Light jet fighters not having night air capability

[Daikhan]

I like to field light jet fighters with my light carriers. But there seems no way to make them night capable. Is this intended? Can we have an additional tech to research night capability for light jet fighters? It can be made a bit later coming if needed.

And another point: what do you people think of adding double heavy missiles as a late research for attack jets too? I have a general feel that aircraft are a bit weak if you compare them to RTW2

[NumberOneBSUFan]

I believe it is intended for light jet fighters (LJF) not to have night attack capability. Here's how I conceptualize the design choice. Essentially, LJF are split into two different eras.

Early LJF are in essence no different in terms of avionics/computer systems than their piston engine counterparts. While representing some advancements in terms of air-frame design they are more or less a WW2 era/early Cold War era piston engine fighter with a jet engine tossed in there. Obviously a lot of fighters in this era weren't able to conduct missions at night.

The second era comes as jet technology matures. As jet technology advances LJF transform into fast fleet defense interceptors. As a result of this, they lack the avionics/computer systems that would make them true multi-role fighters with the night attack capability to go with it. The additional weight of the avionics/computer systems to make these aircraft night capable would defeat the purpose of the LJF concept during this era. While these aircraft have some limited ground attack capability, they aren't true multi-role fighters.

Your additional point ties in with my answer as well. Keep in mind the time era we're operating in. LJF fighters with night capability and attack aircraft with multiple missiles were certainly advancements that came in the 70s and 80s, but tech advances in the game stop at 1970. While I'm sure examples of jet aircraft with double heavy missiles and LJF with night capability existed in 1970, the technology was also not widespread at the time. As a result, we're left with something that is more or less true to real life. Sorry for the long response but this is how I think about the design choices in game. Obviously people can view these things differently so I'm always open to additional viewpoints!

As a quick aside, I don't disagree that attack aircraft feel a bit weaker. My striking power and the striking power of the AI feels somewhat weak, even when I have coordinated strikes from advanced dive bombers and torpedo bombers (that are escorted).

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by NumberOneBSUFan:

Early LJF are in essence no different in terms of avionics/computer systems than their piston engine counterparts. While representing some advancements in terms of air-frame design they are more or less a WW2 era/early Cold War era piston engine fighter with a jet engine tossed in there. Obviously a lot of fighters in this era weren't able to conduct missions at night.

The thing there is I literally kept flying piston fighters to have a night CAP in this period.

Originally posted by NumberOneBSUFan:

Early LJF are in essence no different in terms of avionics/computer systems than their piston engine counterparts. While representing some advancements in terms of air-frame design they are more or less a WW2 era/early Cold War era piston engine fighter with a jet engine tossed in there. Obviously a lot of fighters in this era weren't able to conduct missions at night.

The thing about this is I have literally kept a prop fighter squadron on a ship with primarily LJF because they could fly night CAP.

Originally posted by NumberOneBSUFan:

And another point: what do you people think of adding double heavy missiles as a late research for attack jets too? I have a general feel that aircraft are a bit weak if you compare them to RTW2

Do they not get that? I thought they did, actually, but maybe it was only the medium bombers.

Strictly speaking the single missile thing seems wrong since strike jets that can operate from carriers usually carry weapons like that under-wing and you can't carry just one heavy missile that way, you'd be unbalanced. (Obviously you can have an under-belly single hardpoint, but putting a very large missile there may be a spatial problem... Am I wrong? Were there a lot of one-missile strike loadouts in the '60s and '70s?

[Andrew Cree]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

The thing about this is I have literally kept a prop fighter squadron on a ship with primarily LJF because they could fly night CAP.

Which is also what happened IRL after WW2 as well. Tigercats, for example.

Originally posted by NumberOneBSUFan:

Strictly speaking the single missile thing seems wrong since strike jets that can operate from carriers usually carry weapons like that under-wing and you can't carry just one heavy missile that way, you'd be unbalanced. (Obviously you can have an under-belly single hardpoint, but putting a very large missile there may be a spatial problem... Am I wrong? Were there a lot of one-missile strike loadouts in the '60s and '70s?

You carry a strike missile under one wing, and a fuel tank under the other so you have the range to reach your target.

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Andrew Cree:

You carry a strike missile under one wing, and a fuel tank under the other so you have the range to reach your target.

Could the aircraft actually balance that? It sounds very precarious, but the right skew of the wing fuel tanks might make it work. Until you launch the missile and put your self radically off-balance until the pumps catch up.

[Lakel]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Originally posted by Andrew Cree:

You carry a strike missile under one wing, and a fuel tank under the other so you have the range to reach your target.

Could the aircraft actually balance that? It sounds very precarious, but the right skew of the wing fuel tanks might make it work. Until you launch the missile and put your self radically off-balance until the pumps catch up.

it can throw things off but unless you're trying to dogfight its not a major issue that trim cant fix, and if youre getting into a dogfight your punching those wingtanks anyways.

Modern attackers tend to have a centerline hardpoint they can carry single large munitions and just have their drop tanks on the wings. Or the opposite, all depends on the particular objective.

[Daikhan]

Originally posted by NumberOneBSUFan:

I believe it is intended for light jet fighters (LJF) not to have night attack capability. Here's how I conceptualize the design choice. Essentially, LJF are split into two different eras.

Early LJF are in essence no different in terms of avionics/computer systems than their piston engine counterparts. While representing some advancements in terms of air-frame design they are more or less a WW2 era/early Cold War era piston engine fighter with a jet engine tossed in there. Obviously a lot of fighters in this era weren't able to conduct missions at night.

The second era comes as jet technology matures. As jet technology advances LJF transform into fast fleet defense interceptors. As a result of this, they lack the avionics/computer systems that would make them true multi-role fighters with the night attack capability to go with it. The additional weight of the avionics/computer systems to make these aircraft night capable would defeat the purpose of the LJF concept during this era. While these aircraft have some limited ground attack capability, they aren't true multi-role fighters.

Your additional point ties in with my answer as well. Keep in mind the time era we're operating in. LJF fighters with night capability and attack aircraft with multiple missiles were certainly advancements that came in the 70s and 80s, but tech advances in the game stop at 1970. While I'm sure examples of jet aircraft with double heavy missiles and LJF with night capability existed in 1970, the technology was also not widespread at the time. As a result, we're left with something that is more or less true to real life. Sorry for the long response but this is how I think about the design choices in game. Obviously people can view these things differently so I'm always open to additional viewpoints!

As a quick aside, I don't disagree that attack aircraft feel a bit weaker. My striking power and the striking power of the AI feels somewhat weak, even when I have coordinated strikes from advanced dive bombers and torpedo bombers (that are escorted).

These are nice points, thanks. I did suggest to add a research for that specifically that could be a late game research (late 60s or even 70s right up the end of the game). And if we talk about historical context - we can have huge missile armed battleships duking it out in the 70s, why can't we have a LJF with night capabilities then? RTW3 is more of sandbox game with lots of possibilities - you can try to do a completely ahistoric run if you want that will be loads of fun

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Daikhan:

And if we talk about historical context - we can have huge missile armed battleships duking it out in the 70s, why can't we have a LJF with night capabilities then? RTW3 is more of sandbox game with lots of possibilities - you can try to do a completely ahistoric run if you want that will be loads of fun

Why is it important that it be a light jet fighter instead of a heavy jet fighter, exactly?

(Also, given the game systems, there's no option for "a LJF with night capabilities". The only thing there could be is a tech that gives all LJF night capabilities.)

[IspartaPratapon]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Originally posted by Daikhan:

And if we talk about historical context - we can have huge missile armed battleships duking it out in the 70s, why can't we have a LJF with night capabilities then? RTW3 is more of sandbox game with lots of possibilities - you can try to do a completely ahistoric run if you want that will be loads of fun

Why is it important that it be a light jet fighter instead of a heavy jet fighter, exactly?

(Also, given the game systems, there's no option for "a LJF with night capabilities". The only thing there could be is a tech that gives all LJF night capabilities.)

Can't put HJFs on CVLs. ;)

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by IspartaPratapon:

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Why is it important that it be a light jet fighter instead of a heavy jet fighter, exactly?

(Also, given the game systems, there's no option for "a LJF with night capabilities". The only thing there could be is a tech that gives all LJF night capabilities.)

Can't put HJFs on CVLs. ;)

Manual says you can, but there is a noteworthy penalty.

[Daikhan]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Originally posted by Daikhan:

And if we talk about historical context - we can have huge missile armed battleships duking it out in the 70s, why can't we have a LJF with night capabilities then? RTW3 is more of sandbox game with lots of possibilities - you can try to do a completely ahistoric run if you want that will be loads of fun

Why is it important that it be a light jet fighter instead of a heavy jet fighter, exactly?

(Also, given the game systems, there's no option for "a LJF with night capabilities". The only thing there could be is a tech that gives all LJF night capabilities.)

No particular reason. I tried a game with light carriers only and LJFs not being able to operate at night really bugged me. I would like to see a tech that gives LJF this capability even if they make it a really late one