Profile image

Close Support Aircraft Performance Trials: Anti Radiation Attack Aircraft

147k Pilotmario  8.6 years ago

OVERVIEW:
The Anti Radiation Attack Aircraft is considered completely inadequate for the said role, and employing the weaponry in its current configuration is deemed unsafe. While its maneuverability is excellent, its slow speed, questionable weapons placement, and and poor range makes it unsuitable for the role.

COMBAT PERFORMANCE:
The aircraft's range is terrible, unable to achieve the flight without excess consumption of fuel. Takeoff is very short, even with a full load, comparable to a Pummeler with flaps down. However, the narrow landing gear track makes landing the machine tricky.

The aircraft was very slow, although very maneuverable, even at low speeds and with combat load. All controls are very responsive. The aircraft is quite distinctive, making it easy for friendly forces to recognize and therefore not shoot it down.

INTEGRAL FIREPOWER:
The four Mk 2 machine guns are of reasonable firepower, though the positioning of the wing guns are questionable.

EXTERNAL LOADS:
The external weapons load is below that of the Pummeler or the Boar, and has no capacity for bombs with the specified rocket load. While the missiles are reasonable, the placement of the inner rocket pods are questionable as to the safety of the aircraft, when firing, as the potential to strike the canards are unnerving. One aircraft was lost in this process.

DURABILITY:
The type's multiple engines allow for superior maintenance of thrust under fire. However, all other aspects are average at best.

VISIBILITY:
Cockpit visibility is better than the Pummeler, but inferior to the Boar. The canards obstruct ground visibility to the side.

LOGISTICS:
The multiple J15 engines place unnecessary strain on the logistical system. The only aircraft that employs this engine in the PAF arsenal is the drones, and those are in Army supply depots. Logistically, the Army and the Air Force are separate, and given issues maintaining Army drones, it is unlikely parts will be forthcoming.

The fixed rocket pods are of a logistical nuisance, as rockets pods are typically detached from the aircraft when loading them before refitting them before a sortie. These pods, which are fixed, do not allow us to do such a procedure easily. This is because rockets contain both propellant and explosive, where bombs only carry the latter. This makes them an even greater fire hazard, and crews often load the aircraft under fire. The rocket pods provide rudimentary protection against full-power rifle cartridges and shell splinters, and it is deemed that the longer time to to allow the rockets encased in a pod and towed out to the aircraft is far safer than having the rockets exposed.

OFF THE BOOKS:
Weapons testing was ceased when Maj. Amy Winters, a 21-year veteran, died in an accident with the rockets, where the aircraft suddenly exploded during trials. It turned out that a rocket struck the right canard, detonating it. Her loss has affected the unit terribly, and after her death, no pilot wanted to fly it. It is the only aircraft in the competition so far which the Pilotmario Air Force has deemed unsafe in operation.

  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image

    Oh read that as 25%. Nvm. I'm working on a re design currently

    8.6 years ago
  • Profile image
    147k Pilotmario

    The requirement was 75% fuel left. I can make a leeway of a few percentage points, but 60% would be too far. If you need more space, make the plane bigger and use an engine worth something like a T2000 or a J90. These engines are far more efficient at turning fuel into thrust. @CaptainRod

    8.6 years ago
  • Profile image

    Ok. I admit the rockets were placed in a stupid spot. It's hard cus the four engines take up so much real estate on the wing. But I honestly thought the range was pretty good. I made it to weight airport with like 60% fuel left

    8.6 years ago