The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: P 51s in Afghanistan?
Godofgamblers    10/26/2009 10:54:53 PM
Due to reports that the UK cannot provide CAS because of the high cost of munitions, Canada and the UK decide to use WW2 fighters to provide CAS in Afghanistan. After all, since the Talibs have no airforce and live in caves, what difference does it make if they are being bombarded by the most sophisticated weapons systems and fighters, or if Sopwith Camel pilots are lobbing grenades at them and strafing them?

My question is, if you were in charge of Canadian and UK procurement, what WW2 fighter would you use in Afghan, and what modern electronics could you stuff into it? Is any of it compatible?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Beryoza       10/26/2009 11:17:51 PM
A dedicated, armoured ground attack aircraft like the Fw-190F would be a much better choice than the Mustang. Not really sure how a complicated piston-engined aircraft would be any cheaper to operate or any more effective than modern COIN aircraft or UCAVs, though.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       10/26/2009 11:45:02 PM
Surely cheaper to produce. Let me try and google the article I referred to, on the quotas given for CAS for the Brits...
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/26/2009 11:51:39 PM
My first choice would be the Douglas AD-1 Skyraider. but It came too late to participate to WW2, so its not exactly what your talking about. It did a great job in the Vietnam war. If you want a fighter that have been use in WW2, i would chose the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt.

I would put a Pave Penny for laser guided bomb, a LASTE maybe. the kind of electronic that you have on the A-10 Thunderbolt II. not more than that. Wait, maybe another thing, I am not sure but I think I have read somewhere that it was very exhausting to pilot the AD-1 cause the control were not assisted. that would be another thing to put on it. 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       10/26/2009 11:54:50 PM

A dedicated, armoured ground attack aircraft like the Fw-190F would be a much better choice than the Mustang. Not really sure how a complicated piston-engined aircraft would be any cheaper to operate or any more effective than modern COIN aircraft or UCAVs, though.

Or a Skyraider  (It goes that far back.). There are answers out there, that don't require a Predator C or an F-16. There is the Sturmovik, for example with the cluster bomb dispensers it carried that the Russians invented. Never ignore other peoples' good ideas.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       10/27/2009 12:15:45 AM
I know next to nothing  about aviation, but isn't it common sense that, for cannon and machine guns, a slow moving fighter would provide better CAS? as a function of: longer strafing runs (i.e. more rounds fired) and better accuracy (longer window to identify and zero in on targets)?
 
link
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/27/2009 12:28:41 AM
Your link don't work... for me at least.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       10/27/2009 12:36:30 AM

I know next to nothing  about aviation, but isn't it common sense that, for cannon and machine guns, a slow moving fighter would provide better CAS? as a function of: longer strafing runs (i.e. more rounds fired) and better accuracy (longer window to identify and zero in on targets)?

 

link target="_blank">link
 
I prefer a helicopter for that, but since I also like to lay down the equivalent of bomb minelets on top of  the talivan that receive the bullet hosing, I suppose that a Tucano could lay down these:  
 
 
Though the Russians used the PTAB as a HEAT anti-armor grenade, it's modernized version, can just as easily can be remade as a Taliban killer.
 
Example:
 

 
 
Very clever those WWII Russians. 

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/27/2009 1:12:32 AM
I still believe A-26 remake with turboprop is better suited in Afghanistan. But since we are talking about Brits and Canadians here, how about rebuilt Wellington bomber?
 
Quote    Reply

Beryoza       10/27/2009 1:19:39 AM
I did give some thought to the Sturmovik, but I'm not sure how well it would perform in hot and high conditions like Afghanistan. Also, having a much faster aircraft that can slow down (Fw-190F) is useful in that it can respond more quickly to emergencies, eg if friendly infantry are in an ambush, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/27/2009 3:18:10 AM
The A-1 would really be the best bet.  Its bombload was far and away more than the Fw-190, and it wasn't much slower.  A P-51 would be sexay but that water-cooled inline is just too damn vulnerable.
 
The Wellington was too underpowered and couldn't get itself out of trouble like, say...a Mosquito.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/27/2009 3:56:47 AM
Beaufighter or Mosquito.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       10/27/2009 4:05:45 AM

Your link don't work... for me at least.
Keep trying.... it should. It could be the Rafale stealthware that is blocking it.... but i have circumvented it. :)
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       10/27/2009 4:09:00 AM




I know next to nothing  about aviation, but isn't it common sense that, for cannon and machine guns, a slow moving fighter would provide better CAS? as a function of: longer strafing runs (i.e. more rounds fired) and better accuracy (longer window to identify and zero in on targets)?



 



link target="_blank">link target="_blank">link


 

I prefer a helicopter for that, but since I also like to lay down the equivalent of bomb minelets on top of  the talivan that receive the bullet hosing, I suppose that a Tucano could lay down these:  

 


 

Though the Russians used the PTAB as a HEAT anti-armor grenade, it's modernized version, can just as easily can be remade as a Taliban killer.

 

Example:

 




 

 

Very clever those WWII Russians. 







 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    H   10/27/2009 4:15:22 AM
Good choice. The Russian tech is simple yet effective. It is good for third world armies who use conscripts or who have a low caliber of human resources. Sometimes the tech is too simple though. We aren't in a WW2 scenario and the simplicity that allowed for mass production isn't a strong selling point any more.
 
The French seem to err in the other extreme. I read that 30% of the Rafale pricetag is for its electronics and stealth tech. I wonder if it's worth it.... Will Brazilian or Saudi operators (assuming there are any) be able to effectively use the Rafale's capabilities? And if they fail to, will it be because of a poor platform or because the pilots are not up to the task.... im sure the question would never be resolved on SP!!!
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       10/27/2009 4:51:59 AM
Typhoon surely (the WWII jobby)
 
Tolerably fast, tough and packing cannon and rockets. 
 
As a serious suggestion, I'd just spend the money on spares for the AH-64 fleet, which would ease the flight hours restriction and also let us train more pilots (we're short about twenty I think)
 
Ian
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy