OVERVIEW:
The Stalicz B-3 AU is a decent medium altitude subsonic light bomber, but unsuitable for the role of low-altitude close support. The poor performance and maneuverability at low altitudes combined with its large size are the reasons behind this. Medium-altitude level-bombing has no place in Pilotmario Air Force strategy.
The most striking flaws about the aircraft is the lack of any sort of air brakes and a rudder. Flaps are desired to ease takeoff. Testers recommend adding these immediately.
COMBAT PERFORMANCE:
The aircraft's performance under a full combat load is poor at low altitudes, but becomes adequate at higher altitudes. This is against current PAF attack tactics, which emphasize low-altitude attacks for precision.
The aircraft was fairly slow and did not handle well at low altitudes. This combined with its large size make it unsuited for low-altitude strikes.
The lack of a rudder or air brakes are noted flaws, and should be fitted. The lack of a rudder in particular make landings trickier and attack runs less precise.
INTEGRAL FIREPOWER:
The twin nose-mounted Mk 9 cannon are quite powerful, but lack the anti-infantry firepower of the Mk 2 guns on the Pummeler or the anti-armor capabilities of the Mk 7 cannon on the Boar.
EXTERNAL LOADS:
The external weapons load superior to the Pummeler but inferior to the Boar. The low height from the ground made it easy for ground crews to arm the aircraft. The manual jettison switches were somewhat awkward to use, but this flaw was not deemed important, as training on the type could remedy this. PAF pilots are trained with AG 1 as the drop tank jettison switch, bombs at AG 2, and rocket pods are typically not jettisoned at all.
DURABILITY:
Due to the design as a medium-altitude level bomber, it was reasonably protected against light anti-aircraft fire. However, it was deemed poorly protected against accurate and heavy anti-aircraft fire due to the lack of armor.
VISIBILITY:
Cockpit visibility is extremely good due to the short nose and floor windows, giving it a superior view of the ground compared to both the Pummeler and the Boar. However, the Boar has better over-the-nose visibility compared to the B-3.
LOGISTICS:
The aircraft's low ground height and tricycle landing gear make it easy for ground crews to maintain and rearm. The podded J50 engines are easy to access, and parts are available.
@PINK We're analyzing it as a close-air support, and therefore compare it to attack aircraft such as the Pummeler and the Boar. Pilotmario Air Force doctrine regards level bombing as very damaging but highly inaccurate, making it unsuitable for close air support, where air strikes are often conducted within 300 meters of friendly forces. Level bombing is only good against large concentrations of enemy forces, and only in large formations, where the sheer volume of explosives compensate for the lack of accuracy of an individual bomber, such as in strategic bombing.
Compared to the Dominator heavy bomber, the type has similar performance but has a shorter range and has a lower bombload. We have no dedicated level medium or light bomber because we see no use in them due to their lack in effectiveness as a tactical and strategic strike aircraft. They aren't precise enough for tactical air support, and they don't carry enough bombs to effectively saturate an area with explosives.
@Pilotmario Other types of . . . bombers?
@PINK Same here. And performance still sucks in comparison to other types.
@Pilotmario Low altitude for me is 1000 feet
@Pilotmario I still think the cheepy Greeks or Italians may want to join . . .
@PINK Okay. I'm just going off the profile pic.
We found it great at medium-altitude level bombing. However, at low altitudes, it suffered a signficant loss of performance, and were only able to achieve the advertised speeds at higher altitudes, beyond where PAF attackers typically fly.
The Kingdom of Calatala may be interested.
However, it was a half assed entry . . . if it is possible Karrmin is interested.
You understand its exact role . . . also it is sir.