FIAT G-91

ok dear DCS I thought that for the TORNADO there are no hopes and classified and also for the AMX-GHIBLI there are no hopes also it and calss1. I thought about a plane that Italy and Germany used the famous FIAT G-91 maybe this one plane could be done.

NATO FIAT G-91

ESPECIAL FIAT G-91Y ------------2 engine

Meh basically a mini sabre with limited ordinance capacity, and or for just snapping a few recon photos.

Honestly this aircraft was obsolete the day it entered operational service ( circa 1959-61 depending on the nation). As you basically had a fighter that was inadequate performance wise to fight fighters of the contemporary adversary era (GL against a Mig17F let alone Mig19's or Mig21's) no A2A missiles of any sort, inadequate A/G capacity ( even for a light attack plane), fixed gunsight ( no radar ranging) or aided bombing equipment.

Really the only thing it would be useful for would be recon, but hell there were always reconnaissance version of typical combat capable jets or that could be outright configured as such.

Its not surprising that certain nations backed out of buying G91 and instead opted for the F5 Freedom fighter, a more sensible, and technologically relevant, as an inexpensive "lightweight tactical fighter, even if it wasn't available until a few years later.

Honestly the G91Y followup was what the G91R series should have been from the beginning., but that again came too little to late.

Nice little bird, though. Germany used the trainer version of it for a long time. Nothing fancy of doing anything 'best' or most powerful, but I like it.

Obviously the use of recon planes is debatable in DCS as of now anyway.

Meh basically a mini sabre with limited ordinance capacity, and or for just snapping a few recon photos.

 

Honestly this aircraft was obsolete the day it entered operational service ( circa 1959-61 depending on the nation). As you basically had a fighter that was inadequate performance wise to fight fighters of the contemporary adversary era (GL against a Mig17F let alone Mig19's or Mig21's) no A2A missiles of any sort, inadequate A/G capacity ( even for a light attack plane), fixed gunsight ( no radar ranging) or aided bombing equipment.

 

Really the only thing it would be useful for would be recon, but hell there were always reconnaissance version of typical combat capable jets or that could be outright configured as such.

 

 

Its not surprising that certain nations backed out of buying G91 and instead opted for the F5 Freedom fighter, a more sensible, and technologically relevant, as an inexpensive "lightweight tactical fighter, even if it wasn't available until a few years later.

 

Honestly the G91Y followup was what the G91R series should have been from the beginning., but that again came too little to late.

to defend ourselves from the mig we used the F-104s the G-91Y we used it as a bomber then we are talking about the years 1960-1970 since then so many things have changed.

It was ugly and underpowered, but i always liked it.

A prototype was made, G-91YS, which participated in the selection for an aircraft destined for the Swiss Air Force.

He was also armed with 2 Sidewinder missile pylons:

I don't remember what was written on the flight manual and therefore what was actually certified for use on it, but I can guarantee that the armament we had in the depots was completely conventional: Mk.82 slick and retarded, Mk .83, Orion rocket launchers and 30mm Defa cannons.

In recent years the BL.755s were certified and used.

In this regard, the "Swiss" was actually certified for several armaments, including the AIM-9s at the additional external pylons.

When he was shot at the AMI he served both the 8th and the 32nd Stormo (here was the famous 32-13, but there was also the 32-17), but all the extra avionics as well as the two were landed. external pillars.

I've seen it in real life and I can say it's really a tiny jet, it almost feels like you can move it with your hands

portughese g-91 whit sidewinder on the pilons.

I like that plane, personally

to defend ourselves from the mig we used the F-104s the G-91Y we used it as a bomber then we are talking about the years 1960-1970 since then so many things have changed.

I understand the main role of G91 was Photo recon, and ground attack, however my point being it cant self escort or defend itself adequately. when intercepted

G91Y would more desirable as a potential module over the G91R given the significantly better performance, especially if this was a YS with Aim9s.

I understand the main role of G91 was Photo recon, and ground attack, however my point being it cant self escort or defend itself adequately. when intercepted

 

 

G91Y would more desirable as a potential module over the G91R given the significantly better performance, especially if this was a YS with Aim9s.

yes indeed germany used R3 not version Y.

G.91R / 3: was the model requested by Germany, which adopted 2 DEFA M552 30 mm guns and four attachment points, which allowed the increase of the transportable war load without drastically affecting the range. The avionics had also been improved. From Fiat it was produced in 50 units, another 294 were produced under license in Germany;

the Y version was used only by italy and the switzerland no longer took the G91 YS but opted for F-5.

FIAT G91 R3 GERMANY

Propulsion

Engine 1 turbojet

Bristol Siddeley

Orpheus 803-02

Thrust 22.26 kN

Performance

Max speed 0,78 Ma

(1 075 km / h at altitude)

Autonomy 1 150 km (621 nmi)

Tangenza 13 260 m

FIAT g91Y

Propulsion

Engine turbojet 2

General Electric J85-13

with afterburner

Boost from 12.8 to 17.7 kN each

Performance

Max speed 0.8 Ma

(1 140 km / h at altitude)

Autonomy 3 500 km

Tangenza 12 500 m

ok dear DCS I thought that for the TORNADO there are no hopes and classified and also for the AMX-GHIBLI there are no hopes also it and calss1. I thought about a plane that Italy and Germany used the famous FIAT G-91 maybe this one plane could be done.

 

[/img]

AMX international ( non modernized version) wouldn't be too classified.

IT doesn't have any really High tech sensors, Ive seen the manual for it. Its more like a early Gen 4 aircraft in terms of avionics. It is essentially an attack platform still relying on unguided munitions delivery, aided only by CCIP/CCRP.

yes indeed germany used R3 not version Y.

 

G.91R / 3: was the model requested by Germany, which adopted 2 DEFA M552 30 mm guns and four attachment points, which allowed the increase of the transportable war load without drastically affecting the range. The avionics had also been improved. From Fiat it was produced in 50 units, another 294 were produced under license in Germany;

 

the Y version was used only by italy and the switzerland no longer took the G91 YS but opted for F-5.

Yes I am aware the German version has extra firepower and hardpoints. But its still not as appealing as a G91Y, given the worse performance even if only used by Italy.

Another thing to consider is what is the countermeasures suite? G91R series never was fitted with Flare or Chaff dispensors, nor any Radar warning receivers.

I dont think G91Y had any of these either (but i could be wrong). Therefore the G91 is still going to be very vulnerable in ground attack, as the Vietnam experience showed in the 1960s when looking at US aircraft that operating in North Vietnam airspace in the early days of Rolling Thunder, (and why such technologies were rapidly developed alert the pilot and if possible to counter) had to endure lacking such systems. That experience could be reflected of some of the Air defense systems the soviets would have been operating had COld war gone hot, air defense systems that the G91 could have potentially faced.

Yes I am aware the German version has extra firepower and hardpoints. But its still not as appealing as a G91Y, given the worse performance even if only used by Italy.

 

Another thing to consider is what is the countermeasures suite? G91R series never was fitted with Flare or Chaff dispensors, nor any Radar warning receivers.

 

I dont think G91Y had any of these either (but i could be wrong). Therefore the G91 is still going to be very vulnerable in ground attack, as the Vietnam experience showed in the 1960s when looking at US aircraft that operating in North Vietnam airspace in the early days of Rolling Thunder, (and why such technologies were rapidly developed alert the pilot and if possible to counter) had to endure lacking such systems. That experience could be reflected of some of the Air defense systems the soviets would have been operating had COld war gone hot, air defense systems that the G91 could have potentially faced.

G91Y was not equipped with the ALQ 70/73 and the chaff / flares ALE-40 provided for the F104G would have made the car adequate but you have to admit that the G91 could maneuver at low altitude .. in fact the aerotactic component entrusted its capacity to survival only on the skills of pilots trained to fly at very low altitudes. The MIG-19s were not trained to fly at low altitudes just to look for bombers.

G91Y was not equipped with the ALQ 70/73 and the chaff / flares ALE-40 provided for the F104G would have made the car adequate but you have to admit that the G91 could maneuver at low altitude .. in fact the aerotactic component entrusted its capacity to survival only on the skills of pilots trained to fly at very low altitudes.

 

Flying low wasn't really ideal either. AS Vietnam showed if one flew low to avoid SAMS, that in turn made aircraft vulnerable to concentration of AAA fire. and again the G91 has no countermeasures or sensors to alert the pilot of any incoming threats unlike many of the US aircraft that were swifly upgraded with such systems by the late 60s, along with equipping many aircraft with option to carry anti radiation missiles, that weren't dedicated SEAD aircraft.

What the Vietnamese didn't have l radar assisted systems came out like the Shilka which already began entering service before American made thier combat commitment to Vietnam, following low level missile systems like the Sa8' gecko , individually carried Strela Manpads , which would have been making entry in the USSR by the end of the 1960s, further making low level flying even more dangerous than it was in Vietnam, never minding the 1980s era of Low level defense systems. Granted of course Italy had been developing the amx during the late 70s but that doesn't enter service until the last couple years of the cold war.

YOu have to think how this would fit in DCS. If these are the sort of threats it will face at the first few years of its service life, then its simply not up to the task of any real ground attack in a contested environment.

The closest emulation of this would be to use F86 as a stand in to see how a potential G91 will fare in DCS. So in short F86 for ground attack, but facing soviet threats at least 12-20 years its senior. Gonna be a nasty attrition rate.

 

The MIG-19s were not trained to fly at low altitudes just to look for bombers.

 

 

Considering that North Vietnamese were trained by Soviet advisors , and knew not only how to engage tactical fighters in BFM, but also intercept low flying attack aircraft ,clearly intercepting bombers was not the only thing Soviet pilots would be capable of doing.

There were multiple times were Vietnamese shot down low level attack aircraft with migs, or had at least attempted to do so. SO its arrogant to assume a G91 would never be at risk against an encounter with any sort of mig in a potential war over Europe.

GERMAN FIAT G.91 PREPARE ROADBASE

PORTUGHESE g91

Hmmm this one is a difficult one, I kinda like it I guess but for jets kinda like it though I think I would prefer the Hawker Hunter, something like an F.6 (though Swiss Mk.58 were AFAIK AIM-9 and AGM-65 capable not to mention the Singapore F.74S for Singapore). The G.91 is faster than the Hunter (I think) so it's got that going for it.

I mean, I would probably buy it and would give us some more variety in DCS, module development seems I don't know a little one sided? A fair few US aircraft modules spanning 1st (F-86F), 2nd (F-5E3) and 4th (F-14A/B, F-16C Block 50, F/A-18C), REDFOR get a 1st generation (MiG-15Bis) and a couple of 2nd generation (MiG-19P, MiG-21Bis) and that's it. As for European stuff, aside from WWII aircraft (Bf-109K-4, FW-190 A-8/D-9, Spitfire IX) there's the C-101 (jet trainer), AJS-37 (3rd) and Mirage 2000C (4th). So the G.91 would be a welcome addition in this aspect and would be a good period aircraft for a cold war setting (though same for the Hunter)

this if one of my favorite planes actually. for me this is "the" aircraft of the german luftwaffe. when i learned about aviation as a child i must have had old books only;)

however i don't know how excited i would be to actually fly it in dcs. it's neither very capable, nor highly specialized...

i would definitely like it as an AI asset though...

i would definitely like it as an AI asset though...

Oh yeah, that's a good idea, instead of making modules make AI aircraft so at least we have the assets available, although not flyable :thumbup:

I understand the main role of G91 was Photo recon, and ground attack, however my point being it cant self escort or defend itself adequately. when intercepted

 

G91Y would more desirable as a potential module over the G91R given the significantly better performance, especially if this was a YS with Aim9s.

The outer wing pylons of the R4 and Y were all wired for AIM-9Bs. The only G-91s that definitely couldn't carry it were the R-1 and T. I'm not saying it was an amazing fighter, but in an all out war it wouldn't have been entirely defenseless either.

That said, given that it was designed to be small and cheap it ended up being a fairly limited airframe. It was meant to be operated from unprepared strips near the front line, and it would have been ok at that, but it definitely didn't age as well as the F-5 or Skyhawk. It doesn't help that Italy obviously had less money to invest in its own light fighter bomber programs than the US did.

An R-4 is definally the version I would prefer in DCS, it is an awesome turnfighter (pilots said it was way better than F-86E), could carry AS-20 air to ground missiles, it can be used as a bush plane, can carry AIM-9Bs (useless as F but anyways) and if you remove 2 pilons you get the italian version (R-1B).

It's more or less like an early A-4.

Y version is cool as well but is more outdated then the predecessor compared to the period of service (non radar, non countermeasures, non rwr in the 70s).

An R-4 is definally the version I would prefer in DCS, it is an awesome turnfighter (pilots said it was way better than F-86E), could carry AS-20 air to ground missiles, it can be used as a bush plane, can carry AIM-9Bs (useless as F but anyways) and if you remove 2 pilons you get the italian version (R-1B).

It's more or less like an early A-4.[...]

Oh, it's a bit more capable than i thought. But neither the Y, nor the R4 did have an RWR, right?

Oh, it's a bit more capable than i thought. But neither the Y, nor the R4 did have an RWR, right?

Unfortunately you are right, remember its first flight was in 1954, operative from 1958. (R version)

Y version has basically the same avionics so it is comparable to F-5A, R version is like the A-4A.