Aircraft tech tree?

[Alex_brunius]

I meant actual successful production designs, not fantasy aircraft that "was expected to be in the air by 1948" or had development stop before even the first prototype was made...

 

[1alexey]

The only German jet CAS i know of was the Me262 that is in the tree already ( fighter/bomber filling both roles ).

Most nations in the jet-age stopped making dedicated planes for ground attack ( or actually even a bit before since air-ground missiles and rockets could be equally accurate from fighters ).

Look at latewar fighter/bombers and you will see many normal fighters just carrying a slightly higher rocket load-out.


The first successful jet age CAS I know of was the AC-10 Thunderbolt II developed in the 1970s.

Eh? How did you miss out on the Soviet Il-2=>Il-10=>SU7B=>SU-24=>SU-25?

There were no jet CAS in WW2 timeframe, because why does CAS plane needs jet engine if the prop is perfectly enought?

And Americans were simly using propeler A-1 Skyraider till they everntually had to make their own jet CAS, A-10.

Simply put, true Jet fighters are just too expencive to use in ground attack mode, and they are too fast to effectivly hit the gound.
That was not the problem when jet aviation was cheap, and it was much more preferable to to just make ground attack version of same fighter plane to save on cost.

But fighter-bombers are far less effective than dedicated CAS, that is designed for low-speed manuvering, carries a tonne of payload and armor. Armor is actually critical, as a plane with enough armor to sustain fire from ground, weigts a lot so such plane can`t dogfight.
Not to mention in war time, teaching one pilot to dogfight well, and other to bomb ground is much better then to teach one everything. In peace, it is the opposite as a single pilot and dual purpose plane is easier to maintain.

 

[Sacer]

I meant actual successful production designs, not fantasy aircraft that "was expected to be in the air by 1948" or had development stop before even the first prototype was made...

Well, that's a quite strange position bearing in mind that a lot of countries were defeated during the conflict. What's the issue for you? You don't think a working prototype could have been made of anything that there were not already a working prototype of?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Simply put, true Jet fighters are just too expencive to use in ground attack mode, and they are too fast to effectivly hit the gound.
That was not the problem when jet aviation was cheap, and it was much more preferable to to just make ground attack version of same fighter plane to save on cost.

That was my point. You only needed one airframe for a fighter-bomber with very small modifications.

For example the SU-7B you mention was a fighter-bomber working in both roles, with some issues as noted by wikipedia:

"However, the very short combat radius and need for long runways limited its operational usefulness"


The successfullness of a CAS aircraft in WW2 was also reliant on being stationed close to the front often on badly maintained airfields with much shorter runways in general then before the jet-age. Even a long WW2 runway would not be easy to take off from with a heavy loaded and armored jet ground attack aircraft.

I maintain that the first truly successfull dedicated jet-CAS designs I have seen were in the 1970s and not earlier. And you are right that Soviet also developed good versions.


We should also not forget that to quite a large degree the ground-attack role was also taken over by helicopters.

Well, that's a quite strange position bearing in mind that a lot of countries were defeated during the conflict. What's the issue for you? You don't think a working prototype could have been made of anything that there were not already a working prototype of?

Why is it a strange position? No working combat proven dedicated Jet-CAS aircraft emerged from WW2 or the following decade(s) from either defeated or victorious nations.

 

[Sacer]

Why is it a strange position? No working combat proven dedicated Jet-CAS aircraft emerged from WW2 or the following decade(s) from either defeated or victorious nations.

Because it would mean that so many models in different countries have to be excluded from the game due to the country developing the weapon being defeated before it could build a prototype. It is not a very sound position if one are making a sandox game.

There could be many reasons for that there weren't many Jet CAS befre the 60s.

As quotes by wiki:
Most of the post-World War II era air forces have been reluctant to develop fixed-wing jet aircraft specifically for ground-attack. Although close air support and interdiction remain crucial to the modern battlefield, attack aircraft are less glamorous than fighters, and both pilots and military planners have a certain well-cultivated contempt for 'mud-movers.' More practically, the cost of a specialized ground-attack aircraft is harder to justify as opposed to having multirole combat aircraft. This by no means meant that there were no jet attack aircraft designed; the A-6 Intruder, Sukhoi Su-25, A-10 Thunderbolt, Panavia Tornado, AMX, Dassault Etendard and Super Etendard and numerous other less-well-known aircraft have been designed specifically for ground-attack, strike, close-support and anti-armor work, with little or no air-to-air capability integrated into the design.

Design decisions as such should be left to the player

 

[Alex_brunius]

Design decisions as such should be left to the player

If I understand their so far and this dev quote it probably will up to the player.

You could always invest some points in better engines and rename the design Do-17 if you want to, but as stands the Do-17 isn't the best fit for any of the basic models.

This suggests that you can both take the historical route and upgrade the propeller engine CAS with better engines/bombs even after the airframe is "obsolete", or choose to create a specific jet-CAS based on the Me262 as Germany and rename it to "Junkers "Unnamed" Ground Attack Aircraft" just as you want

 

[Sacer]

If I understand their so far and this dev quote it probably will up to the player.

This suggests that you can both take the historical route and upgrade the propeller engine CAS with better engines/bombs even after the airframe is "obsolete", or choose to create a specific jet-CAS based on the Me262 as Germany and rename it to "Junkers "Unnamed" Ground Attack Aircraft" just as you want

I want a specific model for it, just as there is a specific model for Junkers Ju 87

 

[1alexey]

That was my point. You only needed one airframe for a fighter-bomber with very small modifications.

Yes, it is cheaper but less effective.

For example the SU-7B you mention was a fighter-bomber working in both roles, with some issues as noted by wikipedia:

No it wasn`t, because it was a terrible fighter and was repurposed for bomber. It was alos designed for low-altitude flight, which is more in line with CAS role than fighter.
I mean, theoretically it cold be used as fighter but SU had much better planes for that, and the plane was kept around for it`s bomber potential.

The successfullness of a CAS aircraft in WW2 was also reliant on being stationed close to the front often on badly maintained airfields with much shorter runways in general then before the jet-age. Even a long WW2 runway would not be easy to take off from with a heavy loaded and armored jet ground attack aircraft.

Yet Ironically biggest jet transport airplanes in the world(An-124 and An-225) can land on ground airfields just fine.
I refuse to belive that when 600 tonne plane can land like that, 20ish tonne plane can`t be made to.

I maintain that the first truly successfull dedicated jet-CAS designs I have seen were in the 1970s and not earlier. And you are right that Soviet also developed good versions.

Yes. Ironically that was the time when Vietnam war combat expirience started hitting home for both superpowers.

We should also not forget that to quite a large degree the ground-attack role was also taken over by helicopters.

However as we saw in reality, both CAS, fighter bombers and helicopters have their nishes.

Why is it a strange position? No working combat proven dedicated Jet-CAS aircraft emerged from WW2 or the following decade(s) from either defeated or victorious nations.

That is true, however he doesn`t want a "jet CAS" as much as he wants a variant of jet light bomber(ground attack aircraft originally), which, by the way, is logical to have as you said it yourself there was ME-262 variants dedicated for ground attack, however technically ME-262 was not a CAS, but light(dive) bomber and was intended to fly on high atlitude and drop bombs from there.

Also cold war fighter-bombers were not CAS in the sence that for example Il-2 was.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I want a specific model for it, just as there is a specific model for Junkers Ju 87

Then it looks like you will have to do some modding as Paradox have stated that they will not include fantasy aircraft/vehicles in the base game

Yet Ironically biggest jet transport airplanes in the world(An-124 and An-225) can land on ground airfields just fine.
I refuse to belive that when 600 tonne plane can land like that, 20ish tonne plane can`t be made to.

The An-124 or 225 can land or takeoff from a short ww2 ground airfield since when???

The An-225 needs a 3500 meter long runway for maximum weight landing which is more then a modern 747 or Airbus 380 do and makes it unable to land or takeoff at a large amount of big commercial airports today!!!

( Source: http://www.aircharterservice.aero/cargo/aircraft/antonov_an225.htm )


Using WW2 technology jet-engines it would have needed a many times longer runway for take-off due to the low thrust of early jet engines. And the same is true for a heavy CAS fantasy airplane.

 

[Sacer]

Then it looks like you will have to do some modding as Paradox have stated that they will not include fantasy aircraft/vehicles in the base game

Oh really? So if everything that didn't make it to prodction is "fantasy", how do you explain the representation of the E-series then? How do you explain the Junkers Ju 187 in the tech tree? At this point, your argument is moot and your view is rather uninteresting.

Google a definition of "fantasy" as your use of it is not semantically correct

 

[1alexey]

Then it looks like you will have to do some modding as Paradox have stated that they will not include fantasy aircraft/vehicles in the base game



The An-124 or 225 can land or takeoff from a short ww2 ground airfield since when???

The An-225 needs a 3500 meter long runway for maximum weight landing which is more then a modern 747 or Airbus 380 do and makes it unable to land or takeoff at a large amount of big commercial airports today!!!

( Source: http://www.aircharterservice.aero/cargo/aircraft/antonov_an225.htm )

What is the problem with the length of ground airfield exactly? You don`t have to spend nearly as much on making ground 3500m airfield as you spend making 1km concrete runway, not to mention the former is much easier to fix after air raid.

While it can`t land in many "modern airfields" it can land in places where there is no airfield at all, on snow and such, something A-380 or 747 could never dream of. Somehow there are a lot of long ground airfields in Africa for example, that are long enought for An-124, but can`t take in 747 due to not having proper runway.

I would expect the military thinking to go along similar lines as aries with bad infra. Plane that can run on long ground airfield is preferable to plane that can only run from concrete runway, even short.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Oh really? So if everything that didn't make it to prodction is "fantasy", how do you explain the representation of the E-series then? How do you explain the Junkers Ju 187 in the tech tree? At this point, your argument is moot and your view is rather uninteresting.

Google a definition of "fantasy" as your use of it is not semantically correct

You should ask podcat for a closer definition perhaps?

Personally I prefer not having complete fantasy tanks in the game.

My personal definition of Fantasy is something that could never have happened or been successful, like a German Jet-dedicated CAS aircraft in 1944-48 for example.

What is the problem with the length of ground airfield exactly?

Perhaps that a vast majority of the captured or quickly built up airfields did not have long runways? And many of them could due to geographical features like hills, slopes, forsests, rivers and so on not lengthen it easily either.


I also would love to see a Me262 or similar airplane try to take off from a mud and grass airfield, these things required long concrete runways AFAIK.

The An-225 flew first in 1988.

 

[Dalwin]

Douglas A1 Skyraider is probably the exception to the rule. Very effective ground support prop plane post war (1946).
Other than that your right in that most fighter-bombers are simply fighters doing ground attack with rockets/cannon/mgs.

Others being larger medium bombers like the Canberra.

But there are exceptions certainly. I wouldn't call the A4 Intruder either a fighter or a medium bomber, though it certainly took out its share of ground targets.

 

[1alexey]

Perhaps that a vast majority of the captured or quickly built up airfields did not have long runways? And many of them could due to geographical features like hills, slopes, forsests, rivers and so on not lengthen it easily either.


I also would love to see a Me262 or similar airplane try to take off from a mud and grass airfield, these things required long concrete runways AFAIK.

The An-225 flew first in 1988.

After a quick search, Soveit jet fighter Yak 23, that was developed in 1947 and was introduced in 1949, was capable of basing on ground airfields. Probably there were other prototypes that were capable of that as well.

So I guess I was right, it is possible, if designers deemed it important enought. The west overall is/was not as interested in ground airfields as SU was.

 

[Alex_brunius]

After a quick search, Soveit jet fighter Yak 23, that was developed in 1947, was capable of basing on ground airfields.

So I guess I was right, it is possible, if constructors deem it important enought.

And how well does "simple lightweight jetfighter" fit with your OWN definition of what a dedicated CAS is?

But fighter-bombers are far less effective than dedicated CAS, that is designed for low-speed manuvering, carries a tonne of payload and armor. Armor is actually critical, as a plane with enough armor to sustain fire from ground, weigts a lot so such plane can`t dogfight.

How much payload could the Yak 23 deliver?

 

[1alexey]

And how well does "simple lightweight jetfighter" fit with your OWN definition of what a dedicated CAS is?

Everything is relative :rofl:
Il-2 carries literally a tonne of of payload and armor compared to say BF-109E. However it doesn`t have the bomb load of B-29 obviously. A 10 is also slightly lighter than F-15, and carries literally a tonne of armor.

Don`t argue semantics. Admit defeat with dignity :happy:

It was possible. Both light weinght fighters with 1940s tech and heaviest transport plane in the world can. Your designers just need to be put at the fact that motherland doesn`t have the money for fancy concrete runways.

 

[Sacer]

My personal definition of Fantasy is something that could never have happened or been successful, like a German Jet-dedicated CAS aircraft in 1944-48 for example.

Fantasy: Something Alex-brunius thinks that could never have happened or been successful in an alternative outcome of WWII

I don' think they are going for that definition.

So given Germany is still fighting in 1948, why couldn't they have started producing a Jet CAS if they so chose to do?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Everything is relative :rofl:
Il-2 carries literally a tonne of of payload and armor compared to say BF-109E.

An IL-2 is over twice as heavy (4.3 ton empty ) as the later Yak-23 ( 1.9 ton empty ), but the Yak would require more armor to survive more modern ground fire and be required to deliver more payload to defeat better protected ground targets.

That means it's pure fantasy that such a plane could have been used in a CAS or ground attack role...

How effective do you think that two small 20mm cannons are going to be against 1949 level tanks???

So given Germany is still fighting in 1948, why couldn't they have started producing a Jet CAS if they so chose to do?

You can try starting with reading mine and Alexeys previous posts explaining why.

But I will summarize for you since I am so nice

1.) Jet-Engines were still very expensive and fragile so it makes no sense using them in cheap frontline aircraft that have to go toe-toe with the enemy AA fire.
2.) Jet-Engines still had too low thrust to operate on short frontline runways near the front where CAS aircraft are operated.
3.) Heavier Jet-airplanes ( like CAS ) required concrete runways to be able to operate limiting their frontline use further.
4.) Rockets and missiles had replaced dive bombers as a means for precision strikes, and these can be fired from other airframes just as good as from a dedicated CAS airframe.
5.) Early Cold war fighter-bombers were not dedicated CAS aircraft, and none of the powers built dedicated CAS jet-aircraft for good reasons (like all the above).

 

[1alexey]

Fantasy: Something Alex-brunius thinks that could never have happened or been successful in an alternative outcome of WWII

I don' think they are going for that definition.

So given Germany is still fighting in 1948, why couldn't they have started producing a Jet CAS if they so chose to do?

Jet CAS? No. Jet engines were really expencive and didn`t provide any advantage for low-altitude CAS and they already had huge lines producing reliable high-power piston engines.
Jet light bomber intended to be something like a better version of Mosquito, fast, high altitude bomber, like what Hitler`s vision of ME-262 was - that is quite a possibility, as Germans already had people like Hitler rooting for such plane.

An IL-2 is over twice as heavy (4.3 ton empty ) as the later Yak-23 ( 1.9 ton empty ), but the Yak would require more armor to survive ground fire and be required to deliver more payload to defeat better protected ground targets.

That means it's pure fantasy that such a plane could have been used in a CAS or ground attack role...

How effective do you think that two small 20mm cannons are going to be against 1949 level tanks???

Yak 23 was not intended as a CAS. I can`t see why you keep pointing at weinght. Weight is not all that relevant if the runway is long enought, as An-225 proves handilly.

You wanted a plane like ME-262 with 1940s jet tech fly from ground runways, you got it. No-one did design jet CAS in 1950s due to ample supply of WW2 planes. However as the evidence on hand sugests, it was quite possible to do so, if it was nececery. It wasn`t because the war was over, and the Jet engines were not yet all that fuel efficent so no point equiping planes that didn`t need speed with them.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yak 23 was not intended as a CAS. I can`t see why you keep pointing at weinght. Weight is not all that relevant if the runway is long enought, as An-225 proves handilly.

Weight is very important if you don't want to get stuck in grass/mud airfields and crash when trying to take off or land.

And I don't see why you keep pointing at the An-225 a 1988 transport aircraft with 32 wheels!

It has absolutely nothing to with if it's possible to land WW2 technology jet airplanes at short muddy runways...
How many WW2 designs utilize 32 wheels to start with?