|
If nobody had mentioned the Entebbe option I wouldn't have even considered it but now that the idea has been floated I can't get it out of my head. I mean I know it's batshit insane to even consider but what if... what if....
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
I am now imagining what would happen if Jack had to go to the Chinese to buy weapons for the JH-7s we stole from them. Ok, let's go full entebbe (let's not)
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiwDUdTbuA There it is folks. poo poo's getting real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
This is so great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Why am I suddenly wondering if we can entebbe their backup airbase under the cover of enough jamming that we might have a chance of getting their jets to land there? I think we're going an airfield too far. Then again, if we're only risking someone else's troops, it might be worth taking the risk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Cathode Raymond posted:I think we're going an airfield too far. It's such a bad idea it might just work! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
We don't have jammers and we wouldn't come back alive from that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
I'd like to use my accumulated ectoplasm to decrease the likelihood of engine failure on the Phantoms, please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
It worked in Strike Commander! Just the pilot too, no commando team needed. Had to trade the F-16 for their F-22 though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
When he says he has a wing of Rafales does he mean a literal air wing? 3 squadrons? 60 aircraft? That sounds like a full blown invasion!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Pilot Sonic assassin reporting for suicide mission to help them bait the J20's!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Yooper, any ETA on when we get the intel on expected Chinese Radar and SAMs?Bacarruda posted:Well, that is...odd. quote:How well do the cluster weapons like the Mjolner do against SAMs, AA guns, and MANPAD teams? Would we be better-off giving the SEAD birds all Mavericks or GBU-49s? As for weapon selection, here are the ranges on the various weapons: BK-90 : glide bomb, 8 nmi RB 65 : missile, 6 nmi, GBU-24: gravity bomb, 4 nmi I think it's a choice between giving the SEAD birds either the Mjolners or the Mavericks, depending on what the SAMs are and the terrain is like. If there's a convenient mountain range within 6-10 nmi of the SAM site, I'd say go with the RB 65s and sneak in under the Radar. But for some older or shorter range systems, it might actually be safer to approach them at high altitude and use the BK-90s. quote:I'm skeptical about sending the Su-25s. It doesn't seem like we need them. But if we do send them, we should send in the Hawks and the SK 60s as well. Flood the airfield with aircraft -- dump everything we've got in one pass and then get out of there. quote:Can we pull off a high-speed, low-level infiltration, then make an aggressive pull-up to make a pop-up attack and get up to weapons release altitude?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Does Command undervalue the Mavericks range? They should be in the area of 24km/12 miles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
The Rb 75 is an AGM-65B, an earlier model. Our Phantoms operate the AGM-65G, which is longer ranged and is all-weather capable. The airfield is basically on the feet of mountains right to the south of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Does Command undervalue the Mavericks range? They should be in the area of 24km/12 miles. Depending on era of missile, CMANO gives max ranges of 3, 6, or 8 nm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
No you can't let our Gripens get suicided
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
It's a shame they don't model toss-bombing. With the right planes, you could do some hilarious poo poo.quote:The Iraqi Air Force were particularly enthusiastic users of the gargantuan FAB-9000 (9,000 kg/20,000 lb) general-purpose bomb, which skilled Tu-22 pilots could deploy with impressive accuracy, utilizing supersonic toss bombing techniques at stand-off distances and allowing the aircraft to escape retaliatory anti-aircraft fire. Seconding not sending any of our Gripens to die, we'll need all of them to deal with any J-16s or other poo poo that might show up. Also seconding chucking everything we've got at that base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
As we prepare for our next fight, I feel like a proper de-brief on what we've fought and a brief on what we plan to fight is warranted. So without further ado, I give you...  The Peanut Gallery Finback Alpha  In-Game Statistics Wikipedia Entry The Finback was developed in the 1960’s as a Chinese response to then recent developments by the Americans in the field of high altitude aircraft such as the Hustler, Thunderchief and U2. The design was largely based of technology and specifications from the Mig-21 which had been transferred over to China before the deterioration of relations between the PRC and the Soviet Union. Production of this plane though would not place until the late 70’s due various domestic issues in China (namely the Cultural Revolution) and the first of the Finbacks wouldn’t launch until 1980. Since its launch, the Finback has received a number of upgrades and iterations, with the latest models being developed as late as 2006. The J-8IE A represents the I generation (first generation) that was upgrade with an all-weather avionics package and changes to its structure to allow forImproved all-weather version control. In terms of weaponry to quote Wikipedia “With SL-7A fire-control radar (40 km range), twin-barrel Type 23-III 23 mm cannon, & up to 4 AAMs (or rockets/bombs)”. In game the J-8IE mounts only PL-7 Missles for ATA combat. The PL-7 its self is a Sinoized version of the French Magic missile, a 70’s era short range infrared targeted missile for short-ranged interception missions. The plane can also carry several combinations of bombs and 57mm/90mm rockets for ground offence. Assessment The Finback A is a 60’s era jet that was born too late into the 80’s, its avionics and weapons are fairly pitiful and unlike our Phantoms they don’t have the modularity to mount heavy packages for bombing. While we should never be over confident, so long as we keep this plane at arm’s length we should be fine. TYPE 53H JIANGHU-I  Wikipedia Entry Game Entry The Type 53 was born based off of designs and information reverse engineered from the Soviet Riga class frigate. Originally China had been licensed to build 4 of the Rigas by the Soviet Union, but following the Sino-Soviet split in the 60’s the Chinese began to reverse engineer their Soviet gear to make their own domestic products. The Type 53 (dubbed the Stag Hoof by NATO) was one of these products. Armed with 4 Generation 1 Silkworm Missiles, six twin 37mm cannons, two single 100mm cannons and some ASW rockets and depth charges, the ship was already considered to be of poor quality for its mission purpose by the time it rolled off the slipway in the 70’s. Poor foreign reception did little to help that when the Bangladeshi, Egyptian and Thai navies all heavily criticized the ship after receiving the export variant. Much like the Finback, the Type 53 has received a number of iterations and improvements over time. The latest being the H3 which entered service in the 1990’s. ASSESSMENT While saying we sunk a frigate sounds nice on paper, the reality is the Type 53 we sank was by and large hardly worth its weight in steel when it comes to combat. They are armed only with a handful of obsolete anti-shipping missiles and have no air-defense to speak of unless they are rocking some MANPADS below deck. The Chinese have by and large transferred many of their 70’s and 80’s era Type 53’s to their coast guard to use as cutters, which is honestly a fair assessment for this this ship, its an up gunned Coast Guard Cutter With a receiving radar that only has a range of 120 nm, its limited in scouting capabilities and with only a handful of decoys, it also is quite limited in defensive capabilities as well. Coupled with poor damage control, it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that we sunk one of these in just one shot. I suspect that the best kind of combat effectiveness for a ship like this would be to turn it loose in a dense area of the littorals where its 70nm ranged Silkworms could possibly reach a target and start to sink as much shipping as possible. For this ship to be able to project power at sea it needs air escort, and if you have enough planes to do that, you might as well just have them dropping the ordinance. J-7G FISHBED  Wikipedia Entry J-7G Variant Info In-Game Statistics If the Finback is a weird modified version of the Mig-21, then the Fishbed is a case of evolutionary divergence for the platform. As mentioned previously, the Chinese had been working on developing a licensed version of the Mig-21 when the Sino-Soviet Split occurred. In the spirit of reconciliation, Khrushchev had much of the 21’s technical data sent over to the Chinese, but in the end, some of it never quite arrived and the Chinese in turn did a lot of reverse engineering. Like other designs mentioned in this report, the Chinese made incremental, iterative improvements to the airframe, at first just to bring it up to Soviet standards (something which wasn’t achieved until the 1980’s), but then to make even greater leaps for the plane. Most changes came in terms of the avionics carried by the craft, but engineering changes allowed for greater speed/handling and better fuel efficiency. The J-7G in particular is a major leap as China was able to install a BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagement suite into the plan to allow it to better utilize native PL-8 missiles and helmet mounted systems. The plane also incorporates an Israeli developed EL/M-2032 fire control radar. Production of the Fishbed ceased in 2013, more than 50 years after the initial run in China. Modernized versions of the plane as well as the 2000’ iterations of the J-7G are quite plentiful and the parts are easy to find. The J-7E is a late 90’s production version of the plane that forwent longer ranged weapons for a delta wing design to allow for better speed and maneuverability. It uses the avionics of the AMX. Assessment Despite the fact that it is based on a 50 year old platform, the Fishbed is a surprisingly capable fighter and as demonstrated by its downing of Whiskey Delta 69, it is still capable of standing toe to toe with modern fighters, especially if engaged in a manner that best suits its design (high speed interception). The PL-8 is a nasty little short ranged missile that should be paid due diligence, proper counter measures and spoofing can help keep our planes safe, but if possible, just keep this foe at a fair distance away and plink them off one by one as they will lack the means for longer ranged interception. Also be aware that like the Finback, the Fishbed is capable of similar, limited ground attacked. IRL this plane can engage from a much further distance but it appears in game that it is limited to the 8nm for its missiles. JF-17 Thunder Block 1  Wikipedia Entry In-Game Statistics Developed and launched in the early to mid-2000’s as a joint venture between Pakistan and China, the JF-17 was designed from the ground up to be an exportable 4th generation fighter which sacrificed some engineering and avionics in exchange for an affordable price tag and a performance which could theoretically be similar to an F-16. However, the Thunder has less speed, payload capacity and range compared to the Falcon, but has a price ¼ that of a Falcon. Unlike the other Chinese fighters we’ve encountered, this bad boy rocks the PL-12, a BVR missile with a range of 50 nms. This would be the Sino response to our Meteor missiles. This makes this plane particularly more dangerous than most of the other chaff we’ve encountered. ASSESSMENT We got super loving lucky this engagement, it looks like the Thunder’s were being operated by Myanmar, and the pilots didn’t take advantage of the speed and range offered by their planes. Our IRIS missiles have only half the range of the PL-12, so Unicorn really earned his pay by threading the needle and taking down those two planes. Normally we’re we to engage these kinds of planes, expect more of what we could expect fighting a Falcon, a high speed, long ranged aircraft that could offer a tough, equal match to our Gripens. J-20 Mighty Dragon  Wikipedia In Game Stats The J-20 is China’s attempt to create a plane capable of matching the F-22/F-35 fifth generation stealth fighters. Development started in the late 90’s and the first plane was produced only in 2011 for testing purposes. The plane was reported to have been plagued with a number of software issues as well as performance and stability problems. Cost overrun also appears to have been an issue as well. However, in March 2017, the PLA confirmed that the J-20 had entered full service, with many online sources speculating that the number of planes at that time were around 10-20 craft. By 2019, the number of such planes operating in the world is unknown at this time given the governments tight control on information regarding the plane as well as the metronomic political situation in China presently. Assessment The J-20 is one of the most dangerous planes operating in the world at this time. With a stealthy and speed profile of an F-22 Raptor with a weapons lead-out to match, this plane was designed to do one thing, stealthily seize control of the skies. It mounts a number of improved PL Missiles with ranges of anywhere from 50 to 70 nautical miles and will have a built in radar and avionics suite that is more than a match for our Gripens. The saving grace is that since this plane is so new, there are only a handful of them presently in the world, so we can be reasonably sure that the ones we are hunting here are the only ones present. Sadly the advanced capabilities of these planes means that the massive number of Indian assets dedicated to killing them is well warranted and even with all present success are by no means guaranteed. Use extreme caution, as we won’t be able to outrun these planes. If detected, recommend massive, overwhelming fire to destroy. Jimmy4400nav fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
HOW DOES THIS GAME HAVE SUCH GOOD PRODUCTION, I'M STILL CATCHING UP FROM OP 2
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
There's also the J-16, a Chinese Su-27 derivatives which is basically the systems package of the J-20 in a Flanker airframe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
So, learning a few new things: I was wrong about the kinematics on the RK-90 Mjolners. They can actually glide to their maximum 8 nmi even when launched at their minimmum 2000 feet AGL. However, I think the damage model on both variants are bugged. They hardly do any damage to anything, even when I quadruple them up. So our SEAD planes are just going to have to use RB 75 Mavericks. I also take back what I said about cluster bombs hurting planes on the tarmac. I tested some Mk 20 Rockeyes, and those will actually hurt planes chilling on the ground, but we still don't want to use them because their maximum release altitude is 2000 feet AGL. But our Hawks can mount AGM-65Gs, which have an 8 nmi range. I think it could be safe to send those over the mountains at the airfield.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Time to see how good their best of the best really are. This is going to be fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
It seems odd to me that this game is one of those ultra-groggy sims and yet (apparently) artificially caps weapon ranges super hard and has poo poo damage models. As a filthy casual, I can't hope to see how that makes sense to grogs, but I'd love to know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Our boys on the ground got some binocular time today. We've hit a damned good stroke of luck. It seems the Chinese expect us to continue our CAS of the Indian "Volunteers" near Nyingchi. What's this mean? They sent a good deal of AAA and mobile SAM systems that way.  On the downside they've still got a big ole radar dish just north of the airport that covers right down to the border. Our mercs on the ground might have a surprise for it though.  That's a JY-8A "Wall Rust" radar system. It's not modern but the fuckers got big eyes. Closer to the airport we've got some new positions. One SAM battery on the end of the runway along with a pair of nasty little SPAAG. Some 23mm Type 80 cannons finish it out.  The HQ-7 FM-80 is old, but it hits like a fat girl at a country bar.  That SPAAG, a PZG04A is a nasty little thing. Like a rabid skunk with short, but sharp, teeth.  Finally we've got poo poo like this. A Type 87, 25mm emplacement. Don't fly too low, or too slow, or hang around long, otherwise they might get lucky. And that'd be a loving embarrassment. We might have poo poo that we haven't seen too. MANPAD's, anything well camouflaged, or tucked into bunkers. But for big, nasty poo poo, that's it. They saw a few cargo planes come in with heavy fighter cover. The brief look they got seems to point to munitions, and lots of them. Attack planes, JH-7's, were both loading up and running to the East to support the Nyingchi front. A few of the civilian hangars were re-purposed and sealed up right. I'm assuming this is where the J-20's are coming. But no sight of them yet. If we get more info I'll pass it along. But for now I think we can roll with this. Yooper fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Are all their AA platforms adorable little go-karts with weapons? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:Are all their AA platforms adorable little go-karts with weapons?  "Gatling tank, ready for action!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:If nobody had mentioned the Entebbe option I wouldn't have even considered it but now that the idea has been floated I can't get it out of my head. I mean I know it's batshit insane to even consider but what if... what if.... Bacarruda posted:4. The Entebbe-Operation Mikado option. We kill every SAM and AA gun we can find and every fighter that can fly. Then, we send in our transport loaded to the gills with Indian Volunteers (re: Indian Para-Commandos who've left their shoulder patches behind) and we land them on the runway, drop them off, and then we get out of dodge. They block the runway with some truck or something and hold until relieved. We send som CAS East to clear the way for a rapid TLA advance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Looks like the HQ-7 has a max range of 5nm and a max altitude of 16K feet. Which means we can hit it with standoff weapons, or from 36K ASL with impunity. As long as people stay above 30K feet, we should be good to go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Are we in idea zone or "ask the Indians zone" ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Are we in idea zone or "ask the Indians zone" ? At this point I'd ask them kind of casually, maybe slip it in between small talk, maybe with a sudden, awkward seque. Something like, "Hey, how's everything going? Good? That's good. I'm good too. I just got back from my parents' 25th anniversary party and it was a lot of fun! We all went skydiving and it was a blast. Hey, speaking of parachutes, how many dead paratroopers are you willing to trade for one or more intact J-20's? If the answer is 'a lot' well then I have an idea about a certain airfield..."
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
The more I think about it the more a daring commando raid to capture a J-20 sounds like the only reasonable thing we can do here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Are we in idea zone or "ask the Indians zone" ? uhhh... Probably more in the zone of is this even feasible in the CMANO engine? I mean, we should try and get paid extra for doing this. Like, a lot extra. But it wouldn't hurt to try. pthighs posted:Looks like the HQ-7 has a max range of 5nm and a max altitude of 16K feet. Which means we can hit it with standoff weapons, or from 36K ASL with impunity. As long as people stay above 30K feet, we should be good to go. That ceiling does prevent us from sending in the Frogfoots on an anti-runway mission. It also precludes the use of the light strike aircraft. Cathode Raymond posted:At this point I'd ask them kind of casually, maybe slip it in between small talk, maybe with a sudden, awkward seque. Our cargo planes can't drop paratroopers (at least not according to the DB), so we'd have the land on the runway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
I think we should ask the Indians. I didn't sign up to not do crazy poo poo like this. If the thread doesn't have "the big ones", as Rohan out it, to try, then we can think a little more realistically. I mean, I do believe as long as we can knock out the runway for, well I don't know when the airfield is planned to be overrun, hours? Days? Anyway, stopping stuff landing there is about all we need to do and that's just a few big ol craters of work. In the bad old days you could fill them with gravel, but I don't think any of the Chinese strike fighters are rough-field capable in that way. The arms and fuel won't be much use without plaaanes to load them onto. Plus more facilities left intact means less repair and a quicker return to action once in Volunteer hands. About catching planes on the ground: I strongly doubt we can. What hasn't launched at the Indians will launch at us (or away from us) while we're on the way there. We should still keep hidden as much as we can en route, if only to stop the ones heading for the diversion from turning back to get us too soon. I know they aren't planning to launch their strike on our base until they have gained permissive airspace from destroying the Indians, but think about what we would do with our skyeye if we say a strike flight inbound. I don't think we'd just padlock the hangar and for the best But again, if we take out the runway, and stop them taking off on a retaliatory strike, it's still a win in ny book. Now the problem is: what if some of our munitions are duds, or miss? The whole appeal of only going for the ADS and then a few craters is the few planes we would need, meaning we can go fast. But few planes increases risk in other areas. So then we would have to send pretty much everything we have. Because if we're slowing down for one Hawk, we might as well slow down for the whole lot. My personal choices of mission would be: 1) land a drat transport (or paratroopers also acceptable) of Volunteers, just because it's bonkers 2) Barely A Pass: do what we need to to kill the ADS, then hit both runways as hard as is possible in a single pass, have some CAP, you know the drill by now 3) TORA TORA TORA: send. loving. everything. (E: looking above at what Bac said, I don't know the altitude limits, i.e. what the lowest point on our journey to the airfield will be, and if our planes can fly above that with the bombs we want) Yooper, could we, in voting for missions, do two-stage voting, where we all field ideas, vote on a shortlist, settle on one, then individuals can go off and plan the mission in detail? simplefish fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
I don't think trying to help and take out the J-20s is a good idea, I mean if it WORKED I'd say we'd get compensated pretty well, probably exceeding what our losses were, MAYBE even if we failed but still took out the airport. But if the grippens are the best thing we have to fight them, those are better put to use on our main mission. I guess you could take volunteers for a suicide squad to fly in and help absorb missiles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
I'm working on the timings of when to send which planes so they all arrive at the airfield at the exact same time. I'm also looking to send planes at low altitude through the pass east of Bhutan: https://www.google.ca/maps/@27.7496513,91.7282098,12.63z?hl=en Doing some tests with a Wall Rust sited on top of a mountain north of Lhasa, planes can remain completely underneath its radar with smart pathing - such as through that pass I linked. Landing troops on the airfield is gonna be pretty suicidal. A slow transport can get lit up by every machine gun they have available, and if we miss a single 23 or 25 mm AA gun then it's all over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Yeah but it will be cool as hell. If nothing else, I guarantee we'll be able to sell the story and turn it into a blockbuster movie a decade from now. Think about the royalties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Ok. A few thoughts on the Lhasa Entebbe. 1. Yes. I (think) I can make this work in the game mechanics wise. I can make it so once the planes get to within a certain distance and altitude from the runway I can have a script swap sides. Then I can set them to "Ferry" and land at Lhasa. 2. But in doing so we have to first completely secure the airspace over Lhasa. Including SAM's. 3. If we don't have a perfect seal on this then the hostile bombers get through, nail our airbase, and whammo, we've got problems. To top it off we still haven't eliminated their facilities. 4. For the same basic effort we can do a full SAM sweep, have the F4's and SU-25's come in a minute later to drop anti-runway munitions, and accomplish much the same mission. Hell we might even get to I like panache. I like a plans with some balls to it. This'll be damned tough So what do you say Hired Goons? Kill the airfield or go for an Entebbe?  That's right. I'm Charles Bronson motherfuckers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Is this really even a question that needs to be asked? I swear if we don't finish out the theater with an Entebbe on steroids to capture bleeding-edge stealth planes I will be incredibly disappointed with us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Oh god dammit I was totally against it until I saw the poster
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
If we're doing Entebbe, then we can load up those Su-25s with sixteen Vikhrs each.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:30
|
|