|
The tanker should definitely be up there for this, if only to enable aircraft that've used more fuel than expected for whatever reason go recover safely.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
So, crazy idea that occurred to me: if we can't reliably close the runway, is there any chance we could steal the J-20s after they land?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
No chance, for a myriad of reasons. We don't have a means of securing the airfield, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
I'll admit, I'm a little bit wary of using tankers if we don't need to, after that last mission when Stool Pigeon decided he needed to top up his 60% full tanks instead of helping his wingman in a potential 2v1 dogfight. (Admittedly an easy fix; you just have to change mission settings to use a lower threshold for tanker fuel.) I also want to point out that if our Gripens go directly from Lakhimpur to Lhasa at regular cruising altitude they'll have plenty of time over target. It's only if they try to go in low and under the radar that they'll need tanker support. I really don't want to put the tanker at Bacarruda's "Gas Station" point, between Lakhimpur and Lhasa. It's just too exposed. Only two planes can take on gas at once, so waiting around for a couple flights of Gripens to gas up brings in a lot of the same problems Bacarruda pointed out with waiting around for the slow Su-25s and SK 60s. It adds several extra minutes that the Chinese could detect and react to our strike force and scramble extra fighters, and our CAP will have to defend Big Pig and her piglets for that whole time. Sticking the tanker out in Bhutan does leave it much less vulnerable, as it's easier to hide behind the Himalayas, and it will let us try to send all our strike forces under the radar. I'm really waffling back and forth between going for it or not. Ultimately, terrain masking only buys us either a couple minutes, or no time at all. As soon as our own CAP engages and shoots down whatever airborne patrol the Chinese have, they'll probably scramble up more birds to swat us down. Once those fighters turn their radars on, though, there's a good chance they'll see our entire strike force. The J-16 has a pretty good radar, and it won't be blocked by the mountains like the Wall Rust is. Once they see sixteen incoming bogeys, the Chinese will probably go "Oh, poo poo!" and start scrambling every single fighter they have. At that point we have mere minutes: In CMANO it would take two and a half minutes for planes to go from "Ready" to airborne. They might even divert those J-20s from dancing with the Indians to deal with us. Until that second wave of J-16s sees our strike force, though, their only air search info will be from their Wall Rust. If that Wall Rust sees every plane we have, it gives the Chinese the most time to react and ready as strong a defense as they can. If that Wall Rust only sees two Gripens coming in, there's a better chance of a more measured response; they'll probably send between two to four J-16s, depending on how pissed off at us they are. If that Wall Rust sees six Gripens... I don't know what they'd do. They'd probably not panic, because four Gripens have zero chance of knocking out the airbase by themselves. So the Chinese will probably send up four fighters, maybe six? But with two runways they can only launch four fighters at a time anyway... so there's little difference between the Chinese sending up four fighters because they're trying to smack down two Gripens, and the Chinese sending up four fighters because they're trying to launch six to defend against 6 Gripens. Or maybe they won't send up anything. Six Gripens maxed out with Meteors can defeat anything they send up in the air (sans the J-20s, obviously) until we run out of missiles. However, Meteors can't do anything to planes on the ground. If we were sending an aggressive anti-air patrol with six A2A Gripens, then the worst thing the Chinese could do to us would be to do nothing... At least until we have to RTB, and then they'd send out their massive strike against us and bomb us to oblivion. But all this is only the case while that Wall Rust is active. If our boys on the ground manage to disable the radar, then it doesn't matter if we're trying to hide behind the mountains. In that case I'd rather have our SEAD flights up high so they're less vulnerable and in a better position to zerg rush the airbase. It also means fewer moving parts in the machine, so less chance of things going awry. So... yeah. I can go either way. I'm heading off to bed now, and probably won't get to post until about the same time Yooper will be running the mission. Whatever decision on the tankers goons decide on in the meantime will probably work out well. Good luck!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
You know, I just remembered something. Isn't there a long-range radar not too far north of the Lhasa airfield? Edit: there is, i remember wikiing it after it popped up on the first mission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JY-14_Radar
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:I really don't want to put the tanker at Bacarruda's "Gas Station" point, between Lakhimpur and Lhasa. It's just too exposed. Only two planes can take on gas at once, so waiting around for a couple flights of Gripens to gas up brings in a lot of the same problems Bacarruda pointed out with waiting around for the slow Su-25s and SK 60s. It adds several extra minutes that the Chinese could detect and react to our strike force and scramble extra fighters, and our CAP will have to defend Big Pig and her piglets for that whole time. The Bhutan location sounds fine to me. Bringing the tanker does two things. 1) It lets our CAP aircraft stay on station longer. And it lets them be more aggressive with how they use fuel in a dogfight (using afterburner, etc.) 2) It lets our strikers be more aggressive. They may have to jettison external fuel tanks, use afterburner, kinetically avoid a missile -- all of which eats into their fuel reserves. Putting up a tanker lets the returning aircraft burn fuel during the mission and have a chance of getting home. We'll feel really silly if we lost a flight of 37 million dollar Gripens because they ran out of gas five minutes from home. Bring the tanker
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
Having flights stop for gas on there way to the strike zone could throw off the timetables and make this even harder for Yooper to organize. Don't bring the tanker
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Having flights stop for gas on there way to the strike zone could throw off the timetables and make this even harder for Yooper to organize. Don't bring the tanker Throw up the tanker after the outbound strike packages?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
Bring the Tanker
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Added Space posted:Socks is listed in two different planes. Socks come in pairs 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Socks come in pairs  Pilot scheduling of the F4 has been fixed. Guns Guns Guns is now the pilot. Up next is Tevery Best with Thunderlips FYI - I've only been sticking Goons Into Planes if they've defined a callsign. If you've spoken up in the thread, voted, but haven't given a call sign, I'll assume you're afraid of heights and not seat you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:First we need a mother base. What's going on in the Seychelles these days? As long as you don't attempt to take over, take 70 civilians hostages, kill a lieutenant, and hijack an Air India 707. Besides, the Comoros is traditional when you have your own mercenary force. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Yooper posted:FYI - I've only been sticking Goons Into Planes if they've defined a callsign. If you've spoken up in the thread, voted, but haven't given a call sign, I'll assume you're afraid of heights and not seat you. Place me as callsign Rokkit then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:We'll feel really silly if we lost a flight of 37 million dollar Gripens because they ran out of gas five minutes from home. Bring the tanker nothing to seehere posted:Having flights stop for gas on there way to the strike zone could throw off the timetables and make this even harder for Yooper to organize. Don't bring the tanker Set the missions to disallow automatic refuelling and/or launch the tanker when the strike is on the return leg.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Use the tracker but make all refueling manual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Having flights stop for gas on there way to the strike zone could throw off the timetables and make this even harder for Yooper to organize. Don't bring the tanker No plan survives unmodified for long anyway, bringing the tanker gives us (Yooper) the flexibility to respond. If our planes can't go afterburner to evade or chase enemies for lack of fuel, it really limits us. I haven't looked at numbers at all but the impression I got from the plans was that we're operating at the edge of our range? Bring the Tanker
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
VKing posted:Set the missions to disallow automatic refuelling and/or launch the tanker when the strike is on the return leg. Agreeing with this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Really excited about this fuckin mission
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
bring the tanker
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
How's this sound, I'll stick up once everyone is ready to roll and we'll let them refuel as they see fit? It's tight for some planes. Let me test that portion and make sure half our flights don't do a U-Turn to top up the tanks and leave everyone else hanging.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Yooper posted:We go into procurement mode first. I think we should acquire a procurement officer who can build a full information package about our purchase options, preferably with simulated effectiveness in CMANO. It's too difficult to decipher the information in CMANODB, Baloogan-wiki and Wikipedia for everyone to try to do it by themselves. Good example was the museum Fulcrums, when someone pointed out their limited standoff capability where they need to fly towards target after launch. This is such a crucial bit of information that I would consider all votes cast, before it became known, to be invalid. We could first have discussion about our options with people posting any info they can find and then the procurement officer makes the official post with different options, similar to Psawhn's mission proposal. This post could have table comparing the options to our current planes in different mission types, and other pros and cons that can't be directly compared. There are occasionally posts about plane operation costs, but is that something we really care about? My assumption is all our flights will be highly profitable or otherwise worthwile. Air forces care about the costs, because they have 100 planes flying for 30 years racking up thousands of wasted hours training noobs. That doesn't concern us, our pilots are fully trained top-rate individuals, RTFM and the ferry flight has been all the training they've needed. What we must avoid are failed missions and lost high-end planes. We could have been flying that 30k/h SU-30 for years for the price of that Gripen. The only planes we would afford to fly are F-35 and B-2 if we could just get them cheap enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Are you talking about an in-game character or just somebody who knows about this sort of thing to post their opinion?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Probably more like the role Bacarruda and Psawhn have been leading. We'll need more information than for example lieutenant Warlock is able to provide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
A fair amount of us probably have enough knowledge to figure this stuff out, I just usually don't bother because generally once I have time to look up purchases in that much detail one of those two beats me to it. So I'll just stick to grumbling about Phantoms until we find out what we lost and what's for sale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:I think we should acquire a procurement officer who can build a full information package about our purchase options, preferably with simulated effectiveness in CMANO. It's too difficult to decipher the information in CMANODB, Baloogan-wiki and Wikipedia for everyone to try to do it by themselves. Good example was the museum Fulcrums, when someone pointed out their limited standoff capability where they need to fly towards target after launch. This is such a crucial bit of information that I would consider all votes cast, before it became known, to be invalid. This is a pretty good idea. I'm all game for a weapons/procurement officer / translator. I had planned on offering more info, but at the same time I want to keep it interesting and challenging. Operations costs were something I started out thinking would really matter, but unless I simulate flight time between missions or random maintenance costs, it's a drop in the bucket. We fire one Meteor and it exceeds our total mission operating costs, even if I go totally highball cost / hr. I'd still like to find a good way to incorporate it that's fun, interesting, and [b[offers a choice[/b]. I'd planned on doing that with the museum sale, 50% chance of success right off the bat, and I think I'll probably stick on that same course. I decided against doing % per mission. It's just not fun to plan a mission only to find out the plane dies at mission time. Sure I could track down maintenance failure rates, but it's not fun for me to hit the button and see "the turbine blew out! -1 SU-30". But it's totally different if a Juggalo drives a taco truck into it between missions. At least then we have some interesting choices about having to get a mission to have our CN-235 procure emergency parts. That's fun stuff. Procurement Chat Do you guys want me to do like the beginning, here's package A B and C? Or would you like a list of available poo poo from each Supplier and then let people do Proposals and then we vote on the proposals? Yooper fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Procurement Chat I would rather people putting together proposals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
I vote Proposals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Our procurement officer should get us a list of available stuff with info about effectiveness in-game-engine, and then people can put proposals together for us to vote. Probably will end up being a bit of a cluster that way, but that's what Goons are known for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
proposals are fun and allows us to acquire all sorts of wacky planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
I vote proposals! While I was disappointed in our choice last time around (I voted max phantom) I do think allowing us to get a tad...esoteric will do good for making the thread more interesting and challenging. Plus we have enough goons in here who play the game already and good who nerd out about planes that we can put together some fun options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
I double checked in cmano's wiki about the laser designator in the Frogfoot and apparently it does have the ability to designate from every angle. Not sure how that's actually possible as I'm pretty sure it's in the frogfoot's nose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
On a totally random tangent, if and when we are finally able to start building up our own little fleet of ships, I just want to say we are getting into that game at a pretty good time. 2015-2020ish seems to be a prime time for a lot of countries to be retiring their late Cold War era frigates and destroyers so we'll likely find a pretty nice selection and spread of such ships on the market. We might not be able to afford a carrier, but there are still a ton of Amphibious Warfare Ships that are fairly modern and can be used as small helicopter carriers or can even launch Harriers if we can find some of those. Plus even the smallest ones can carry several hundred ground troops, which lets us create a mobile base for ourselves in the Phoenix Command offshoot!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Definitely proposals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:On a totally random tangent, if and when we are finally able to start building up our own little fleet of ships, I just want to say we are getting into that game at a pretty good time. 2015-2020ish seems to be a prime time for a lot of countries to be retiring their late Cold War era frigates and destroyers so we'll likely find a pretty nice selection and spread of such ships on the market. We need to coup a country first to give us a base of operations, then we can talk about fleet ops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:We need to coup a country first to give us a base of operations, then we can talk about fleet ops. Luckily we have quite a few options we could turn to without even needing the coup a country. We could always ask Kiribati if we can buy or lease an island. The Japanese got some primo land on Christmas Island to use as a spaceport and it cost them less than a million bucks a year. With global warming sinking most of Micronesia, I'm sure we could get an even better deal! If the Greeks are really firesaleing everything not nailed down in their country, we could maybe find an island for the cheap too, there are a lot of options to choose from and we'd have central locations! Plus then we'd be close to some of our suppliers!  In the Seychelles, you have Assumption Island which is currently being leased to the Indians to build a military base, Considering by the end of this contract we'll have some major brownie points with India, we could maybe see about using the facilities they are constructing there for our own usage or to get in on some rent sharing. We could also see about using an Island in the Maldives since India and the Maldives have good cooperative ventures Mauritius has a large number of islands we could use too, but the downside is they have a small issue with the US/UK using Diego Garcia so that would cause problems. We could always approach the government of Somaliland about a "mutually beneficial arraigement" to help keep them safe and keep their sea lines of communication open in exchange for being able to use the port of Berbera for any hypothetical navy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Proposals sounds good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
If we improve our relations with NATO, I'd suggest either the Falklands or American Samoa. Both have good airfields, are relatively out of the way for any major powers and would give us a way to net a lot of good future contracts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
At some point we may want to get listed on the NYSE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
can we get socotra? please get socotra
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
To hell with the NYSE, we should set up sponsorship deals where we can sell gun cam footage. An air-to-air guns kill this side of 1991 would certainly be exciting in the youtube age...
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 00:02
|
|