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     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
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


 

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
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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