I think the fundamental issue with the G-91 was embracing the near-absurd NMBR-1 requirement of a max empty weight of 6800 lbs. An aircraft that small just has too little room to grow into better avionics or capabilities. Seriously, if you see it in person, it's literally the size of a Spitfire, with a wingspan about as large as the F-14 or F-15 tail. By comparison notoriously tiny, lightweight, cheap but highly successful aircraft like the A-4 and F-5 had empty weights closer to 10000lbs.
In theory you are correct but remember that it was conceived as a lightweight fighter according NATO specifications that in truth many countries wasn't very enthusiastic...
I love the G91,just not because I'm portuguese and we had those but,my grandfather was a marine in Angola,in the portuguese colonial war,and he mentions how helpful the G91 was.He told me once all marines went crazy after a pilot mentioned he would be flying from Luanda all the way to Portugal,I don't know what happened next,but everybody thinks he made it.Just a cool little story.
and as mentioned in the video, eventually nerfed by the liberation movements getting hold of some Strelas that must've fallen of the back end of a Kamaz - better AA and especially MANPADS made the low-level CAS mission impossible even if you're a flying gun going BRRT (A-10) or going supersonic over treetops (Viggen).
Common ammunition among member states is one thing, but a common fighter jet in a period where fighter jets were being made obsolete about as fast as computers were in the 1990s and 2000s was a bridge too far.
F-104 Starfighter? F-4 Phantom? _Harrier?_ F-16 Falcon? Mirages? Not _everyone_ bought and used those _For decades,_ but everyone who wanted those aircraft's abilities in their matrix _did,_ resulting in a lot of commonality and improvements.
"Gnat" has a very German look to my eye so I googled its origins and it turns out it's one of the oldest words in English, going all the way back to Proto-Germanic. Which means that at some point we actually did say the "g" sound at the front, and dropped it as Old English turned into Middle English - much like "gnaw" or "knife" or "knight." Just some word trivia for you. :)
And to think this process and the result was relatively tame compared to the later struggles over multi-national projects. So many cooks and so many differing requirements. A good informative video Chris.
I really like the idea of this on paper but the timeline, military and political considerations just didn't line up. It's a shame for Fiat for sure, they really banked on this and in the end got burned.
@@MilitaryAviationHistoryDid they? You mentioned a production run that was not insignificant. They didn't build any huge fleets of them but was that not sufficient to cover the program?
@@MilitaryAviationHistory cracking little fighter and it only "failed" because of politics and not because of the aircraft itself.....and the fact the "Freece Tricolori" aerobatic team had GREAT succes with it is testimant to its quality
They, afaik, restructed their whole company on this and I do not believe it paid up in the end. License production in Germany accounted for a significant chunk of the 700+ build - having more of the initial non-license production sold to France and Britain, plus potentially some smaller states, would have made the investment fall in line with the initial expectations.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Thank you for the clarification, Bismarck! I was unaware that they restructured around potential contracts to such a degree that it became an albatross rather than an eagle.
Honestly I always liked the Fiat G.91 and saw the last flight of the aerobatic team Frecce Tricolori with this airplane superbly performed over Pisa around early seventies. I met a few pilots who flew this airplane and they said that it was a delight to fly and had no real vices. I think that if it had a more powerful engine it would have made a difference. Good job as always 👏 👍
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I was in the G91 cockpit several times during an internship in the (german) airforce. Was quite uncomfortable. But that was because they removed the ejector seat and put a shitty wooden stool in its place :D
It's worth noting that the UK didn't just turn down the G.91, we also turned down the Gnat for the ground attack role* and decided to modify the older Hawker Hunter for ground attack (FGA.9) and photo recce (FR.10) instead. *Though we did buy Gnats as advanced trainers.
The Gnat was the only aircraft in the competition that even made the weight requirement anyway. All the others were over the limits set out. I’ll also mention the Gnat had Stella flight performance from it’s amazing T/W ratio, roll rate and low wing loading. The G.91 was just a rehash of the sabre with worse performance, during a time when the sabre was considered increasingly outdated itself, let alone an aircraft with worse raw performance. The Gnats limitation was its complexity and payload I suppose. But in a dogfight it would rip the face off a sabre let alone a watered down one.
@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 yes I am not disputing that, I am not sure about which year went out of service , I was only pointing out that the last planes in service where a redesigned version and not the original R .
a much more stark contrast than the starfighter's first flight in 1958 as the G91 entered service is that the F4 phantom also had its first flight that same year and would enter service 3 years later
I like your videos, but I expected more from this one. Since Portugal was the only Country who used the G-91 in combat, I believe you should have dedicated much more time and images about her combat performance, which by the way was pretty good. Only her payload left to be desired. Another issue is that the aircraft had no self defence capability in air to air combat, not even gun radar and a proper sight. They would have been decimated by any MIG 17, had it come to that. Tests were made with a pair of AIM-9B Sidewinders in the outer pylons, but in the end, no enemy Fighters ever came up from Guinea Conacri.
First let me say that I love Italy and all things Italian, especially the Ferrari 250GT & crabmeat ravioli. That said, my favorite quote is from a column I read that discussed the history of perfection. "The low point in the history of perfection was the sacking of Rome by the barbarians, which eventually lead to the creation of Fiat."
Always interesting thanks. I remember watching them operate along with Italian F-104's at Decimomannu, Sardinia, in the eighties, whilst we were detatched there for Air to Ground Gunnery/Bombing exercises etc..... Both seemed to spend a rather long time on the ground back then? We did have a Squadron of Portuguese G91's fly into RAF Brüggen around the same time but I didn't get a close look at them.
I would like to see a look at the G. 91 vs the A-4 Skyhawk. It also was a tough simple aircraft that could take off from short runways and the IAI did very well with it.
I think the A4 is superior just as a plane in general, infinitely upgradeable and crazy bomb load from that single delta but if you mean in a dogfight I think the G91 handles the early A4 models up to the E
@@r.gilman4261 I was thinking as an attack aircraft, not in a dog fight. The A-4 had a longer range and a bigger bomb load so I feel that the A-4 was the better plane but as to air to air, I would say it would really depend on the pilot. I have a bias toward the Scooter but I am sure that someone that is a big G.91 fan would feel the exact opposite.
For Italy’s postwar reindustrialization efforts it was a critical programme. The secret technology transfer from the USA also demonstrated that the Americans did not trust the French and British at that point in time.
@@ltrns001 In the context of his comment it makes no sense. The Fiat was a cheap F-86 with less performance. The British and French already had more advanced aircraft and operated the Sabre before the Italians. The Italian sabres were taken from the RAF. So I don’t understand what secret technology transfer they could be talking about since the F-86 was a well known design. I don’t see how the Italians weren’t especially trusted.
@@GG-ir1hw first the comment isn't refered to the g 91 programin particular, but to the political climate within postwar europe, italy in fact was reindustrializing as other countries through economic aid, in this period in particular tech transfer is considered more important in this divided political landscape than obviously in more recent times like in the 70s or 80s, therefore indicating from a political perspective that more trust is being put in one countries governement compared to others. Second the g 91 doesn't cover the same role as RAF sabers: the saber is an air superiority fighter and the d variant is more of an all- weather interceptor, the g 91 was oriented towards multirole use with the capabilty to dogfight enemy aircraft if needed, it also has better all around performance below 5000m/15000ft compared to afterburning variants of the f 86, especially in turns where the the airfoil desinged to reduce turbulent flow proved to be problematic in turns.
First flight of the F-104 was actually in 1954, before the first flight of the G91, and the 104 entered service in 1958. By comparison the G91 looked like the outdated subsonic jets that were soon to be replaced by the F-104 in NATO service.
Though it became pretty clear that the strike capability of the F-104 wasnt all that great. Well, if you ignore ground strikes by the planes airframe, which wasnt quite the intent.
@@termitreter6545 It is not at all clear that "the strike capability of the F-104 wasn't all that great". Since there was not a nuclear exchange in Europe during its service there it would seem its capability was respected enough to have deterrent value. And if the F-104 had been used for tactical nuclear strikes, how can you assume it would have not performed better than the slower and less sophisticated aircraft it replaced. You must think Germany should have kept the F84 and F-86, or maybe even the Me-262.
@@gort8203 You clearly dont know what I think, so maybe skip making assumptions :P The G.91 was made for conventional bombing, and displaced in THAT ROLE by fighters like 104/105. The latter werent just nuclear bombers. So my point is that the interceptor style conventional bombers fell out of favour pretty quickly, probably faster than the early cold war interceptors concept itself. Parts of the G.91 concept, fast and low flying, intead survived and resulted in planes like the F-111 and Tornado IDS. Or Viggen. Even the F-35 was originally designed as a low flying, speedy strike fighter with fast turn-around times.
@@termitreter6545 It's not an assumption of what you think, its a rhetorical device to equate your comment with another to show how weak yours is. I'm sure you've experienced this before. And speaking of assumptions, or premises, I don’t think you understand the concepts behind these aircraft, and your point is just wrong. "Interceptor bombers" were not really a thing, but fast bombers and strike fighter-bombers were, and they never fell out of favor until they were replaced by stealth platforms. In this context the GR91 was not at all fast and not of the same concept. It was an inexpensive slow ground attack jet for CAS and battlefield interdiction, not meant for nuclear strikes of well-defended critical targets. NATO got the F-104 and other fast aircraft for that role. The F-111 and Tornado are not successors of the GR-91, they are successors of the F-105 and F-104G. When the G91 was first proposed NATO already had subsonic jets that outperformed it, but they were a decade older and not "standardized", which was the rationale for the G91. The G91 didn’t do anything other jets already in service could not do better. You can even see the G91 as mostly a ploy to give NATO countries an alternative to US built aircraft so they could support the European industry. Problem was the G91 was not really very capable or versatile, and could only be a direct replacement for obsolete aircraft like the F-86 that were becoming limited to low-performance roles. Hence the low production numbers of the G91. At least three times as many F-104s were produced even though it was designed before the G91. Equating the F-35 with the G91 is ludicrous and is likely to trigger F-35 haters who think it is too expensive and unsuitable for the CAS role. But what is silly about the comparison is that actual strike aircraft like the F-111 and Tornado (which the G91 was not) were designed to penetrate on the deck at high speed to avoid radar detection and enemy defenses. The whole point of stealth aircraft like the F-35 is to not have to hug the deck to survive.
I remember hearing decades ago that the "standardization" within the NATO was so bad that a plane from one country may be able to land on an airfield of another country, but not take off again, because the fuel caps of the planes are incompatible. I remember I built a plastic model of the G-91, in a rather early stage of my modeling, must have been my early teens...
I think nato standardization has been a buzzword since the start of the organization. But in the end, each country seems to have its own specific needs, so it makes sense. But they did standardize ammo as i recall, which makes supply chains easier. Now in the vassal states of the ussr, not so hard to standardize lol
@@abcdedfg8340 The ugly truth of standardization is that the G.91 was an attempt to adapt an aircraft design to a wide variety of supply chains and systems when what NATO truly wanted was one standardized supply chain system across all members. Of course, that requires major overhauls to difficult-to-change processes and any design considered has to work everywhere from Northern Scotland to the Mediterranean to (theoretically) Alaska and the Pacific. Considering the massive effort that would have been, the choice to generally standardize ammo, munitions, and certain parts was much more reasonable. Over 70 years past its founding, things have started shifting more towards the original goal, if only because certain countries are really good at making certain pieces of kit.
this points to a fundamental weakness of alliance requirements--the alliance doesn't actually buy any systems or have any military forces. A "standardized" NATO anything is a non-starter because each nation will have operational capability needs outside the alliance's requirements. Given the choice, the nations will also make decisions best for themselves, notwithstanding the alliance requirements. While the NATO requirements were sound, NATO was not going to be buying them, flying them, maintaining them, or managing the fleets.
Very utilised in combat by Portugal in the Colonial War three fronts - Angola, Mozambique and Guinea on the 60's and 1st half of 70's - replaced the F86F Sabre and was then replaced in earlier 80's by the A7 Corsair, there are lots of videos on youtube that you can see.
I love this little plane, it's an adorable little baby Sabre that was actually exceedingly capable for its miniature frame. Luckily, IndiaFoxtEcho are making a G.91 for DCS World, which has and is getting a range of other Cold War era jets, so whilst we may have never got to see how it faired in real life, we can take it up against MiGs and the like in the digital world and see if it could have potentially come out on top. It had some neat innovations for its gun/bombing sight at the time which made those low level fast attack runs easier to make, so it'll be nice to see that recreated and have an easier time bombing in a Cold War jet.
The G.91 was also one of three competitors for a 1961 close air support aircraft competition held by the US Army. Yes, you read that right; *the US Army* --- NOT the US Air Force. That competition was won by the Northrop N-156F (which was later designated as the F-5 Freedom Fighter), though it didn't really matter, because the USAF gaslighted Congress into forcing the Army to abandon the program (which had no legal basis, as under the 1948 Key West Agreement, the USAF publicly agreed that the Army was allowed to operate any armed fixed-wing combat aircraft weighing less than 10,000lbs; which the N-156F weighed slightly less than). The A-4 Skyhawk was the third competitor in that program, in case you're wondering.
As always, an informative video thanks. Here's a great video that emphasises the G91's easy use of grass airfields, as well as showing the ingenious gun arrangement of the design, which highlights in the field operations. Although I've always thought that the 12.7mm MG's were alway too light for the ground attack role - especially after the experiance of WWII and Korea - at minimum, it should have been 20mm cannons Regards
The Luftwaffe version and the G91Y had two 30mm. Mind that the M61 Vulcan had not yet been introduced (it would be only in 1959) when the G91 was selected.
Yeah, thanks for your reply @@neutronalchemist3241 , I think the Luftwaffe quickly came to the same conclusion. The G91Y was definitely an improved evolution of the G91R - especially the twin jets, 30mm cannon arrange and longer range. Regards
The G.91 pioneered what the F-104 and F-16 would later build on, and the F-35 is perfecting today. Also, on the topic of generational shift, I have long wondered if the F-104G would have been an optimized alternative to the G.91. Granted, the Starfighter was indeed more complex than the G.91, it however, could have offered more capability and survivability, and it was still relatively simple by 1960s standards. Lockheed had designed the aircraft to be a simple, lightweight, easy to maintain day fighter, it was originally designed specifically to counter the MiG-15. Kelley Johnson had interviewed a number of Sabre pilots who had fought in Korea and one of the most frequently lamented qualities of the Sabre was its inferior t/w ratio to the MiG-15, so Johnson designed a hot rod, wrapping a tiny airframe around the most powerful engine available in the mid 50s; the nascent J79. The day fighter would evolve into a point-defense interceptor as it was developed, as there was a shift in TAC doctrine that focused more on intercepting nuclear-armed bombers rather than destroying other (enemy) fighters. Finally, the aircraft would be developed into a strike aircraft, first with the F-104C, then later with the more significantly modified F-104G. As it turns out, this jet, originally conceived as a lightweight day fighter to replace the F-86, was in fact well aerodynamically optimized for low level flight. The tiny, highly loaded wings offered a smooth ride at low altitude, which would theoretically mean less structural fatigue from low alt flying, and also enable more accurate weapons delivery (compounded by the more sophisticated avionics, specifically CCIP), at least on paper. I'm left to wonder if shelving the G.91 and merging the F-104 program into NBMR-1 would have been a more efficient and optimal approach to NATO tactical aircraft development in the 60s. I'm curious @MilitaryAviationHistory, do you think anything about the F-104, from maintenance to operating costs, would have made it prohibitively complex to be used in place of the G.91?
I agree that the F-104 was an alternative to the G91, not just potentially but in actuality. It was a much more capable aircraft than the G91, which was just another subsonic jet like the F-84F that Germany was already flying. As you point out the F-104 airframe was inherently suitable to low-level high-speed flight, and the G had the necessary systems for the nuclear strike role. Only 770 G91s were ever built as opposed to 2600 F-104s, so it is clear which aircraft provided better operational capability for NATO. It was not TAC doctrine to intercept soviet bombers, it was ADC doctrine. They adopted the F-104 as an interim interceptor when the F-106 was suffering development delays. The F-104 didn’t have radar missiles or the SAGE system so it was not a capable all-weather interceptor, so they gave them back to TAC when they got the F-106. In Vietnam the F-104C performed escort, CAP, and CAS with a good deal of success, except it never got to actually engage a MiG there because it was not challenged by them. The G91would not have been able to perform the counter air missions. I think the G91 was a niche aircraft that was a waste of space for most countries, as the number produced seems to bear out.
@Gort 100% agree with your final statement, also my apologies, you are correct, ADC used them as interceptors, not TAC, speaking of, that is one of the primary reasons I was making the argument for treating the F-104 more as a dedicated strike platform with self escort capabilities (G.91+) rather than a true multirole fighter. Its lack of SARH missiles (until the AIM-7 was introduced on the F-104S) made it a weak interceptor, definitely weaker in the air to air role than contemporaries such as the Mirage IIIC with the Matra R530.
@@roberts9095 It's ironic that the Mirage was developed in response to a request for an "interceptor" when everybody seems to think of it as a tactical fighter, which is the opposite of the F-104, which originated as a lightweight pure day fighter. You correctly point out that the F-104 was a not very good as an interceptor, but most folks on the internet seem to think that's all it was good for. Oh, it had great kinematic performance, and I've read it actually had a greater all-supersonic intercept radius than the F-106. But unless it was a clear day with unlimited visibility it was going to have a hard time prosecuting the target. (BTW its only armament in ADC was the AiM-9, as ADC removed the gun and installed an auxiliary fuel tank its place. When they gave the plane back to TAC the gun was reinstalled.) You mention its use as self-escorting strike aircraft, but in the nuclear strike role escort wasn't necessary. The idea was high speed under the radar, and an enemy interceptor would have to be lucky to have any chance of spotting and catching it before it reached its target. It didn't carry missiles in that role because there was no time or fuel for air-to-air combat. Speed was its defense and it needed external fuel instead of missiles. Many think the 104 didn't have enough range to be useful as a tactical fighter or fighter-bomber, but in the nuclear strike configuration with a single weapon plus external drop tanks it had a greater low altitude combat radius than the F-4 Phantom.
I always liked the G91. It was simple and cost-effective, plus it seemed like it would be fun to fly. I also thought that it would have been a good fit for the Israelis at the time.
My first love of the G.91 was War Thunder funny enough Than in my Italian vacation I saw one in a museum and I was impressed by its small size I love Italian aircraft
Folland Gnat is a truly underestimated aircraft. Had it been on the front line we would have many more Hot Shots! Great stunts in that film with that aircraft ;)
Yeah really wouldnt be suitable to UK requirements, while CAS would have some merit it wouldnt be easily redeployable or carry a significant payload and the UK already had the Gnat a trainer/light attack aircraft which used the same powerplant as the G.91. And the aging Hawker Hunter which was transitioning from its original Interceptor role to Recon/fighter bomber as the Lightning entered service.
Portuguese pilots have some crazy stories about this little jet. As the wars overseas went on (I don’t say “colonial wars” because Portugal actually considered those countries as national territory. Not colonies) the Soviets send some Strella anti aircraft missiles to Africa. Portuguese pilots went from flying low to…very low. High grass sticking to the wings kind of low All the best to everyone
Absolutely true! Portuguese pilots in Guinea-Bissau were used to flying G-91 at extremely low altitudes! And yes, war missions were duly acomplished...
This really was an exceptional aircraft in its day. I cannot imagine the Americans or their aerospace industries being too happy about losing out to an Italian company. Except for when they saved Chrysler and built a range of relatively cheap hero cars for them. But if they fitted wings to a Dodge Challenger, watch out.
There is one of these in the Centro Storico FIAT in Turin, the first purpose-built FIAT factory that is now a museum. Because of its tiny size, I assumed it was a trainer. For context, my father flew jets in this era like the F-89... 25k lbs empty.
If you wanna know what the average War Thunder player thinks of the G.91, it should suffice to say it's a verb -- "I've been G.91'd" I know of several air forces (including my own country's) that could do with a sizable force of cheap, rugged, subsonic ground-pounders just about now...
I don't know about the rest of you but for me just the fact the same people that made the 500 , barcheta and the punto did also a very special fighter jet .as a side note this marvelous little tiger did some daring missions and definitely helped to maintain the status quo
I didn't know about this plane until it showed up as one of the early 3rd party addin (military) aircraft in MSFS, and then became a fan of it's look, at least.
The G.91 seems to me like the equivalent to the Lightning in the game Highfleet: Small, maneuverable, cheap, packs a big punch, but with severely limited potential for upgrades later on.
Interesting video about a plane I'd never heard about, though now it makes sense why. Perfectly fine but shortlived due to the most mundane reasons. Got thrown for a bit of a mental loop by hearing you go through the Warthunder spiel and realizing I've been essentially learning warplane trivia from you for close to a decade now, even if the format has changed. More current events and less alien invaders disguised as yaks.
I remember the "Gina". In late 60s I did service in german Bundeswehr and served as a forward air controller. "Ginas" coming in for close air support training was always a pleasure. The pilots loved that plane.
"generational shift" was not a point. Strike fighters remained subsonic for decades after the introduction of the G91. See the Douglas A-4, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, AMX... Even the Super Etendard, introduced 1978, is not supersonic at low altitude.
@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 Sure, but its 1958 and you're buying new attack jets that you hope to use for the next decade, do you choose what appears to be a retreaded Sabre, which is an 8 year old design at that point, or do you choose the new, sexy, Mach 2+ fighter that is supposedly "multi-role"?
@@WALTERBROADDUS It was probably a good jet for its designed mission, its biggest problem is that it went into service the same year as the Starfighter, and the Starfighter was burning down the record book.
For a long while, this was one of the few post WW2 aircraft that I liked. I take your point about the generational shift in aircraft, but then again, the Folland Gnat was improved into the HAL Ajeet, and there's no reason why the Fiat G91 couldn't have been upgraded somewhat to improve its ability at ground attack missions. As US experience later showed, supersonic aircraft are neither ideal nor necessary to make a good ground-attack aircraft, and modern COIN aircraft the world over are cheap, lightweight, and can use roads or grass strips as runways and tend to be easy to maintain and fast to turn around.
I was introduced to the aircraft when I built the Airfix model of the G.91 as a kid and became fascinated with the cute little strike plane, and I do feel it was done a dirty by the politics of the time. I gather even the US were highly impressed with it when they tested it. And as pointed out, when it came to performing in a live combat role, it lived up to it's billing, and as we've seen throughout history, peace-time designs, specifications, theories and doctrines don't always live up to the realities of combat.
Hamburger Flugzeugbau HFB-320 Hansa Jet. Small early business jet with odd, forward-swept wings. The Luftwaffe used them for communications and training.
Still as for today it would be an excellent trainer fighter a.c. and also a marvel for airshows when flying teams would use it to amaze spectator crowds.
Fiats G.91 were the backbone of Portugal's fighter planes during the long portuguese colonial war against it's ex colonies forces 1961-1974, Portugal was alone at the time and had an embargo to buy sophisticated weapons from USA and it's allies, western Germany sold 40 of these, second hand to Portugal built in Greece and Turkey, when guerillas started to use 9K32 Strela-2 missiles supplied by the Soviet Union "6 FIAT's were lost from 1966 to 1974", many of these were used to support military operations with weapons like Napalm and close proximity support with machine guns and cannons, they remained in the Skies until early 90's when Portugal bought second hand F16'S as the modernization plan of the Portuguese Air Force.
They used three kinds of aircraft for Hot Shots. The single-seaters were HAL Ajeets, which are basically an upgraded, Indian-made Gnat, and the two-seaters were ex-RAF trainer Gnats. They also used a SIAI S-211 in the background of some formation shots because they didn't have enough Gnats.
@@MrHws5mp Thanks for the info! I really like that movie, has some real classic comedy moments, like for example the scene with the clutter in the cockpit falling into the canopy when he goes inverted or thes scene with the crash/ambulance. I think the concept of a light fighter aircraft that can operate on non military airports or even not on airport surfaces still valid today, I always wonder what all the great F35, Typhoons, F15 and 16 are going to do if the enemy has managed to sufficiently damage the airports they are operating out of. If one little foreign object can destroy a jet engine in one of these planes, that's their achilles heel.
I have always loved the look of the "small Sabre." It's just *so* damned pretty! Of course, it was also supposed to be quite rugged, and was widely regarded as a genuine delight to fly. If I were rich, I'd add it to the list of aircraft I'd want to buy, alongside the SAAB Drakken and F-5-F Tiger II. Three of the sexiest aircraft that ever flew!
I've heard that it was quite a challenging plane to fly for pilots. It was used by the Italian Air Force in flight schools and was quite feared by the flight cadets as many failed the test on the G91 and got dismissed by the pilot traing course because of it.
the Fiat G.91YS multi role ground attack fighter would have greatly complemented both the Panavia Tornado IDS GR4 multi role interdictor strike fighter . . . not to mention the Panavia Tornado ADF F3 (Block II) multi role all weather fighter . . . still one of the best variable-sweep wing multi role fighter by far . . . sometime in the mid 1980s the Indian Air Force seriously considered acquiring a fleet of no less than 133 - 138 brand new Panavia Tornado IDS GR4 (Block III) multi role interdictor strike fighter . . . plus 104 brand new Fiat G.91YS multi role ground attack fighter . . . the air force also considered acquiring 100 brand new Panavia Tornado ADF F3 (Block II) multi role all weather interceptor . . . but none of these plans ever realized practically speaking . . .
The G-91 is one of my favourite jet designs, IMO it looked better than the F-86. You can see why the Italians wanted it adopted by NATO, at that time the major conventional threat in Europe was Soviet amour. And that was G-91s major flaw, rather than being a “Italian stallion” (air superiority) it was a “one trick pony.” It was an aeroplane that treated the symptom (prolific soviet armour) rather than the cause (the Soviet Union). To do that, you would need a supersonic multi role aeroplane, that could not only take out battlefield targets and dogfight, but also beat enemy ground defences, to carry its nuclear ordinance (deterrent) and whatever the weather, day/night, drop it on target. Some of NATO (after much wrangling) finally got it (arriving over budget, and very late), the Panavia Tornado.
Great video about a lesser well known jet the idea was a great one even in the US some manufacturer's tried the same idea keeping it simple small and cheap Douglas A-4 Skyhawk for exampe but as you stated the Gina came out at the wrong time and expecting European governments to agree to anything well that's a madness all it's own...
"Or however you pronounce that thing; its British after all" Yep. You got us. I could try asking you to have a conversation with a German, an Ostie, a Swiss and an Austrian, but yeah, you got us. Gotta give u that one.
It was a good plane & conceptually good as well. Deserved a better fate. Given how many times it’s happened, I’ve never understood why countries keep attempting joint projects with France- they undoubtedly can make great planes but they really don’t have any interest in collaborating with others (without fail they will either sabotage a joint program , or just drop out). USA similar but even they can be convinced IF the technology is genuinely fits their needs better than their homegrown efforts(e.g early uk turbofans, harrier & hawk...)
The thing of the generational shift you said in the video Is correct. But, IMO, there Is an ulterior motivation of why the Fiat G 91 wasn't adopted by other NATO members. I'm Italian and I Always heard the reputation of our warplane industry in WW 2 was really bad, with obsolete models (like the C.R. 42 biplanes) produced ( with the only exceptions of "Serie 5" fighters, "Serie 1 Fighters" and P 108 heavy Bomber. These one here were very good for that time). Because of this, I think the other nations of NATO didn't adopt the G 91 fighter/bomber because of the Bad reputation that the Italian's warplane industry had made in WW2.
I like standardization, especially when it turns out this beautiful and (apparently) comfy of a machine. Could have been a cool example of international cooperation.
Your comment about British pronunciation made me laugh out loud 😂. I am British btw. I was going to ask what the bomber with the underwing gun position (interesting concept) was in the War Thunder footage but managed to work it out myself as a Pe-8.
There already was a standard low cost light ground attack aircraft in Europe during the 1950s, the F84G Thunderjet. Hundreds of F84Gs were operating all across Europe, including France and Italy, and while they could not operate from rough fields like the G91, they were cheap and offered comparable performance. And by the time the Thunderjets were starting to show their age in 1960s, the F5A was introduced and the Freedom Fighter turned out to be better than the G91 in every way plus it was cheaper to buy and fly so the deck was stacked against Fiat from beginning to end.
Outdated subsonic concept? Why it is outdated? Then why the A-6 Intruder (1960), A-7 Corsair II (1965) and A-10 Thunderbolt II (1972) considered groundbreaking and successfull attack aircrafts? The 1950's Gripen is the Lansen.
The fashion trend was the higher speed did always equal better. But that is of course not true. If you fly too fast then you are not able to see the targets on the ground and you don't get time to aim where you want to drop your bombs properly. Furthermore making a plane thin and earodynamic like an arrow, would give a bomber high speeds like the F105 Thunderchief, but on the other hand would the plane become harder to manouver and out-turn an enemy in air combat. So the high speed performances of F4 Phantom and F105 Thunderchief became usless in the Vietnam war as not a single air combat happened at Mach 2. Indeed, nearly all air combats happened at speeds below Mach 1.4. So speed is not that important. Instead was manouverability more important. And here did the Soviet planes have a bit of an upper hand plus that they had better missiles. But the US airpower had better trained pilots, more resources and overall better planes to compensate. Overall was the obsession with high speeds a mistake. F4 Phantom, F104, F105, J-35 Draken are all examples of planes prioritizing speed more than much else. However personally I think that G91, F86 Sabre and Flygande tunnan were becoming a bit outdated for most jobs except ground attack already around the 1960s.
Infact strike aircrafts remained subsonic for decades after the introdiction of the G91, and mostly still are. See the Douglas A-4, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, AMX, SU-25... Even the Super Etendard, introduced 1978, is not supersonic at low altitude. People often fails to realize that even a bisonic aircraft is bisonic only at high altitude in a straight line. It's not even supersonic when it flies at low altitude, following the ground.
@@neutronalchemist3241 The subsonic Buccaneer was faster at low altitude with the same armament than the supersonic Tornado.
Рік тому
I just read a book on the Problems with the procurement of the HS-30 AFV for the young Bundeswehr and I only now realy unterstand how important a large number of non military factors are for military procurment. You can have the best Weaponsystem in the world, if it doesnt fit the non military requirements, it will not get procured. Also the G.91 concept sounds like it would have been liked by the Israelis, who as far as I understand went heavily for Air-Artillery after the 6 Day war. A thing that was a disadvantage form them in the Yom Kippur war, becaus Arab air defence was much stronger.
Not super excited about the G91, but I'm happy it will come to DCS as it goes well with the F-4 for the German Luftwaffe of the 70s, so cool for any Cold war gone hot 70s senario.
"Drive around in targets". Haha, isn't there any playable AA battery in War Thunder? I would assume they would consider those pesky flies called planes as targets as well.
Fiat G-91 proved itself in the Portuguese Colonial Wars, gaining air superiority until the USSR introduced the Strella Rocket to the Nationalist Armys fighting for indepedence. Theres a fair quantity of videos showing the action.
the italian Airforce is restoring a Fiat G91 to flight conditions at Piacenza's airbase for the 100 years of the airforce. They might allow visitors in groups to see the restoration process I think.
At least two G-91R/4s tested by Greek pilots in the effort to order a lightweight fighter for the Greek Air Force( Royal Hellenic Air Force that period) Wearing Greek roundels and NATO camo ,the G-91R/4 lost by another lightweight aircraft the Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter thru the MAP program
Its a classic exa,ple of military procurment cooperation with france: "hey lets have a competition and we all agree to buy the winner" France: "oui oui but regardless of the winner we all will buy my aircraft, right? because if not then I'm out"
I think the fundamental issue with the G-91 was embracing the near-absurd NMBR-1 requirement of a max empty weight of 6800 lbs. An aircraft that small just has too little room to grow into better avionics or capabilities. Seriously, if you see it in person, it's literally the size of a Spitfire, with a wingspan about as large as the F-14 or F-15 tail. By comparison notoriously tiny, lightweight, cheap but highly successful aircraft like the A-4 and F-5 had empty weights closer to 10000lbs.
Good info. Thanks.
That's also why it was so cheap, smaller engine, smaller frame, and like you said, no room to grow.
Actually, the F-5 faced similar challenges (never being adopted by the USAF, for example), for the same reasons.
In theory you are correct but remember that it was conceived as a lightweight fighter according NATO specifications that in truth many countries wasn't very enthusiastic...
@@jagtone The F-5 wasn't adopted by the USAF, but it was an incredibly successful on the export market, unlike the G-91
I love the G91,just not because I'm portuguese and we had those but,my grandfather was a marine in Angola,in the portuguese colonial war,and he mentions how helpful the G91 was.He told me once all marines went crazy after a pilot mentioned he would be flying from Luanda all the way to Portugal,I don't know what happened next,but everybody thinks he made it.Just a cool little story.
@patrick lopes war thunder is not real life...
@patrick lopes Ah yes, a prototype plane that you have 100% never flown. Yeah I totally agree with ya man
The G91 had a hell of a nickname during the ultramarine war. One better not mentioned. 😂
and as mentioned in the video, eventually nerfed by the liberation movements getting hold of some Strelas that must've fallen of the back end of a Kamaz - better AA and especially MANPADS made the low-level CAS mission impossible even if you're a flying gun going BRRT (A-10) or going supersonic over treetops (Viggen).
It looks more like a figher from the 1950s.
Common ammunition among member states is one thing, but a common fighter jet in a period where fighter jets were being made obsolete about as fast as computers were in the 1990s and 2000s was a bridge too far.
Yeah, it was never gonna happen fast enough
A bridge to far... indeed...
A lot of 50s planes got upgraded, some flew till the 90s.
Especially attack aircraft really didnt get obsolete that fast.
@@termitreter6545 It was probably the new advances in radar guided anti air vehicles and SAMS that really worried potential buyers the most.
F-104 Starfighter? F-4 Phantom? _Harrier?_ F-16 Falcon? Mirages? Not _everyone_ bought and used those _For decades,_ but everyone who wanted those aircraft's abilities in their matrix _did,_ resulting in a lot of commonality and improvements.
"Gnat" has a very German look to my eye so I googled its origins and it turns out it's one of the oldest words in English, going all the way back to Proto-Germanic. Which means that at some point we actually did say the "g" sound at the front, and dropped it as Old English turned into Middle English - much like "gnaw" or "knife" or "knight." Just some word trivia for you. :)
And to think this process and the result was relatively tame compared to the later struggles over multi-national projects. So many cooks and so many differing requirements.
A good informative video Chris.
I really like the idea of this on paper but the timeline, military and political considerations just didn't line up. It's a shame for Fiat for sure, they really banked on this and in the end got burned.
@@MilitaryAviationHistoryDid they? You mentioned a production run that was not insignificant. They didn't build any huge fleets of them but was that not sufficient to cover the program?
@@MilitaryAviationHistory cracking little fighter and it only "failed" because of politics and not because of the aircraft itself.....and the fact the "Freece Tricolori" aerobatic team had GREAT succes with it is testimant to its quality
They, afaik, restructed their whole company on this and I do not believe it paid up in the end. License production in Germany accounted for a significant chunk of the 700+ build - having more of the initial non-license production sold to France and Britain, plus potentially some smaller states, would have made the investment fall in line with the initial expectations.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Thank you for the clarification, Bismarck! I was unaware that they restructured around potential contracts to such a degree that it became an albatross rather than an eagle.
Honestly I always liked the Fiat G.91 and saw the last flight of the aerobatic team Frecce Tricolori with this airplane superbly performed over Pisa around early seventies. I met a few pilots who flew this airplane and they said that it was a delight to fly and had no real vices. I think that if it had a more powerful engine it would have made a difference. Good job as always 👏 👍
You did an inside the cockpit of the G.91? Well how did I miss that. Also loved the editing on this video
Did you know that it was super comfortable?
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I was in the G91 cockpit several times during an internship in the (german) airforce. Was quite uncomfortable. But that was because they removed the ejector seat and put a shitty wooden stool in its place :D
@@MilitaryAviationHistory do you know I got a feeling it was 😁
It's worth noting that the UK didn't just turn down the G.91, we also turned down the Gnat for the ground attack role* and decided to modify the older Hawker Hunter for ground attack (FGA.9) and photo recce (FR.10) instead.
*Though we did buy Gnats as advanced trainers.
The Gnat was the only aircraft in the competition that even made the weight requirement anyway. All the others were over the limits set out. I’ll also mention the Gnat had Stella flight performance from it’s amazing T/W ratio, roll rate and low wing loading.
The G.91 was just a rehash of the sabre with worse performance, during a time when the sabre was considered increasingly outdated itself, let alone an aircraft with worse raw performance.
The Gnats limitation was its complexity and payload I suppose. But in a dogfight it would rip the face off a sabre let alone a watered down one.
@@GG-ir1hw If I temember correctly, the Gnat was quite sucessfull in Indian service
@@aasphaltmueller5178 It was known as the "Sabre Slayer" for the way it dominated Pakistani F-86s.
@@GG-ir1hw Interesting little aeroplane to work on. It was the only time I've work on seats that weren't Martin-Baker.
The Hunters were mightily useful in Aden 1967.
The 91 was utterly loved by pilots in Italy, and she was flew until 1992!
Yes but the plane that flew until 1992 was a different version , a twin engine with longer fuselage called G91 Yankee o just Y. And a 30 mm cannon .
@@ulpiotraiano3374 not at all, the Y flew until 1994
To be fair I believe some trainers G.91T were operated until 1995
@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 yes I am not disputing that, I am not sure about which year went out of service , I was only pointing out that the last planes in service where a redesigned version and not the original R .
I remember watching those fly in formation in Portugal near their base!
Cool planes man I think they started my aviation passion... :)
a much more stark contrast than the starfighter's first flight in 1958 as the G91 entered service is that the F4 phantom also had its first flight that same year and would enter service 3 years later
Even beyond that the multirole F101A was already a year in service, entering in 1957 and did everything the G91 could at Mach 1.5
And the F-104 first flight was actually in 1954. It went into USAF service in 1958
I like your videos, but I expected more from this one. Since Portugal was the only Country who used the G-91 in combat, I believe you should have dedicated much more time and images about her combat performance, which by the way was pretty good. Only her payload left to be desired. Another issue is that the aircraft had no self defence capability in air to air combat, not even gun radar and a proper sight. They would have been decimated by any MIG 17, had it come to that. Tests were made with a pair of AIM-9B Sidewinders in the outer pylons, but in the end, no enemy Fighters ever came up from Guinea Conacri.
Vero
First let me say that I love Italy and all things Italian, especially the Ferrari 250GT & crabmeat ravioli. That said, my favorite quote is from a column I read that discussed the history of perfection. "The low point in the history of perfection was the sacking of Rome by the barbarians, which eventually lead to the creation of Fiat."
ooooof
"Fix It Again Tony"!
That's new for me as I would never thought about this 😅
You will find soon a horse head in your bed...😈 🤣
in German: "Fehlerhaft in allen Teilen" "Errors to be found in all parts"
A pretty plane, easy on the eyes and very well proportioned. I never thought to compare it to a Sabre, but yeah - it’s hard to miss the influence.
Honestly one of the more fun planes in Warthunder.
Always interesting thanks. I remember watching them operate along with Italian F-104's at Decimomannu, Sardinia, in the eighties, whilst we were detatched there for Air to Ground Gunnery/Bombing exercises etc..... Both seemed to spend a rather long time on the ground back then? We did have a Squadron of Portuguese G91's fly into RAF Brüggen around the same time but I didn't get a close look at them.
I would like to see a look at the G. 91 vs the A-4 Skyhawk. It also was a tough simple aircraft that could take off from short runways and the IAI did very well with it.
Somebody wind up DCS, I wanna see this.
I think the A4 is superior just as a plane in general, infinitely upgradeable and crazy bomb load from that single delta but if you mean in a dogfight I think the G91 handles the early A4 models up to the E
@@r.gilman4261 I was thinking as an attack aircraft, not in a dog fight. The A-4 had a longer range and a bigger bomb load so I feel that the A-4 was the better plane but as to air to air, I would say it would really depend on the pilot. I have a bias toward the Scooter but I am sure that someone that is a big G.91 fan would feel the exact opposite.
Excellent video! Looking forward to your eventual analysis of the AMX International AMX.
For Italy’s postwar reindustrialization efforts it was a critical programme. The secret technology transfer from the USA also demonstrated that the Americans did not trust the French and British at that point in time.
Secret technology? What transfer was that and to whom?
@@GG-ir1hw There was nothing secret. Fiat licence built the F86, like later licence built the F104.
@@GG-ir1hw mainly space and high altitude tech, it was roughly an equivalent to paperclip with germany.
@@ltrns001 In the context of his comment it makes no sense. The Fiat was a cheap F-86 with less performance. The British and French already had more advanced aircraft and operated the Sabre before the Italians. The Italian sabres were taken from the RAF.
So I don’t understand what secret technology transfer they could be talking about since the F-86 was a well known design. I don’t see how the Italians weren’t especially trusted.
@@GG-ir1hw first the comment isn't refered to the g 91 programin particular, but to the political climate within postwar europe, italy in fact was reindustrializing as other countries through economic aid, in this period in particular tech transfer is considered more important in this divided political landscape than obviously in more recent times like in the 70s or 80s, therefore indicating from a political perspective that more trust is being put in one countries governement compared to others. Second the g 91 doesn't cover the same role as RAF sabers: the saber is an air superiority fighter and the d variant is more of an all- weather interceptor, the g 91 was oriented towards multirole use with the capabilty to dogfight enemy aircraft if needed, it also has better all around performance below 5000m/15000ft compared to afterburning variants of the f 86, especially in turns where the the airfoil desinged to reduce turbulent flow proved to be problematic in turns.
First flight of the F-104 was actually in 1954, before the first flight of the G91, and the 104 entered service in 1958. By comparison the G91 looked like the outdated subsonic jets that were soon to be replaced by the F-104 in NATO service.
My shoes are outdated. They make me look like a gay elf but my wife’s boyfriend said long pointy toes were cool, plus they were on sale in the mall.
Though it became pretty clear that the strike capability of the F-104 wasnt all that great.
Well, if you ignore ground strikes by the planes airframe, which wasnt quite the intent.
@@termitreter6545 It is not at all clear that "the strike capability of the F-104 wasn't all that great". Since there was not a nuclear exchange in Europe during its service there it would seem its capability was respected enough to have deterrent value. And if the F-104 had been used for tactical nuclear strikes, how can you assume it would have not performed better than the slower and less sophisticated aircraft it replaced. You must think Germany should have kept the F84 and F-86, or maybe even the Me-262.
@@gort8203 You clearly dont know what I think, so maybe skip making assumptions :P
The G.91 was made for conventional bombing, and displaced in THAT ROLE by fighters like 104/105. The latter werent just nuclear bombers.
So my point is that the interceptor style conventional bombers fell out of favour pretty quickly, probably faster than the early cold war interceptors concept itself.
Parts of the G.91 concept, fast and low flying, intead survived and resulted in planes like the F-111 and Tornado IDS. Or Viggen.
Even the F-35 was originally designed as a low flying, speedy strike fighter with fast turn-around times.
@@termitreter6545 It's not an assumption of what you think, its a rhetorical device to equate your comment with another to show how weak yours is. I'm sure you've experienced this before. And speaking of assumptions, or premises, I don’t think you understand the concepts behind these aircraft, and your point is just wrong.
"Interceptor bombers" were not really a thing, but fast bombers and strike fighter-bombers were, and they never fell out of favor until they were replaced by stealth platforms. In this context the GR91 was not at all fast and not of the same concept. It was an inexpensive slow ground attack jet for CAS and battlefield interdiction, not meant for nuclear strikes of well-defended critical targets. NATO got the F-104 and other fast aircraft for that role. The F-111 and Tornado are not successors of the GR-91, they are successors of the F-105 and F-104G.
When the G91 was first proposed NATO already had subsonic jets that outperformed it, but they were a decade older and not "standardized", which was the rationale for the G91. The G91 didn’t do anything other jets already in service could not do better. You can even see the G91 as mostly a ploy to give NATO countries an alternative to US built aircraft so they could support the European industry. Problem was the G91 was not really very capable or versatile, and could only be a direct replacement for obsolete aircraft like the F-86 that were becoming limited to low-performance roles. Hence the low production numbers of the G91. At least three times as many F-104s were produced even though it was designed before the G91.
Equating the F-35 with the G91 is ludicrous and is likely to trigger F-35 haters who think it is too expensive and unsuitable for the CAS role. But what is silly about the comparison is that actual strike aircraft like the F-111 and Tornado (which the G91 was not) were designed to penetrate on the deck at high speed to avoid radar detection and enemy defenses. The whole point of stealth aircraft like the F-35 is to not have to hug the deck to survive.
I remember hearing decades ago that the "standardization" within the NATO was so bad that a plane from one country may be able to land on an airfield of another country, but not take off again, because the fuel caps of the planes are incompatible.
I remember I built a plastic model of the G-91, in a rather early stage of my modeling, must have been my early teens...
I think nato standardization has been a buzzword since the start of the organization. But in the end, each country seems to have its own specific needs, so it makes sense. But they did standardize ammo as i recall, which makes supply chains easier. Now in the vassal states of the ussr, not so hard to standardize lol
Given that during cold war most NATO nations flew F4 and F16 - not likely
@@abcdedfg8340 The ugly truth of standardization is that the G.91 was an attempt to adapt an aircraft design to a wide variety of supply chains and systems when what NATO truly wanted was one standardized supply chain system across all members. Of course, that requires major overhauls to difficult-to-change processes and any design considered has to work everywhere from Northern Scotland to the Mediterranean to (theoretically) Alaska and the Pacific.
Considering the massive effort that would have been, the choice to generally standardize ammo, munitions, and certain parts was much more reasonable. Over 70 years past its founding, things have started shifting more towards the original goal, if only because certain countries are really good at making certain pieces of kit.
this points to a fundamental weakness of alliance requirements--the alliance doesn't actually buy any systems or have any military forces. A "standardized" NATO anything is a non-starter because each nation will have operational capability needs outside the alliance's requirements. Given the choice, the nations will also make decisions best for themselves, notwithstanding the alliance requirements. While the NATO requirements were sound, NATO was not going to be buying them, flying them, maintaining them, or managing the fleets.
Now, THAT is what I have been trying to find the words to say, for a different conversation! Thank you.
Very utilised in combat by Portugal in the Colonial War three fronts - Angola, Mozambique and Guinea on the 60's and 1st half of 70's - replaced the F86F Sabre and was then replaced in earlier 80's by the A7 Corsair, there are lots of videos on youtube that you can see.
I love this little plane, it's an adorable little baby Sabre that was actually exceedingly capable for its miniature frame.
Luckily, IndiaFoxtEcho are making a G.91 for DCS World, which has and is getting a range of other Cold War era jets, so whilst we may have never got to see how it faired in real life, we can take it up against MiGs and the like in the digital world and see if it could have potentially come out on top.
It had some neat innovations for its gun/bombing sight at the time which made those low level fast attack runs easier to make, so it'll be nice to see that recreated and have an easier time bombing in a Cold War jet.
Molto interessante. Non ho mai visto un documentario cosi accurato nemmeno in canali italiani. Grazie.
9:25 on 1958 the Starfighter was put into service, not first flight. The latter was in 1954. :)
The G.91 was also one of three competitors for a 1961 close air support aircraft competition held by the US Army. Yes, you read that right; *the US Army* --- NOT the US Air Force. That competition was won by the Northrop N-156F (which was later designated as the F-5 Freedom Fighter), though it didn't really matter, because the USAF gaslighted Congress into forcing the Army to abandon the program (which had no legal basis, as under the 1948 Key West Agreement, the USAF publicly agreed that the Army was allowed to operate any armed fixed-wing combat aircraft weighing less than 10,000lbs; which the N-156F weighed slightly less than).
The A-4 Skyhawk was the third competitor in that program, in case you're wondering.
As always, an informative video thanks.
Here's a great video that emphasises the G91's easy use of grass airfields, as well as showing the ingenious gun arrangement of the design, which highlights in the field operations. Although I've always thought that the 12.7mm MG's were alway too light for the ground attack role - especially after the experiance of WWII and Korea - at minimum, it should have been 20mm cannons
Regards
The Luftwaffe version and the G91Y had two 30mm.
Mind that the M61 Vulcan had not yet been introduced (it would be only in 1959) when the G91 was selected.
Yeah, thanks for your reply @@neutronalchemist3241 , I think the Luftwaffe quickly came to the same conclusion. The G91Y was definitely an improved evolution of the G91R - especially the twin jets, 30mm cannon arrange and longer range.
Regards
The G.91 pioneered what the F-104 and F-16 would later build on, and the F-35 is perfecting today.
Also, on the topic of generational shift, I have long wondered if the F-104G would have been an optimized alternative to the G.91. Granted, the Starfighter was indeed more complex than the G.91, it however, could have offered more capability and survivability, and it was still relatively simple by 1960s standards. Lockheed had designed the aircraft to be a simple, lightweight, easy to maintain day fighter, it was originally designed specifically to counter the MiG-15. Kelley Johnson had interviewed a number of Sabre pilots who had fought in Korea and one of the most frequently lamented qualities of the Sabre was its inferior t/w ratio to the MiG-15, so Johnson designed a hot rod, wrapping a tiny airframe around the most powerful engine available in the mid 50s; the nascent J79. The day fighter would evolve into a point-defense interceptor as it was developed, as there was a shift in TAC doctrine that focused more on intercepting nuclear-armed bombers rather than destroying other (enemy) fighters. Finally, the aircraft would be developed into a strike aircraft, first with the F-104C, then later with the more significantly modified F-104G. As it turns out, this jet, originally conceived as a lightweight day fighter to replace the F-86, was in fact well aerodynamically optimized for low level flight. The tiny, highly loaded wings offered a smooth ride at low altitude, which would theoretically mean less structural fatigue from low alt flying, and also enable more accurate weapons delivery (compounded by the more sophisticated avionics, specifically CCIP), at least on paper. I'm left to wonder if shelving the G.91 and merging the F-104 program into NBMR-1 would have been a more efficient and optimal approach to NATO tactical aircraft development in the 60s. I'm curious @MilitaryAviationHistory, do you think anything about the F-104, from maintenance to operating costs, would have made it prohibitively complex to be used in place of the G.91?
I agree that the F-104 was an alternative to the G91, not just potentially but in actuality. It was a much more capable aircraft than the G91, which was just another subsonic jet like the F-84F that Germany was already flying. As you point out the F-104 airframe was inherently suitable to low-level high-speed flight, and the G had the necessary systems for the nuclear strike role. Only 770 G91s were ever built as opposed to 2600 F-104s, so it is clear which aircraft provided better operational capability for NATO.
It was not TAC doctrine to intercept soviet bombers, it was ADC doctrine. They adopted the F-104 as an interim interceptor when the F-106 was suffering development delays. The F-104 didn’t have radar missiles or the SAGE system so it was not a capable all-weather interceptor, so they gave them back to TAC when they got the F-106.
In Vietnam the F-104C performed escort, CAP, and CAS with a good deal of success, except it never got to actually engage a MiG there because it was not challenged by them. The G91would not have been able to perform the counter air missions.
I think the G91 was a niche aircraft that was a waste of space for most countries, as the number produced seems to bear out.
Also, the F-104 actually flew before the G91.
@Gort 100% agree with your final statement, also my apologies, you are correct, ADC used them as interceptors, not TAC, speaking of, that is one of the primary reasons I was making the argument for treating the F-104 more as a dedicated strike platform with self escort capabilities (G.91+) rather than a true multirole fighter. Its lack of SARH missiles (until the AIM-7 was introduced on the F-104S) made it a weak interceptor, definitely weaker in the air to air role than contemporaries such as the Mirage IIIC with the Matra R530.
@Gort Yes it did, prototype first flew in 1954. Kinda crazy to think the first mach 2 capable airframe flew less than 10 years after the end of ww2
@@roberts9095 It's ironic that the Mirage was developed in response to a request for an "interceptor" when everybody seems to think of it as a tactical fighter, which is the opposite of the F-104, which originated as a lightweight pure day fighter. You correctly point out that the F-104 was a not very good as an interceptor, but most folks on the internet seem to think that's all it was good for. Oh, it had great kinematic performance, and I've read it actually had a greater all-supersonic intercept radius than the F-106. But unless it was a clear day with unlimited visibility it was going to have a hard time prosecuting the target. (BTW its only armament in ADC was the AiM-9, as ADC removed the gun and installed an auxiliary fuel tank its place. When they gave the plane back to TAC the gun was reinstalled.)
You mention its use as self-escorting strike aircraft, but in the nuclear strike role escort wasn't necessary. The idea was high speed under the radar, and an enemy interceptor would have to be lucky to have any chance of spotting and catching it before it reached its target. It didn't carry missiles in that role because there was no time or fuel for air-to-air combat. Speed was its defense and it needed external fuel instead of missiles. Many think the 104 didn't have enough range to be useful as a tactical fighter or fighter-bomber, but in the nuclear strike configuration with a single weapon plus external drop tanks it had a greater low altitude combat radius than the F-4 Phantom.
I always liked the G91. It was simple and cost-effective, plus it seemed like it would be fun to fly. I also thought that it would have been a good fit for the Israelis at the time.
My first love of the G.91 was War Thunder funny enough
Than in my Italian vacation I saw one in a museum and I was impressed by its small size
I love Italian aircraft
Folland Gnat is a truly underestimated aircraft. Had it been on the front line we would have many more Hot Shots!
Great stunts in that film with that aircraft ;)
Yeah really wouldnt be suitable to UK requirements, while CAS would have some merit it wouldnt be easily redeployable or carry a significant payload and the UK already had the Gnat a trainer/light attack aircraft which used the same powerplant as the G.91. And the aging Hawker Hunter which was transitioning from its original Interceptor role to Recon/fighter bomber as the Lightning entered service.
To correct you at 9:23, the F-104 made its first flight in March 1954. Unless your talking about Squadron service, which is January 1958.
Portuguese pilots have some crazy stories about this little jet.
As the wars overseas went on (I don’t say “colonial wars” because Portugal actually considered those countries as national territory. Not colonies) the Soviets send some Strella anti aircraft missiles to Africa. Portuguese pilots went from flying low to…very low. High grass sticking to the wings kind of low
All the best to everyone
Absolutely true! Portuguese pilots in Guinea-Bissau were used to flying G-91 at extremely low altitudes! And yes, war missions were duly acomplished...
I have been waiting for someone to do this!
Portugal 🇵🇹, was operat at 1992/93 the FIAT G 91, since 1964 also 1992/93. Great fighter...
If I remember correctly, Zaire also used them, so easy maintainance and rough gield capabilitieswere obviously there.
This really was an exceptional aircraft in its day. I cannot imagine the Americans or their aerospace industries being too happy about losing out to an Italian company. Except for when they saved Chrysler and built a range of relatively cheap hero cars for them. But if they fitted wings to a Dodge Challenger, watch out.
Great Video you don't see many people talk about the G.91 or make a video about them but great job military Aviation History.
There is one of these in the Centro Storico FIAT in Turin, the first purpose-built FIAT factory that is now a museum. Because of its tiny size, I assumed it was a trainer. For context, my father flew jets in this era like the F-89... 25k lbs empty.
Main problem in my opinion was that it was basicaly sabre upgrade when F 4 Phantom was comming up
Thanks!
Thank you very much!
@@MilitaryAviationHistoryYou more than welcome. I always look forward to your content and analysis. Best regards.
If you wanna know what the average War Thunder player thinks of the G.91, it should suffice to say it's a verb -- "I've been G.91'd"
I know of several air forces (including my own country's) that could do with a sizable force of cheap, rugged, subsonic ground-pounders just about now...
I love how the G.91Y looks.
I don't know about the rest of you but for me just the fact the same people that made the 500 , barcheta and the punto did also a very special fighter jet .as a side note this marvelous little tiger did some daring missions and definitely helped to maintain the status quo
I saw some shooting the cannons and they were amazing. It was while i was at Sta Margarida, circa 1984.
I didn't know about this plane until it showed up as one of the early 3rd party addin (military) aircraft in MSFS, and then became a fan of it's look, at least.
The G.91 seems to me like the equivalent to the Lightning in the game Highfleet: Small, maneuverable, cheap, packs a big punch, but with severely limited potential for upgrades later on.
Tbf it probably wouldve done just fine till the 70s, when digital bomb computers and even later guided weapons become commonplace.
Interesting video about a plane I'd never heard about, though now it makes sense why. Perfectly fine but shortlived due to the most mundane reasons. Got thrown for a bit of a mental loop by hearing you go through the Warthunder spiel and realizing I've been essentially learning warplane trivia from you for close to a decade now, even if the format has changed. More current events and less alien invaders disguised as yaks.
G.91- My most played and favorite Aircraft in WT lol. Well, mainly YS but R is cool as well
Pretty uptiered on br
I remember the "Gina". In late 60s I did service in german Bundeswehr and served as a forward air controller. "Ginas" coming in for close air support training was always a pleasure. The pilots loved that plane.
How would this compared to a Me262 or a F 86 in a dogfight?
Why not keep the Me262 in service, im sure German pilot love the Me262 more.
Looks KINDA vaguely similar to the F-86K, any relation there? I know Fiat did build some F-86Ks.
There is, explained in the video
"generational shift" was not a point. Strike fighters remained subsonic for decades after the introduction of the G91. See the Douglas A-4, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, AMX... Even the Super Etendard, introduced 1978, is not supersonic at low altitude.
In 1950 it would have been a sensation, by 1958 its competitor was going Mach 2+, could climb 10x as fast.
It never was a competitor to the supersonics, it was a cheap light attack aircraft never meant to go against planes
@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 Sure, but its 1958 and you're buying new attack jets that you hope to use for the next decade, do you choose what appears to be a retreaded Sabre, which is an 8 year old design at that point, or do you choose the new, sexy, Mach 2+ fighter that is supposedly "multi-role"?
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus that's true
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus you pretty much summed it up well. It was already obsolete by the time it goes into service.
@@WALTERBROADDUS It was probably a good jet for its designed mission, its biggest problem is that it went into service the same year as the Starfighter, and the Starfighter was burning down the record book.
One of these is parked in my old high school, next to an f104 s ASA and a cl-13 sabre
For a long while, this was one of the few post WW2 aircraft that I liked. I take your point about the generational shift in aircraft, but then again, the Folland Gnat was improved into the HAL Ajeet, and there's no reason why the Fiat G91 couldn't have been upgraded somewhat to improve its ability at ground attack missions. As US experience later showed, supersonic aircraft are neither ideal nor necessary to make a good ground-attack aircraft, and modern COIN aircraft the world over are cheap, lightweight, and can use roads or grass strips as runways and tend to be easy to maintain and fast to turn around.
G.91?! Is there any other way to get your decal?
I was introduced to the aircraft when I built the Airfix model of the G.91 as a kid and became fascinated with the cute little strike plane, and I do feel it was done a dirty by the politics of the time. I gather even the US were highly impressed with it when they tested it. And as pointed out, when it came to performing in a live combat role, it lived up to it's billing, and as we've seen throughout history, peace-time designs, specifications, theories and doctrines don't always live up to the realities of combat.
Anyone know the plane to the left at 2:02?
Hamburger Flugzeugbau HFB-320 Hansa Jet. Small early business jet with odd, forward-swept wings. The Luftwaffe used them for communications and training.
Still as for today it would be an excellent trainer fighter a.c. and also a marvel for airshows when flying teams would use it to amaze spectator crowds.
Fiats G.91 were the backbone of Portugal's fighter planes during the long portuguese colonial war against it's ex colonies forces 1961-1974, Portugal was alone at the time and had an embargo to buy sophisticated weapons from USA and it's allies, western Germany sold 40 of these, second hand to Portugal built in Greece and Turkey, when guerillas started to use 9K32 Strela-2 missiles supplied by the Soviet Union "6 FIAT's were lost from 1966 to 1974", many of these were used to support military operations with weapons like Napalm and close proximity support with machine guns and cannons, they remained in the Skies until early 90's when Portugal bought second hand F16'S as the modernization plan of the Portuguese Air Force.
I wonder how well it compared to other aircraft of its era like the A-4 Skyhawk, or the F-5 Freedom Fighter
The F5 would smoke it in most aspects, but the A4 is at a greater disadvantage in a dogfight
Are you going to cover the other NATO Basic Military Requirements?
Isn't the plane used in the Hot Shots fighter pilot comedy the Gnat shown here? By the way, a gnat is a type of mosquito.
They used three kinds of aircraft for Hot Shots. The single-seaters were HAL Ajeets, which are basically an upgraded, Indian-made Gnat, and the two-seaters were ex-RAF trainer Gnats. They also used a SIAI S-211 in the background of some formation shots because they didn't have enough Gnats.
@@MrHws5mp Thanks for the info! I really like that movie, has some real classic comedy moments, like for example the scene with the clutter in the cockpit falling into the canopy when he goes inverted or thes scene with the crash/ambulance.
I think the concept of a light fighter aircraft that can operate on non military airports or even not on airport surfaces still valid today, I always wonder what all the great F35, Typhoons, F15 and 16 are going to do if the enemy has managed to sufficiently damage the airports they are operating out of. If one little foreign object can destroy a jet engine in one of these planes, that's their achilles heel.
I'm Italian and I've seen those with the old Frecce tricolori skin and it's really cool
I have always loved the look of the "small Sabre." It's just *so* damned pretty!
Of course, it was also supposed to be quite rugged, and was widely regarded as a genuine delight to fly. If I were rich, I'd add it to the list of aircraft I'd want to buy, alongside the SAAB Drakken and F-5-F Tiger II. Three of the sexiest aircraft that ever flew!
I've heard that it was quite a challenging plane to fly for pilots. It was used by the Italian Air Force in flight schools and was quite feared by the flight cadets as many failed the test on the G91 and got dismissed by the pilot traing course because of it.
You know looking at it, it kind of reminds me of the Super Saber. Maybe it had the same lateral stability problems at low speeds?
Didn't realise how small the G.91 was till I saw the beginning of the video. It's tiny compared to the Phantom next to it
the Fiat G.91YS multi role ground attack fighter would have greatly complemented both the Panavia Tornado IDS GR4 multi role interdictor strike fighter . . . not to mention the Panavia Tornado ADF F3 (Block II) multi role all weather fighter . . . still one of the best variable-sweep wing multi role fighter by far . . . sometime in the mid 1980s the Indian Air Force seriously considered acquiring a fleet of no less than 133 - 138 brand new Panavia Tornado IDS GR4 (Block III) multi role interdictor strike fighter . . . plus 104 brand new Fiat G.91YS multi role ground attack fighter . . . the air force also considered acquiring 100 brand new Panavia Tornado ADF F3 (Block II) multi role all weather interceptor . . . but none of these plans ever realized practically speaking . . .
The G-91 is one of my favourite jet designs, IMO it looked better than the F-86. You can see why the Italians wanted it adopted by NATO, at that time the major conventional threat in Europe was Soviet amour. And that was G-91s major flaw, rather than being a “Italian stallion” (air superiority) it was a “one trick pony.”
It was an aeroplane that treated the symptom (prolific soviet armour) rather than the cause (the Soviet Union). To do that, you would need a supersonic multi role aeroplane, that could not only take out battlefield targets and dogfight, but also beat enemy ground defences, to carry its nuclear ordinance (deterrent) and whatever the weather, day/night, drop it on target.
Some of NATO (after much wrangling) finally got it (arriving over budget, and very late), the Panavia Tornado.
Gee I was just about ready to say it looks like a late model F 86 and you beat me to the punch.. thanks.
Great video about a lesser well known jet the idea was a great one even in the US some manufacturer's tried the same idea keeping it simple small and cheap Douglas A-4 Skyhawk for exampe but as you stated the Gina came out at the wrong time and expecting European governments to agree to anything well that's a madness all it's own...
Portuguese used them very effectively in Africa liberation/colonial wars
"Or however you pronounce that thing; its British after all"
Yep. You got us. I could try asking you to have a conversation with a German, an Ostie, a Swiss and an Austrian, but yeah, you got us. Gotta give u that one.
Nah, it's easy. Gnat is pronounced the same way as Gnu and Gnome
It was a good plane & conceptually good as well. Deserved a better fate. Given how many times it’s happened, I’ve never understood why countries keep attempting joint projects with France- they undoubtedly can make great planes but they really don’t have any interest in collaborating with others (without fail they will either sabotage a joint program , or just drop out). USA similar but even they can be convinced IF the technology is genuinely fits their needs better than their homegrown efforts(e.g early uk turbofans, harrier & hawk...)
The thing of the generational shift you said in the video Is correct.
But, IMO, there Is an ulterior motivation of why the Fiat G 91 wasn't adopted by other NATO members.
I'm Italian and I Always heard the reputation of our warplane industry in WW 2 was really bad, with obsolete models (like the C.R. 42 biplanes) produced ( with the only exceptions of "Serie 5" fighters, "Serie 1 Fighters" and P 108 heavy Bomber. These one here were very good for that time).
Because of this, I think the other nations of NATO didn't adopt the G 91 fighter/bomber because of the Bad reputation that the Italian's warplane industry had made in WW2.
I like standardization, especially when it turns out this beautiful and (apparently) comfy of a machine.
Could have been a cool example of international cooperation.
The Gnat wasn't actually submitted as part of the competition for NBMR-1, the Gnat was essentially what inspired NATO to draft NBMR1
Can you do something on Volvo VDL fast strike buses.
Any time an aircraft is designed to be an “all the above” answer to operation needs no one ends up adopting it lol
How come the Fiat can take off from grass field? Did the engine suck in FOD?
What is it they say in The Silent Service, "There are only two types of ships, Submarines and targets!"
Your comment about British pronunciation made me laugh out loud 😂. I am British btw.
I was going to ask what the bomber with the underwing gun position (interesting concept) was in the War Thunder footage but managed to work it out myself as a Pe-8.
a restored G91 will fly the 17 an 18 of june near rome this summer
There already was a standard low cost light ground attack aircraft in Europe during the 1950s, the F84G Thunderjet. Hundreds of F84Gs were operating all across Europe, including France and Italy, and while they could not operate from rough fields like the G91, they were cheap and offered comparable performance. And by the time the Thunderjets were starting to show their age in 1960s, the F5A was introduced and the Freedom Fighter turned out to be better than the G91 in every way plus it was cheaper to buy and fly so the deck was stacked against Fiat from beginning to end.
I love this aircraft, it looks so Gerry Anderson.
1:30 don't mock the brits, a "taon" in French is pronounced "tan" (\tɑ̃\) with the "o" silent.
Outdated subsonic concept? Why it is outdated? Then why the A-6 Intruder (1960), A-7 Corsair II (1965) and A-10 Thunderbolt II (1972) considered groundbreaking and successfull attack aircrafts?
The 1950's Gripen is the Lansen.
The fashion trend was the higher speed did always equal better.
But that is of course not true. If you fly too fast then you are not able to see the targets on the ground and you don't get time to aim where you want to drop your bombs properly. Furthermore making a plane thin and earodynamic like an arrow, would give a bomber high speeds like the F105 Thunderchief, but on the other hand would the plane become harder to manouver and out-turn an enemy in air combat. So the high speed performances of F4 Phantom and F105 Thunderchief became usless in the Vietnam war as not a single air combat happened at Mach 2. Indeed, nearly all air combats happened at speeds below Mach 1.4. So speed is not that important. Instead was manouverability more important.
And here did the Soviet planes have a bit of an upper hand plus that they had better missiles. But the US airpower had better trained pilots, more resources and overall better planes to compensate.
Overall was the obsession with high speeds a mistake. F4 Phantom, F104, F105, J-35 Draken are all examples of planes prioritizing speed more than much else. However personally I think that G91, F86 Sabre and Flygande tunnan were becoming a bit outdated for most jobs except ground attack already around the 1960s.
It doesn't have the payload, range or all-weather capabilities of those other planes. It was basically obsolete by 1958 when it entered service.
Infact strike aircrafts remained subsonic for decades after the introdiction of the G91, and mostly still are. See the Douglas A-4, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, AMX, SU-25... Even the Super Etendard, introduced 1978, is not supersonic at low altitude.
People often fails to realize that even a bisonic aircraft is bisonic only at high altitude in a straight line. It's not even supersonic when it flies at low altitude, following the ground.
@@neutronalchemist3241 The subsonic Buccaneer was faster at low altitude with the same armament than the supersonic Tornado.
I just read a book on the Problems with the procurement of the HS-30 AFV for the young Bundeswehr and I only now realy unterstand how important a large number of non military factors are for military procurment. You can have the best Weaponsystem in the world, if it doesnt fit the non military requirements, it will not get procured.
Also the G.91 concept sounds like it would have been liked by the Israelis, who as far as I understand went heavily for Air-Artillery after the 6 Day war. A thing that was a disadvantage form them in the Yom Kippur war, becaus Arab air defence was much stronger.
And it's not exactly a coincidence that the Israelis absolutely loved the A-4, which is based on a very similar idea.
Not super excited about the G91, but I'm happy it will come to DCS as it goes well with the F-4 for the German Luftwaffe of the 70s, so cool for any Cold war gone hot 70s senario.
"Drive around in targets". Haha, isn't there any playable AA battery in War Thunder? I would assume they would consider those pesky flies called planes as targets as well.
A pretty aircraft; reminds me of the Saber Dog. No room for upgraded avionics was a killer.
Fiat G-91 proved itself in the Portuguese Colonial Wars, gaining air superiority until the USSR introduced the Strella Rocket to the Nationalist Armys fighting for indepedence. Theres a fair quantity of videos showing the action.
the italian Airforce is restoring a Fiat G91 to flight conditions at Piacenza's airbase for the 100 years of the airforce. They might allow visitors in groups to see the restoration process I think.
it looks like a mig and a saber had a love child while having a sordid italian fling
At least two G-91R/4s tested by Greek pilots in the effort to order a lightweight fighter for the Greek Air Force( Royal Hellenic Air Force that period) Wearing Greek roundels and NATO camo ,the G-91R/4 lost by another lightweight aircraft the Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter thru the MAP program
I love all models that Great engineer dr. Gabrielli was. Respect to all The G models of Fiat.
Its a classic exa,ple of military procurment cooperation with france:
"hey lets have a competition and we all agree to buy the winner"
France: "oui oui but regardless of the winner we all will buy my aircraft, right? because if not then I'm out"
I learned something interesting today, thank you.