|
I'm not convinced that our tanker woes are logistical rather than doctrinal, but I've bowed to the will of the majority and added a tanker to my proposal.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
My big issue with the Prowler right now is that we can only buy one of them, we've no ability to absorb losses. If there'd been a pair of them, I'd have to think about it a lot harder.Davin Valkri posted:I'm not convinced that our tanker woes are logistical rather than doctrinal, but I've bowed to the will of the majority and added a tanker to my proposal. We're adding a lot more aircraft to the tactical fleet, so we'd want to increase our number of tankers to compensate. Also, we can double the number of aircraft refuelling at once now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
I'm gonna vote for The Count in Angola with the caveat that we tear the gently caress out of the Free State.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Actually, here's an idea. I'd like to enquire with Wacky Willie about the possibility of finding either TriStar KC.1s or VC-10 K.4s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
EW is 100% necessary in modern war. We need it
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Actually, here's an idea. This isn't a bad idea, actually. The UK contracts tanker ops in real life. Maybe we can get a sub contract with the same group!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
I'm thinking more that all of our aircraft use a probe and drogue setup, with the exception of the KC-135. The TriStar and VC-10s were set up for that type of fuelling and were retired pretty recently. They should still be around somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
El Spamo posted:Gah, speaking of which there are no good choices up there in the arctic. As much as I love those icy reaches it's a choice between two soulless corporate pirates, or actual literal pirates. I don't know what you're talking about. All pirates are good choices, and all piracy is a good idea. And in case none of you noticed, humanity has become hopelessly contentious and I have real concerns for its future. That is why it's important to get in good with the whales so that in thousands of years when humans are gone and whales inherit the earth, their historians will sing songs about the brave and noble Hayard Gunnes who took a stand against the reckless fishing practices of their fellow apes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I'm thinking more that all of our aircraft use a probe and drogue setup, with the exception of the KC-135. The TriStar and VC-10s were set up for that type of fuelling and were retired pretty recently. They should still be around somewhere. You're in luck! Kind of. The Tristars are gone, sold to a scrap merchant in New Jersey. But... Wild Willie was able to find a VC-10 K4 that was retrofitted back into a specialized bulk hauler version. It's currently in use with a transport company in Venezuela. https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataAircraft?ID=1709 The great news is they'll sell it for $2 million! The bad news is we'll need to spend another $21 million to bring it back into operational condition as a tanker. Willie got eyes on the bladder arrangement that came with the plane and it's being used as a swimming pool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I'm thinking more that all of our aircraft use a probe and drogue setup, with the exception of the KC-135. The TriStar and VC-10s were set up for that type of fuelling and were retired pretty recently. They should still be around somewhere. Ok, so a couple of notes about tanking. One, the KC-135s can be modified to carry probe and drogue refuelling pods on their wings. They can also attach a probe to their main boom, like so. We'll have no issues with getting our aircraft fuelled.  Two, the Tornadoes can carry a buddy store to do some limited in-flight refuelling. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Ok, so a couple of notes about tanking. I was under the impression that those wing pods aren't used all that much operationally, I can't remember the reason why other than they don't really work. EDIT: Revised procurement proposal Procurement proposal: Mo' WSOs, Mo' Problems First off, let's talk about sales. I decided to sell the Hawk 209s because I'm not overly impressed with their payload and I'd rather use that $14 million elsewhere. I'd consider selling the Sk60s, they're cheap, but are extremely vulnerable in anything resembling a contested airspace. I'd also consider selling the Frogfoots, they're very short-legged and don't have IFR capability. Sales of the Sk60 and Frogfoots are up for vote. Sales raised $14m in addition to the $534m I started out with, giving a total of $548m when I started spending First item: replacement Gripen for $70 million. Seems simple enough. Second item: 6x Greek F-4E Phantoms for $90 million. I don't see the Phantom as a wholly ground strike platform with a better secondary defensive capability than most, I see it as a more flexible platform that can perform either ground strikes or air-to-air missions as a second rank behind the Gripens. In that light, I decided we needed a dedicated ground attack platform. Third item: 8x German Panavia Tornado IDS for $240 million. The upgrade on the Sk60. I'm a big fan of flexibility in terms of mission types and the Tornado certainly does that. They carry HARMs, the Taurus stand-off cruise missile, the GAF Telelens reconnaissance pod, Mavericks, anti-runway munitions and guided and unguided bombs. They basically do everything our Frogfoots do and more. Fourth item: 2x MIM-23 HAWK for $48 million. From what I could tell it was the best ranged SAM available, so I went with a pair of them to provide good coverage around our airfield. Fifth item: 1x VC-10 K.4 for $23 million. We need an additional tanker and this one is the cheapest. In comparison, the KC-135 is $46.8 million and the Il-78 is $33,600,000. Also, the VC-10 was designed for operations from hot and high airfields, a boon for operating in Angola. Sixth item: 1x EA-6B Prowler for $62.4 million. I've read a lot of the arguments for and against this throughout the procurement phase, and I've had my mind swayed. Having an ECM capability in the mix amongst a large strike will do wonders for its survivability. Funds remaining: $15,012,376. It is not a large reserve of money, but it should allow us to hire a specialist and, combined with whatever we make from operations wherever we go, we should be able to acquire equipment during our deployment. And an additional vote, because goons like votes and I'm not entirely sure either way on these. Should we sell anything else? A: Sell the Sk60s (increases funds remaining to $18,612,376) B: Sell the Frogfoots? (increases funds remaining to $23,512,376) C: Sell both the Sk60s and the Frogfoots? (increases funds remaining to $27,112,376) Quinntan fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Yeah, if we go to Angola we're gonna end up starting a Chinese proxy war because they HATE our asses and have a vested interest/presence in the area already. The last thing the Count needs is the negative attention of a superpower. The Chinese can't touch us in the Bering Sea without dispatching a major naval force into an area they have no business being in and tangling with the Russians, Japanese, and US all at once. No way in hell will they risk that, and on the astronomical chance they do, they'll be far more concerned with the CVBG looking threateningly in their direction than they will be with finding and hitting us. We Also, I'm pretty sure that whales are sapient and when humanity inevitably crumbles I want to make sure we're on good terms with them. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
With all of the pro-Prowler talk, I was wondering if Wild Willie or the American source can track down one or two EF-18 Growlers? They're newer and will be able to stay with a strike package easier than the aged EA-6 Prowlers. If they can and they're roughly the same cost, the Growlers would be a better choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:My big issue with the Prowler right now is that we can only buy one of them, we've no ability to absorb losses. If there'd been a pair of them, I'd have to think about it a lot harder. Arguing that buying one is bad because if we lose it we no longer have one is not really the best argument. I'm sure we'll get the opportunity to buy another at some point, and it's not really the kind of aircraft that isn't worth buying until you can bring <x> amount to the field. Also if the rest of you end up picking a proposal that doesn't have fixed air defences for our poo poo we will deserve everything we get when someone decides to play the strict parent right back at us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Definitely buy this then think about spending the 21m after the rest of the procurement, either immediately if we have the cash on hand or after future earnings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Hired Goons Ground Detachment has all our base defense needs covered. Just give us a few stingers
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
So, how come nobody is considering f-16s? I know they're expensive, and a bit of a boring choice, but that's because they're fantastic aircraft. They can carry just about anything (including HARMs), are great in a2a, and half the world has bought them, so we'll always be able to get more. Also, does anyone know if cmano models the ability to tank multiple probe aircraft on the kc-135 simultaneously?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Dong Quixote posted:Voting Libertarian Quoting this for the new page. Really good explanation of the capability gaps in our fleet. Offensive ECM, Friendly SAM coverage and Tankers are going to be vital in pretty much every scenario we have. Offensive ECM in a Prowler accompanying our SEAD flights is going to massively prolong their life expectancy and gives us a real advantage in air to air duels. It's been outright stated that we are going to need our own SAM cover from Yooper, unless we want to get hit like we did at Lhasa. Another Tanker is going to allow us to sustain our rapidly expanding fleet of aircraft and maximise our flgiht time as well as allowing us to pull off 'around the world' type missions which would otherwise be impossible. Vando posted:Ok, right, procurement. It's a great basis of what we need, however we can probably optimise our air defence and tanker choices a bit more. A working VC-10 K4 tanker is a bargain at 23 million and we need to evaluate taking that instead of a KC-135. In terms of SAMS: Hawks are a fully fledged medium range SAM with an 80KM radar range and missile range from 1-40KM, it provides an area defense capability against Aircraft, Helicopters and Cruise missiles in that zone around our airfield. ASRAD is a short range SAM with a range of 14km, it will only provide a point defense capability to protect the airfield against Aircraft, Helicopters and Missiles that are flying directly overhead. SA22 (pantsir) is top of the line, but it's still a short range air defense system with only a range of 19km as well as having a premium price because it's brand spanking new and its 1.4x price modifier. The HAWK offers double the range and altitude and a significant area defense capability. SIDAMs are purely point defense Autocannons to prevent aircraft strafing runs/helicopters/incoming bombs/a cheeky ground assault. If it comes to using them we've hosed up. The area coverage the Hawks provide is a lot more valuable than the point defense units, they can shoot down the Plane before it drops it's bombs/missiles and gives us a zone of safe airspace as well as opening up some rather nasty tricks like kiting enemy planes into a non radiating SAM site  We may also have to base in a 2nd airfield and we will need a second HAWK to cover that. The SA-22, ASRADs and SIDAMs do have a niche in covering the gaps from our Medium range system and in point defense, but having a sanitised Medium range air defense zone is more important.Proposal: 2x ASRAD (2x10x1) 2x SIDAM (2x5x1) (Probably Overkill) Or EDIT: 2x HAWK: (2x20x1.2) 48 mil (probably more than sufficient for our purposes) Get 2 HAWKs, it end up as a lot cheaper and getting 2 Medium Range Sams gets us a lot more capability that we can transport to each of our airfields. Scenario Voting Angola. Lots of sea is boring and characterless. Please don't go support the libertarians. Mr Crustacean fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
I've noticed a lot of people dropping the Tornadoes from their proposals and I'd just like to mention how it would be really nice to have the ability to throw around both HARMs and a Taurus or two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Plus It would be nice to have a supersonic A-G platform
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Just buy the SA-22. Even at 40% markup it's going to come cheaper than the multi-layer plan and is going to work a lot better, because that poo poo is baller as gently caress. Also, people who advocate buying just one Gripen and six loving Phantoms are the worst war criminals in this entire organisation, and we've done false flags and attacked civilian shipping
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
If anything I'm starting to worry that my proposal doesn't include enough of them
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Yeah, if we go to Angola we're gonna end up starting a Chinese proxy war because they HATE our asses and have a vested interest/presence in the area already. The last thing the Count needs is the negative attention of a superpower. Also, Dong Quixote posted:Bonus:
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:Proxy war, so we won't be dealing with more dragons, and it'll mean better business - Yooper said we were in the area until prospects were exhausted or something like that, rather than a short little campaign, and continuing to piss off the Chinese will mean we'll never run out of poo poo to do. This please
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Vando posted:If anything I'm starting to worry that my proposal doesn't include enough of them Every single Gripen is worth as much as ten Phantoms, so getting them at a 1:7 price ratio is a steal EDIT: Okay, serious talk. I get it, plenty of people love the Phantoms, I think you do so for no good reason, you think otherwise. That's fine. But any proposal that only replaces that one Gripen we have lost is foolish at best. Like I said, I'd say we have a 99% chance we won't be able to buy any Gripens in Angola of all places. And these planes are top of the line for us, they represent immense capability and have versatility absolutely unparalleled in our fleet. We need as many of those as we can get. You've seen what we've made them do so far. They flew CAP, they flew CAS, they flew ground attack, they flew anti-shipping, they flew SEAD and DEAD. And I'm fairly sure we could force them into any other odd role we may have in mind. Let's get plenty of them now. Any fairly old aircraft we can get on the cheap we will almost definitely be able to buy in-country. I understand prioritising stuff like tankers, SAMs, or ECW. But there is absolutely no need to prioritise savings or Phantoms or even Mirages over Gripens! Let's focus on the good stuff and buy the cheap bomb trucks later. Because, remember, we are buying the F-4s as bomb trucks with an IRIS-T hooked up just because there is a free mount and we might as well. Tevery Best fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Vando posted:Arguing that buying one is bad because if we lose it we no longer have one is not really the best argument. I'm sure we'll get the opportunity to buy another at some point, and it's not really the kind of aircraft that isn't worth buying until you can bring <x> amount to the field. Arguing that it's pivotal to our future operations while arguing that buying only the one is sufficient seems a bit arse backwards to me. If it's so crucial, then we need to have redundancy, and the best way to ensure that is acquiring more than one. Tevery Best posted:Every single Gripen is worth as much as ten Phantoms, so getting them at a 1:7 price ratio is a steal How much are Super Etendards worth per Gripen?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Every single Gripen is worth as much as ten Phantoms, so getting them at a 1:7 price ratio is a steal Gripens are much better than phantoms, yes, but not 10 times better. If we had a real bomber on option (I want some b-52s) then the F-4 wouldn't be all that attractive, but we need bomb trucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:Gripens are much better than phantoms, yes, but not 10 times better. If we had a real bomber on option (I want some b-52s) then the F-4 wouldn't be all that attractive, but we need bomb trucks. Yeah. If we want to crater some more runways or something the limitation is number of munitions carried, not how good the weapons are. Gripens are great, but we already have a bunch of them. Let's get some cheap ways to sling bombs around instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
The SA-22 is hands down the best SAM on that list imo. Pantsir is a nasty oval office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Coffeehitler posted:With all of the pro-Prowler talk, I was wondering if Wild Willie or the American source can track down one or two EF-18 Growlers? They're newer and will be able to stay with a strike package easier than the aged EA-6 Prowlers. If they can and they're roughly the same cost, the Growlers would be a better choice. Wild Willie found a pair in Australia. $95 million each. BFLM has a line one two at NAS Whidbey Island, but with growing tensions in China they won't part with them. Yet. CBJamo posted:Also, does anyone know if cmano models the ability to tank multiple probe aircraft on the kc-135 simultaneously? Yes, some tankers have multiple booms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Arent tbe Gripens on sale better than our current ones? For example, ours don't drop SDBs while the ones on sale do. EDIT: Yeah that seems to be the case. Our Gripens: https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataAircraft?ID=3226 Gripens on Sale: https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataAircraft?ID=3697 With the new SDB Gripens, will it be necessary to have more bomb trucks? Dreamsicle fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Wild Willie found a pair in Australia. $95 million each. BFLM has a line one two at NAS Whidbey Island, but with growing tensions in China they won't part with them. Yet. This is very tempting. 95M is a lot, but the EF-18 is top of the line, and grabbing two would be fantastic. Does the vendor loyalty penalty apply to Wild Willie? Thanks for the tanker info. I think we should stick to the KC-135, having the flexibility to use both probe and boom is pretty useful for an outfit like us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:This is very tempting. 95M is a lot, but the EF-18 is top of the line, and grabbing two would be fantastic. Does the vendor loyalty penalty apply to Wild Willie? Wild Willie gives no fucks. If we wanted a couch, he'd find a couch. If we wanted a 1950's era tube TV, Wild Willie would ask what color of wood panelling. Just don't complain when Grandma can't find her TV.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Ok, so a couple of notes about tanking. Phonepostin' so I can't check it now, but I'm pretty sure CMANO does accurately model probe and drogue vs flying boom refueling setups. However, I don't know if the KC-135 we can buy can be equipped with the conversion rig or not. If it can't, then we need to buy that VC-10, instead. We probably should buy it anyway because I think it can also receive fuel from our other tanker's drogue, which could be helpful for a long range operation. Likewise, we shouldn't buy any aircraft that refuel off a boom; i.e. ex-USAF. So no F-16s. I also think any good proposal should include the Prowler option. We need OECM badly. I'm also partial to buying the complete set of Greek Phantoms to complete our fleet while we can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Every single Gripen is worth as much as ten Phantoms, so getting them at a 1:7 price ratio is a steal This. Gripens can do anything we ask them to do, and they can do it very well. They are our primary asset and everything else we buy is just to support them. Ideal long-term plan would be to sell everything except tankers and AEW and buy all the Gripens we can get. On the other hand, that would be boring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Tankerchat: I'm reasonably sure that the Greek F-4Es that we have, and are looking at getting more of, are ex-USAF airframes, and use boom and socket refueling. In addition, KC-135s can refuel each other, meaning that we can achieve truly long-legged missions with multiple-stage tanking. It also allows us to plug airframes into our operation that ONLY use boom and socket, such as everything the USAF has ever purchased. (F-16s, F-4s, F-15s, F-111s, etc.) Another KC-135 is the right tanker choice, especially as we move into the realm of having more than just two tankers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Angola Count Davin Valkri This way Tapco might get the chance to spray libertarians with a Shilka and maybe even fight an actual dictator. If the FYGM crowd brings more mercs, maybe our ground outfit will be able to conduct aggressive hiring. If whoever we help Count instal ends up selling out to Whitey, I'll steal a Phantom to napalm the signing of the documents. Ed: I'm Eurotrash both IC and OOC, as well as a fan of running ridiculously tricked out Cold War gear. So buy Gripens, buy Phantoms, get me a Shilka and I will advocate us getting the most insanely updated T-55s once the time comes. Speaking of which, should we kick some money down the line to the Ground Gooners? They need body armor and socks! JcDent fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Vando posted:Ok, right, procurement. Voting for Plan Vando Also, voting for The Free State - Angola: Because we need to challenge ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
I feel like y'all are seriously overestimating the potency of the ASRAD. SIDAM will clean up helicopters that come within range, so it's worth having one or two around just because they're so cheap. An ASRAD battery, though, is liable to fart off all eight of its crappy missiles to kill a single fighter, after which both launchers need to spend a few minutes reloading. We'd need to buy $30,000,000 of ASRAD to get 24 missile engagements without reloading, or we could buy the SA-22 battery for $25.2m (40% supplier penalty) or $21.6m (20% supplier penalty, though this means no HAWK). Remember that you get two SA-22 vehicles for that cost, not one, and on top of having a gun superior to the SIDAM, you get their 57E6 missiles. 57E6 are only a hair more accurate than ASRAD, but much more flexible: - ASRAD can't clean up incoming anti-radiation missiles or even fast aircraft because it can only effectively engage targets moving at less than 600 knots, but 57E6 can attempt to engage targets moving up to 2,000 knots (good luck though lol). This also means that ASRAD will suffer significant accuracy penalties on targets as their speeds approach 600 knots. 57E6, on the other hand, will suffer practically no accuracy penalty (if any at all) when engaging targets at that speed. - 57E6 can engage targets down to 20 feet and up to 25,000, but ASRAD won't go below 30 feet or above 15,000. - 57E6 will reach out to 10nm vs. ASRAD's 8. In practice, you probably want to set its WRA so that it actually only engages below 5nm to maximize its lethality. You probably want to limit ASRAD to 2-5nm as well. - Each of the two Pantsir vehicles comes with a boatload of sensors: not only do they have low-light TV and IR cameras, they also have a way more capable radar suite in the form of the RLM SOC 3D air search radar and the 1RS2 Shlem FCR. The only downside is that buying one Pantsir instead of two ASRAD means our anti-air capability is more concentrated, and is therefore more vulnerable in the event something gets through--but in turn, it makes leakers less likely in the first place. Cabbage Disrespect fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Dandywalken posted:The SA-22 is hands down the best SAM on that list imo. Pantsir is a nasty oval office. The SA-22 is a great short-to-medium range platform that has a max missile range of about a dozen miles. The MIM-23 Hawk can reach out and touch things more than twice that distance, (and min altitude), which is why we should go for a basic layered air defense system. Ideally I'd want BOTH the Hawk and the SA-22, but we need money for everything else too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:29
|
|
