MB339CD

[Fairey Gannet]

2 hours ago, Swayer said:

Success rate /combat performance 

Well, another trainer, T-37 Tweet is a good example. In light attack/COIN variant known as A-37 Dragonfly. 22 losses out of some 250 delivered to Vietnam, 160k sorties flown.  Not really stellar in terms of capabilities, yet it managed to have one of the best survivability ratios.

[Swayer]

20 hours ago, Fairey Gannet said:

Well, another trainer, T-37 Tweet is a good example. In light attack/COIN variant known as A-37 Dragonfly. 22 losses out of some 250 delivered to Vietnam, 160k sorties flown.  Not really stellar in terms of capabilities, yet it managed to have one of the best survivability ratios.

What I mean is airforces will fly fighters compared to trainers in a war scenario. 

Better range

Better weapons 

Better combat systems

It depends on which fighter and trainer im comparing but a fighter jet's whole purpose is to fight

[MAXsenna]

On 2/10/2022 at 10:26 PM, LordOrion said:

I'm really curious to know what will come next to the Macchino and Gina...

I wouldn't be totally surprised if that would be the Starfighter for some reason.  

[Fairey Gannet]

On 2/19/2022 at 1:19 AM, Swayer said:

What I mean is airforces will fly fighters compared to trainers in a war scenario. 

Better range

Better weapons 

Better combat systems

It depends on which fighter and trainer im comparing but a fighter jet's whole purpose is to fight

Hey, sorry for not being able to respond. Bit busy lately.

So, let's break this down:

1. What I mean is airforces will fly fighters compared to trainers in a war scenario. 

Air Forces will fly an aircraft that can conduct ordered operation compared to aircraft that can't complete said goal. Missions vary, and choice of solving the problem will vary accordingly. Not every mission requires equal measure in tactical performance. Using your higher performance assets can be waste of resources and capability of your deployed force. And those are limited by nature, as in every high-tech enviroment. This applies to both platforms and weapons, by the way - that's why hunting supply trucks with Mavericks or cruise missiles isn't everyday thing. There are simply better uses for those weapons, unless, say, that poor truck is critical enough to be worth of very expensive weapon.

2. Better range; Better weapons; Better combat systems

Very well, "better" - but than what exactly? Your own other platforms or those of your enemy? In the first case it is pointless by definition, because you are not fighting your own fighters, you are cooperating with them. And those of your enemy? In case of light attack you are also not fighting them, so their capabilities are somewhat outside of that comparison as well. Your platform and weapons needs to "be better" than its target. In our case, light attack needs to come on top when striking trucks and convoys, light armour, road blocks and checkpoints, camps, infantry, artillery pieces... If you want to engage those, you still need SAM-free zone and CAP above anyway, so it really doesn't matter that much what are you sending in - light attacks or multiroles with A/G munitions.

Range, weapons or combat systems are just parameters telling you what your choosen platform can do and can't do. That's really it.

3. It depends on which fighter and trainer im comparing but a fighter jet's whole purpose is to fight

Indeed. Fight with what? Fighters main role is to fight enemy attack planes and bombers, and of course other fighters - to establish air superiority and allow safe operations for other assets, be it ground or air ones. Yes, modern jets are multirole, and they are flexible in their missions. But again, it boils down to the task at hand. If you need to smoke firing position that gives trouble to your advancing troops, sending in jet fighter may be a waste of flight hours, engine lifespan, post-flight maintenance, a specialised pilot, money, expensive munitions and so on. May not be even worth sending light attack, if drone will do. And maybe not the fancy one, just loitering munition... Armies tend to solve problems at minimum cost and with maximal effect. Waste not.

I am not writing that all to prove you wrong, because you are not. You are not right either, at the same time. Comparing hard factors alone rarely brings any relevant conclusions, because usually there is much more at play. 

[Baco]

It is true also that different times generate different capabilities or performance. Modern Trainers compete toe to toe with earlier Fighters for instance, and that is why the g.91 and the MB 339 have similar performance charts and envelopes, being the later the pinnacle of its technology development tree, and being the Gina a first attempt of a ground attack multirol inexpensive fighter.

In the same mane today a Yak 130 or a TA 50 can dance in circles around early seventies interceptors or fighters.

 

[Swayer]

On 3/20/2022 at 8:36 PM, Fairey Gannet said:

Hey, sorry for not being able to respond. Bit busy lately.

So, let's break this down:

1. What I mean is airforces will fly fighters compared to trainers in a war scenario. 

Air Forces will fly an aircraft that can conduct ordered operation compared to aircraft that can't complete said goal. Missions vary, and choice of solving the problem will vary accordingly. Not every mission requires equal measure in tactical performance. Using your higher performance assets can be waste of resources and capability of your deployed force. And those are limited by nature, as in every high-tech enviroment. This applies to both platforms and weapons, by the way - that's why hunting supply trucks with Mavericks or cruise missiles isn't everyday thing. There are simply better uses for those weapons, unless, say, that poor truck is critical enough to be worth of very expensive weapon.

2. Better range; Better weapons; Better combat systems

Very well, "better" - but than what exactly? Your own other platforms or those of your enemy? In the first case it is pointless by definition, because you are not fighting your own fighters, you are cooperating with them. And those of your enemy? In case of light attack you are also not fighting them, so their capabilities are somewhat outside of that comparison as well. Your platform and weapons needs to "be better" than its target. In our case, light attack needs to come on top when striking trucks and convoys, light armour, road blocks and checkpoints, camps, infantry, artillery pieces... If you want to engage those, you still need SAM-free zone and CAP above anyway, so it really doesn't matter that much what are you sending in - light attacks or multiroles with A/G munitions.

Range, weapons or combat systems are just parameters telling you what your choosen platform can do and can't do. That's really it.

3. It depends on which fighter and trainer im comparing but a fighter jet's whole purpose is to fight

Indeed. Fight with what? Fighters main role is to fight enemy attack planes and bombers, and of course other fighters - to establish air superiority and allow safe operations for other assets, be it ground or air ones. Yes, modern jets are multirole, and they are flexible in their missions. But again, it boils down to the task at hand. If you need to smoke firing position that gives trouble to your advancing troops, sending in jet fighter may be a waste of flight hours, engine lifespan, post-flight maintenance, a specialised pilot, money, expensive munitions and so on. May not be even worth sending light attack, if drone will do. And maybe not the fancy one, just loitering munition... Armies tend to solve problems at minimum cost and with maximal effect. Waste not.

I am not writing that all to prove you wrong, because you are not. You are not right either, at the same time. Comparing hard factors alone rarely brings any relevant conclusions, because usually there is much more at play. 

My bad , i didnt mean to sound like im saying trainers aren't used in combat at all !