|
Wiki says that China's Su-30s can use the R-77, which would be pretty dangerous (especially to something with only short range missiles).
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:You've messed up the costs on the Meteors and IRIS: 30 Meteors cost $52.5 million, not $5.25 million, and 50 IRIS missiles are $20 million, not $2. Strach them, they are good but too expensive to bulk-buy. Also, our starting ammunition is a full loadout, so the numbers on the second graph. So I have. I've fixed the numbers. I'm flexible on how many missiles we buy. We might be able to cut our buy to 10-20. We're going to need deep stockpiles if we're going toe-to-toe with the PLAAF in a sustained air campaign. It might be a small border scarp to them, but it's going to stretch our small outfit to the limits. And waiting for replacement missiles to dribble in by ones and twos isn't a good solution in the middle of a war. Beefing up our air force with new aircraft and having cash on hand to pay for gas and spares should be our top priorities. But we should dump everything else we have into make sure we have enough firepower to take the fight to our adversaries. We need the Meteors -- they are what sets the Gripen apart from any other fighter in the theater. If we're counting on IRIS-T once our Meteors rapidly run out, we going to have to dogfight and sooner or later we're going to lose a bird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
In CMANO the PL-11, China's modern BVR missile, is longer ranged than the AA-12s that would be available to them. The PL-11 is 92.3km, the AA-12 is 83.3km and our Meteors are 138.9km. Either way, the moment we catch wind of J-10s, Su-30s or J-11s going to Lhasa, we have to start loading our Gripens with Meteors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:So I have. I've fixed the numbers. We already have 24 in stock: The expense of buying even say 6 more, is heavy enough that I don't want to buy any more till we can tell they are needed or we have decided what if any extra jets we want to buy. We sink $20 million in extra A2A missiles, then end up picking some jets which can't even use the Meteor, or not being able to pick up the jet package we want. I don't want to spend more than a few million on extra munitions for now, until it's more clear if we'll need them and our other options for spending our remaining money. We should be stocking up on cheap A2G munitions though: It's cheap enough than ensuring we can go 2-3 missions of full CAS duty without resupply is a worthwhile investment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:
 The Sandman posted:Looking around on the web, it looks like the Israelis have a line of anti-radar drones. Any idea if CMANO has them in its database and what they'd cost us if it does? IAI Harop It is in the game. It's marked as a SSM battery, a ground unit. http://cmano-db.com/weapon/3271/ Yooper fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Reserve Pilot Thunderlips asks: say, what' so bad about them J-10s, brother? They look like Chinese knock-off F-16, and Gripens regularly compete with F-16s in procurement tenders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
I would have thought there was no real harm in making a safe investment in more A2A's that Gripens can use, even if we are planning to upgrade in the near future. Frankly, we won't be buying the entire wing out at once, and the pilots waiting on upgrades will still need weaponry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Reserve Pilot Thunderlips asks: say, what' so bad about them J-10s, brother? They look like Chinese knock-off F-16, and Gripens regularly compete with F-16s in procurement tenders. They're a hell of a lot more of a threat than a bunch of clapped out J-8s from 1980-something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
To give an idea how terrible the enemy planes we encountered were: Their radars can only give range information, which essentially means they're only for making sure the fighter is in range for a missile shot and for aiming the gun. These things are barely a step above a WW2-era jet fighter. The most modern variant of the J-8, however, has much better avionics and can carry the aforementioned PL-12 BVR missile. I'm excited to see what future scenarios will throw at us 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Seems like getting a utility helicopter should be a priority. Not only for SAR, if it comes to that, but a helicopter is an extremely flexible platform and can have many uses in this line of work. We can probably pick up a decent one on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
sparkmaster posted:Seems like getting a utility helicopter should be a priority. Not only for SAR, if it comes to that, but a helicopter is an extremely flexible platform and can have many uses in this line of work. We can probably pick up a decent one on the cheap. Given the high altitudes helicopters have great difficulty functioning with any sort of load. A full weapons loadout might be beyond what can be flown. (The game might let us, but it might be impossible.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Here's how I'm thinking about it. What missions we're going to get? From what Yooper said, we're going to be getting a lot of air-to-ground missions, probably against troops, vehicles, and buildings. With the Chinese pissed off, we're going to be seeing J-11/Su-27 fighters, plus whatever older fighters the Chinese want to throw at us. What equipment are we going to need? For ordnance, we need dumb and precision air-to ground capabilities, and a lot of ammo so we can profit from targets of opportunity. To deal with the Flankers without risking Gripen losses, we need long-range air-to-air. That means Meteors. The Pk for a BVR missile shot is anywhere from 40-70%, so we're going to need to salvo multiple missiles per target to guarantee kills. For aircraft, we need mud-movers that can kill ground targets without getting shredded. So, something that can carry precision munitions is pretty desirable. Then, what do we need to buy? We've got about $150 million to play with, so our budget for new toys will be a little tight. For aircraft, the F-4s are the best choice for the A2G mission, since they can carry up to 12 GBU-12 laser-guided bombs. They can do the Gripen-style precision strike missions our SK 60s can't, which frees up our Gripens for the MiG CAP role. I think the F-4s will probably cost in the neighborhood of $30-40 million apiece. And we need to factor in the cost of spares, compatible munitions, etc. If we can't snag the F-4s, I'd like to suggest we go with the F/A-50 Golden Eagles. They only cost $25-30 million a pop. They're cheap to fly. They're supersonic. They've got a decent radar. They can carry Mavericks and JDAMs. In real life, they are rumored to carry AMRAAMs, although Yooper would have to mod this in in-game. For ordnance, here's a conservative budget. Air-to-air missiles 20 Meteor medium-range AAMs ($28,000,000) 20 IRIS-T short-range AAMs ($8,000,000) Air-to-ground weapons 100 GBU-12 laser-guided bombs ($220,000). 30 RB 75 Maverick EO Missiles ($6,7500,000) 250 M/70 135mm rockets ($700,000) Miscellaneous 25 1200-litre drop tanks ($475,000) That's a grand total of $44,145,000. This'd give us: 52 IRIS-T SRAAM 44 Meteors MRAAM 120 GBU-12s LGBs 24 GBU-49s LGB/GPSGB 50 Mavericks TV missiles 24 Mjolnir stand-off cluster munitions 394 125mm rockets 43 1200-litre drop tanks That gives us enough money to buy 2-4 Phantoms (depending on cost), plus their air-to-air weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
On another note, what do we think about liveries? Do we want to develop a custom color scheme and/or emblem for our air force?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:On another note, what do we think about liveries? Just rip off Dutch airshow schemes or go sadbrains grey. Dayglo orange says we don't give a gently caress and will smoke you BVR like little else can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:On another note, what do we think about liveries?  
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:On another note, what do we think about liveries? I kind of like the green/white combination we've been seeing so far for the colours; no idea about emblems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Serpentis posted:I kind of like the green/white combination we've been seeing so far for the colours; no idea about emblems. Company logo as our roundel in black and white, go nuts with the nose art.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Again: I do not believe we need to buy 20 more Meteors, given their costs: We'd have to down or at least fire off on 10-15 J-11/Su-27 fighters of equivalents to just get through our stockpile. I'd carry 32: enough to send all 8 Gripens on a 2/2 loadout twice, which given our current position and logistics backing is more than enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Here's how I'm thinking about it. I would be surprised if the F-4s were more than $10 million per and with a good spares package, to be honest. We've been eyeing up the Greek ones, and they started getting them in 1974. The fact that they're a half-century old will dissuade others from going for them, giving us a clear shot at them. If we want dedicated strike birds, I'd like Jack to try and sweet talk the Poles for their Fitters, if that's possible. Tevery Best posted:Reserve Pilot Thunderlips asks: say, what' so bad about them J-10s, brother? They look like Chinese knock-off F-16, and Gripens regularly compete with F-16s in procurement tenders. The J-10 can be a very dangerous aircraft. It may not have as good a BVR air-to-air missile as our Gripens, but newer ones have AESA radars, lower RCS than even our Grips and are likely to be piloted by the best China has to offer. They'll make a fiercely difficult opponent for our Gripens. Quinntan fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:
Minor error: 100 GBU-12 will cost $2,200,000 @$22,000 each
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Actually Bacarruda just reminded me of a downside relating to nabbing Su-25s - namely, as ex-Warsaw Pact birds they won't accept the munitions all of our other stuff does, complicating our supply chain and making it more expensive. We may want to seriously consider the F-4s as alternative mud movers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Actually Bacarruda just reminded me of a downside relating to nabbing Su-25s - namely, as ex-Warsaw Pact birds they won't accept the munitions all of our other stuff does, complicating our supply chain and making it more expensive. We may want to seriously consider the F-4s as alternative mud movers. The IRIS-T was designed specifically to be backwards compatible with the Sidewinder, so anything that shoots Sidewinders can shoot IRIS-Ts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Here's how I'm thinking about it. Unless I see a different proposal I will go with this option and let you guys debate quantity of IRIS-T and Meteors. Would it be better in the future to give options packages?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Actually Bacarruda just reminded me of a downside relating to nabbing Su-25s - namely, as ex-Warsaw Pact birds they won't accept the munitions all of our other stuff does, complicating our supply chain and making it more expensive. We may want to seriously consider the F-4s as alternative mud movers. Yeah we should not be trying to mix PACT with NATO with whatever 3rd party stuff is floating around unless we want to massively complicate our supply chain. If we have to spend a little more cash or get a little less capability to keep everything working together, that should be the priority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Actually Bacarruda just reminded me of a downside relating to nabbing Su-25s - namely, as ex-Warsaw Pact birds they won't accept the munitions all of our other stuff does, complicating our supply chain and making it more expensive. We may want to seriously consider the F-4s as alternative mud movers. That is true, but a lot of air forces don't seem to think that is a significant issue; Poland, for example, operates MiG-29s and Su-22s along with their F-16s. Egypt has F-16s and has just accepted MiG-35s. Our Indian hosts operate Su-30s, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s and Jaguars. There is another aspect to consider; we may have issues keeping every aircraft supplied, but we shouldn't have issues with keeping at least some aircraft supplied if we have a diverse air force. I am still inclined towards adopting F-4s, as they are still very capable aircraft despite their age and will serve not only as strike aircraft but as a second-line fighter to augment our Gripen force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Unless I see a different proposal I will go with this option and let you guys debate quantity of IRIS-T and Meteors. That might be a better idea, yeah. I know that I for one look at that chart and I go "the gently caress is the difference between an IRIS-T and a Meteor? They both blow planes up, right?" Might be easier to just sort them under "poo poo that kills ground targets," "poo poo that kills air targets," and "everything else." Because at the end of the day, does anything else matter? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:That is true, but a lot of air forces don't seem to think that is a significant issue; Poland, for example, operates MiG-29s and Su-22s along with their F-16s. Egypt has F-16s and has just accepted MiG-35s. Our Indian hosts operate Su-30s, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s and Jaguars. There is another aspect to consider; we may have issues keeping every aircraft supplied, but we shouldn't have issues with keeping at least some aircraft supplied if we have a diverse air force. Reserve Pilot Thunderlips says: they're national air forces, brother! They have the resources of an entire country's military to RUN WILD with their PROCUREMENTMANIA! Not to mention plenty of other, possibly political concerns, that SMASH the loss/profit calculation in their case! He is also adamant that he does not understand your obsession with bringing in literal Vietnam-era aircraft into our fleet. We don't run a plane boneyard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Reserve Pilot Thunderlips says: they're national air forces, brother! They have the resources of an entire country's military to RUN WILD with their PROCUREMENTMANIA! Not to mention plenty of other, possibly political concerns, that SMASH the loss/profit calculation in their case! Yeah, we're honestly running at a shoestring right now. Not every day you drop 10% of your entire cash reserve on ammo, and I don't want us getting into it with loan sharks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Wonder if the French are selling anything decent. Hell maybe the Canadians would sell some of their Hornets. But given the options, the Phantom can carry the most iron for strike operations. If they are indeed the upgraded Greek versions, we should be ok. Fitters could work, supply chain problems aside. We should have considered that when we bought Swedish though. Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Dr. Snark posted:That might be a better idea, yeah. I know that I for one look at that chart and I go "the gently caress is the difference between an IRIS-T and a Meteor? They both blow planes up, right?" IRIS-T: Blows up planes in a 30km radius of our plane Meteor: Blows up planes in a 125km radius of our plane. Understandably, distance is important in fighter combat, so the Meteor is much more expensive (Meteor is also really new, as in "Only went into use last year" new)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Reserve Pilot Thunderlips says: they're national air forces, brother! They have the resources of an entire country's military to RUN WILD with their PROCUREMENTMANIA! Not to mention plenty of other, possibly political concerns, that SMASH the loss/profit calculation in their case! Old planes are cheap planes, simple as. In terms of sheer capability, the Greek Phantoms offer a bang-to-buck ratio that would be very hard to beat. They may not have that new plane smell, but they'll do the job for us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Air-to-air missiles With these amounts, I get 20 Meteors à 1.75M = 35 million 100 GBU-12 à 22K = 2.2 million 30 Mavericks à 29K = 870,000 So my total is $47,245,000. I still think it's an OK buy, though. If we meet any kind of near-modern fighters armed with near-modern missiles, we need those Meteors. Be prepared to expend at least one Meteor for every enemy aircraft armed with BVR missiles if we want to preserve our Gripens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
If we're getting F-4s, maybe get two kitted out as F-4Gs? That would give us a SEAD bird that can do some jamming on the side.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
I'm good with the ammo buy, and I'd also like to suggest F/A-50 Golden Eagles. Everyone and their grandma uses F-4s and Su-25s--we can stand out and be unique!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
The problem with the FA-50 is that it's just a duplication of what we already have. I mean, we already have a light fighter in the form of the Gripen, what is the point of adding another one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
I say we pick up a few Frogfoots and Flankers. The Frogfoots will be indispensable if we are doing a lot of CAS, Flankers are a high end fighter if we expect to be facing a lot of Chinese fighters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Also, this game kinda makes me want to do an interactive LP of 7.62 High Caliber where individual goons play mercs we hire. The combat would be progressed by a fixed amount (like 10 seconds) and posted in screenshot form for the players to direct their merc how to operate. When it comes time to make purchases, the cash is evenly split between everyone and they buy what they want to outfit their merc with. The big problem I see is that even with the Blue Sun mod you can only have a limited number of mercs, so the player cap will be pretty drat small unlike this one or the big war games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
The problem with the Flanker is we don't know what variant we'd be looking at. If it's one of the early ones, forget it, their BVR missile is the R-27 and it's utter crap. They got used a lot in the Eritrean-Ethiopian War, a couple dozen were fired and only one hit a target. A success rate of 4% is utter crap, even Sparrows would do better. Later ones are let down by a large RCS and mediocre R-77 BVR missiles compared to what we have in the Gripen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
This is incredibly well done, great work Yooper! I do agree that weapons packages would be better; there's so many possible combinations of quantities as to introduce choice paralysis. Maybe try to have an option that's just "1:1 replace whatever you expended"? Put me in the pilot list as Meat. I'd caution against buying many Russian/soviet bloc aircraft if we're this in bed with Swedish hardware. There's not a lot of crossover in weapons compatibility between US-aligned and Russian-aligned weapons manufacturers and having a giant pile of stores for some planes while the rest are stuck with their guns (are we even tracking gun ammo?) isn't a good situation. I'd also say we should actually try to find a way to sell the SK60s and trade them in for "literally anything with a RWR" - they're so vulnerable that unless we get a bunch of missions that involve blowing up lone undefended hiluxes they might as well not even be in the inventory unless we want to start assuming a rate of attrition on their airframes that would wildly out-cost just sticking some extra paveways on the Gripens. We can probably mount the rockets on drat near anything. We should definitely not buy more rockets for them until we're sure we have a use for the things. As such I'd say that for new planes we should go F4s or nothing. These particular F4s might not get us any specific new capabilities but they're reliable bomb trucks and half the world has spare parts for them. Maybe we'll get lucky and these F4s can mount ARMs. Frogfeet are tempting but again, no munitions commonality. Definitely not flankers, they are way too expensive for what they'd add, which is not much. The various other light aircraft seem redundant between the Gripens and SK60s and so far we haven't had a "not enough planes in the air" issue. We should probably also keep some amount of money in reserve in case some weird mission comes up that requires a capability we don't have at all and we have to go buy some anti-shipping missiles or some other nonsense. Longer term, what about spending some of our money on a SAM system? I know aircraft are far flashier, but we can't always count on the Indians or whomever loaning us a missile battery. Ideally we'd get something capable of missile interception so it could do double-duty to protect the expensive AWACS that spends missions cowering behind the frontlines in case some Chinese fighter decides to lob a missile at it before our fighters can take it down. I'm not sure what's available in that regard (can NASAMS target missiles? can anything target AA missiles at all?) but it may be worth keeping in mind. --- Stuff I've done: All about planes (for procurement):
MEAT's Journey:
power crystals fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Oct 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
The f-4 seems less riskier than the SU-27 for a potential A2A fighter even if the potential payoff isn't as high. OTOH the FA-50 does share some commonality with our A2G ordinance so gently caress it lets go with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 23:15
|
|
