick the aaf

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ask the korea shill, he keeps claiming his dressed up trainer really is a 4th generation fighter.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Which Korea?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Worst Korea

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Considering that’s what the L-39 and L-159 series of light jets were intended for, I’d say yeah (for small poorgay countries).

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Its better than nothing for those countries so yes.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Not enough fuel

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What happens here?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      on board masturbation chamber

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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 wienerpit. It has a radar. Its cannon is terrible at hitting ground troops because it has a built in upwards trajectory instead of shooting straight.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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 fricking A3 is just 'what the frick'. It's so incoherent. Not just the obvious NATO being Israeli vehicles but:
        >2035 so let's add in a fricking 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 frick 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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            In fairness? Motherfricker, 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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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 fricking A3 is just 'what the frick'. It's so incoherent. Not just the obvious NATO being Israeli vehicles but:
              >2035 so let's add in a fricking 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 frick 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 moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What are you talking about? What's a Hokum?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Answer me, please.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ka-50, helicopter back when it was single seat, the CSAT gunship is a fricked up looking mix of it with a Mi-28 sticking out the front, it looks fat and stubby

              • 1 year 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.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Oh no Alphajet bros!

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't care she's a commercial failure
    She cute

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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 wienerpit 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.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 frick these up.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No it's just cope from third world shitholes

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Which trainer would be the best to use for light roles?

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Frick that livery, digicam has never looked good on anything and even less so on an aircraft

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Guess why it is a trainer and not a multi role fighter; do you have an idea?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *