Add 1 more fighter to kashan and remove their bombs

[CAS_117]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

got any more examples or info on it?

I just mean that people hardly use them in the AG role unless they are desperate. Since you can't change your loadout to suit the situation (removing fuel tanks and some AA missiles for LGBs or vice versa) asking people to follow rigidly forced behavior is counter productive for a sandbox situation.

[Bringerof_D]

i think what he's saying isn't to remove bombs from the existing fighter, but to ADD one fighter that doesnt have bombs keeping everything else the same, thus increasing protection for the CAS craft, while sparing infantry and armor from another big bomb but keeping the additional fear of which plane has the bomb and of course the need to take cover from guns in the sky.

[[R-DEV]Sniperdog]

Originally Posted by Bringerof_D

i think what he's saying isn't to remove bombs from the existing fighter, but to ADD one fighter that doesnt have bombs keeping everything else the same, thus increasing protection for the CAS craft, while sparing infantry and armor from another big bomb but keeping the additional fear of which plane has the bomb and of course the need to take cover from guns in the sky.

Well put. PS. regarding this theoretical fighter having nothing to do for a while when the enemy planes are shot down. Whats so wrong about having him simply land and stay grounded until hes needed again? IRL you wouldn't always have an air superiority fighter constantly patrolling a sky you know you control when you also know the enemy has no air capability.

[StuTika]

Regarding using heat seeking missiles against ground targets - most ground targets have engines (tanks, APCs, jeeps, boats etc.) so surely an IR guided missile can be locked on to any heat source - I wouldn't have thought the missile could tell if it's an aircraft or not.

Although, thinking about it, I guess an aircraft's heat signature it *a lot* hotter (and bigger?) than a tank's engine/exhaust, so it would be harder for a missile to lock onto say a tank.

Stu.

[Bringerof_D]

Originally Posted by StuTika

Regarding using heat seeking missiles against ground targets - most ground targets have engines (tanks, APCs, jeeps, boats etc.) so surely an IR guided missile can be locked on to any heat source - I wouldn't have thought the missile could tell if it's an aircraft or not.

Although, thinking about it, I guess an aircraft's heat signature it *a lot* hotter (and bigger?) than a tank's engine/exhaust, so it would be harder for a missile to lock onto say a tank.

Stu.

hilariously enough since the Abrams tank is run with a jet engine, you can lock a stinger missile onto it. i don't know if this also applies to other tanks, or if it's common but that's the one i've heard of thus far in terms of thermal loocking missiles going for tanks. even if so it's probably only short range.

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by Bringerof_D

hilariously enough since the Abrams tank is run with a jet engine, you can lock a stinger missile onto it. i don't know if this also applies to other tanks, or if it's common but that's the one i've heard of thus far in terms of thermal loocking missiles going for tanks. even if so it's probably only short range.

And would be hilariously ineffective as stingers (as well as most antiaircraft missles, there are some exceptions, like StarStreak) have a fragmentation warhead.