|
Anger Peace time to show those cocky fisherman the real Deadliest Catch.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Velius posted:"All it gets us is a more modern EWAR suite" is an understatement, but beyond that I can't think of too many areas where a "more modern" capability is more important than electronic warfare. This is true. For the sake of transparency, here are the DB entires for the two ELINT pods: https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataSensor?ID=1913 EA-6B Pod https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataSensor?ID=1901 EA-18G Pod The key differences are the technology generation and number of targets. The Growler can jam 8 targets per pod, and has "Late 2000s" technology. The Prowler is stuck with 4 targets per pod and "Early 1990s" technology. Because this kind of stuff is super-ultra-secret-don't-even-think-about-it classified, the CMANO devs have just abstracted the effectiveness of it all into the technology generation, with more modern generation stuff getting better numbers against older generation stuff. I don't know what that actually translates to in-game, though. Also, each aircraft will carry multiple ECM pods, depending on loadout. Prowlers can load between two to five ECM pods -- so I think that translates to 8 to 20 targets per plane. The Growler can carry either three or four ECM pods, so 24 or 32 targets per plane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Hoff
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
I have few questions I'd like to find the answers for and get tested in CMANO. 1. Everyone wants Prowlers. Or Growlers. How effective are they in CMANO? How do the capabilities of Prowler, Growler and Tornado ECR compare to our current planes? What is their effect, do they complete disable SAM radars, or do they reduce the engagement range to some degree? Someone tried to test the Tornado ECR earlier in the thread and he didn't seem to get any effect with it. Prowler has offensive and defensive ECM, Growler has defensive ECM. What is the difference? I tried to figure out the stats in the wiki, but I don't understand what they mean. For example Prowler's defensive ECM has ECMPoKReduction of 15. What unit is that, 15 dB, 15%? Does it mean it reduces the range of SAM by 15%? That doesn't sound like it would help poo poo against S-300. 2. How well would Alert 5 work compared to SAMs? When our friendly dictator kill our spies and then sends a wing of SK 60bs he just bought from us towards our base flying at 200 ft, how much time do we have to respond? Especially if our only radars are in the planes and turned off how would we even spot them. Would the first sign we see be a rocket hitting our Gripens on alert? 3. Would our planes have incompatibilities with out tanker options? According to Baloogan-wiki both KC-135 and VC.10 K4 both seem to be equipped with probe and chute, so it seems they fuel anything, probably even at same flight. But KC-135 only have centerline fueling while VC.10 also has wing chutes, so does that mean it can fuel three planes simulatenously?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Growlers can contest the dominance of the S-400, and their presence is a huge boon versus them and other cutting edge SAM's. Against earlier stuff it's very effective at making sure that the missile forgets it's purpose in life the moment it leaves the rail. I think we'd be fine with a Prowler so long as we aren't engaging the super modern long range poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Angola, Dictator - we can go for what pays, and then use money to spin things / improve rep as needed (cf Indian pensions, Myanmar embargo). Also Africa belongs to the Africans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
To restate my vote: Angola Count.Yooper posted:I'm game for this. As near as my research, and this poor Defense Analyst I cornered on Discord could tell me, the SDB upgrade involved a holding pin upgrade, wiring harnesses, and software. I have no issue with our Gripens having a "Factory Update". This right here are the two the best reasons to vote Plan Parabellum yet. One, think about the missions Goon favorite Count Von Hoff will tell us to run. The Gripens can do ALL of them and they do them better than anything else we have: -AAW Patrol, Air Escorts, and Sea Escorts -- with the Meteor and IRIS-T missiles, the Gripen excels at this mission. We've already seen how they eat other fighters for lunch. -Sea Escorts -- our Gripens are the only aircraft with anti-shipping missiles. We've seen how deadly the RB 15s really are. -Destruction and CAS -- With ten Gripens, we can carry a total of EIGHTY Small Diameter bombs. That's enough to wipe out an armored brigade, an airfield, or a small city. -Recon -- Our Gripens are our only fast recon assets. If we only have eight, we heavily dilute out force to do recon. The more Gripen we haven the more options we have. With ten Gripens, we always have four for CAP, four for strike work (32 SBDs!), and two more for recon or extra SEAD (ex. killing a large formation of MANPADs guys our Tornadoes or Prowler can't deal with effectively). Two, the fact that all of our Gripens have SDBs is a phenomenal reason to buy more of them. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bomb[/Small Diameter Bombs[/url] are extremely good weapons. They have a range of 60 nautical miles.They are extremely accurate. Each Gripen can carry eight of them. Again, that's eighty bombs! Or, more realistically, it lets us drop 32-48 SBs while still being able to put up a strong CAP force. If we're going to be fighting the Dictator and his AAA guns, we need to be able to kill bgi targets from beyond AAA range. The SDBs are the best option for that. I just want you to imagine what our strike on Lhasa would have been like if we could have stood sixty miles away and dropped eighty bombs on them... ---- For all of you worried about costs, here is how the numbers check out. We will have plenty of money in the bank for lobbyists, intel guys, or smaller purchases mid campaign. We'll also be able to set up a spy network that can watch all their airfields to give us early warning. I've made some small tweaks so we'll have more cash in the bank (replaced the KC-135 with the VC-10). Procurement Plan Parabellum BUY 3x JAS 39C Gripens = $210 million 2x F-4E Phantoms = $30 million 6x Tornado IDS = $180 million 1x EA-6B Prowler = $62.4 million 1x VC-10 K4 tanker = $33.6 million 2x SIDAM = $10 million SELL 6x SK 60Bs = 6 x $600,000 = $3.6 million Total Price = $522.4 million Money in the bank = $11,612,376 We could even keep the SK 60s if we wanted, although remember that Yooper said they got really, really lucky last mission. In all his tests, they died against even basic AAA. And the Dictator has a lot of AA... Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:I have few questions I'd like to find the answers for and get tested in CMANO. 1. Effective given the right situation. 2. I'm not going to stick you guys into an unwinnable scenario. You'll get an alert or a plot detail that'll be like, "Yo, you might wanna kind of keep an eye up." Whether you guys take the proper steps is up to you. 3. I don't think so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Growler is slang for vagina so I'm not voting for any proposal that has an EF-18, what a silly name for an aircraft. Prowlers are fine by me though I'm waiting for the shortlist before I vote on what we buy As for missions, I already said but I vote Angerpeace
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Growler is slang for vagina so I'm not voting for any proposal that has an EF-18, what a silly name for an aircraft. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
I'd actually like to modify my buy slightly, if you all don't mind. Let's call this Plan Better Safe than Sorry. JAS 39C Gripen (70M) x 1 = 70M (To replace losses) F-4E Greek (15M) x 6 = 90M (To make a full squadron of Phantoms; good for Strike and CAP [AMRAAMs]--that's all of them, btw) Tornado (30M) x 6 = 180M (For Strike and SEAD) VC-10 K4 (2M+21M) = 23M (For tanking on the cheap) ZSU-23-4 (4M*1.2=4.8) x 6 + SA-22 (18M*1.2=21.6M) x 4 = 115.2M (because as this showed, you can't be too careful with grounded aircraft--also someone above me said that the SA-22, aka Pantsir-S1, is practically a one-group airbase defender) EA-6B (52M*1.4) = 72.8M (For EW funtimes) Total Spent = 528M Leaving a cool ~5 million for our next advisor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Growlers can contest the dominance of the S-400, and their presence is a huge boon versus them and other cutting edge SAM's. Yeah, i did a few quick tests, and it seems to agree with this. The Prowler will stand up to anything but the super-scary stuff like S-300 and S-400. For most other things, like the SA-5c, SA-6b, 1997 Patriots, or even the very I-Hawk battery we can buy, the Prowler can escort an F-4E Phantom to within visual range. Saukkis posted:3. Would our planes have incompatibilities with out tanker options? Our Phantoms need Boom refueling, which only the KC-135s give. Everything else we're looking at (Gripens, Tornados, Prowlers) can use Probe and Drogue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
This is a good patch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I'd actually like to modify my buy slightly, if you all don't mind. Let's call this Plan Better Safe than Sorry. It looks like now your plan and mine are pretty similar. Peanuts Proposal  Peanuts Proposal code:Since our plans are now so similar, could I persuade you to maybe switch over to my proposal? I know the ZSU-23-4 has some amazing rapid fire awesomeness, but since the Pantsir system gives us capabilities there, I feel better investing some money in a pair of longer ranged SAM batteries since that allows our net to have three rings of defense. Alternatively since my plan leaves us with about 20 million to work with, if people really want Shilkas, my proposal leaves us enough cash to buy two or three and still have money left in the tank for an advisor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
The only Count I recognise is played by Bela Lugosi. Propping up The Dictator is the natural choice for Hired Goons. If we fail and earn his wrath, we can always gently caress him over and flee to the sea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Actually now I'm curious. Is our Count intended to be a riff on Carl Gustaf von Rosen? I was hoping for a Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
So question for the thread - Given that we've pissed off China something fierce, would it make sense to pre-emptively grab a Growler to counter them handing out extremely advanced SAMs to our enemies in Angola?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:So question for the thread - Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Go to Angola, Support the Count
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:It looks like now your plan and mine are pretty similar. I'm not against your proposal, but I'd rather have the extra Tornadoes than the MIM-23s, which aren't that good compared to the Pantsirs, especially at defeating ballistic missiles and/or glide bombs. But if your proposal makes it through to final voting and mine doesn't, rest assured I'll vote for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
I'm down for the count.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I'm not against your proposal, but I'd rather have the extra Tornadoes than the MIM-23s, which aren't that good compared to the Pantsirs, especially at defeating ballistic missiles and/or glide bombs. Range. Range is everything for air defense. The Hawk has a 22nmi range vs the Pantsir missiles' 10 (the guns are 1 which is basically useless for anything unless a missile has already forced a plane onto the deck, or they're trying to send helicopters at us). The farther out you can engage, the more your terms dictate the engagement. e: remember, altitude counts too! Expect most aircraft to cruise at 30-50k feet, or (roughly) 5-8nmi. Even at 30k feet, that reduces the effective range to 5 on the Pantsir vs 17 on the Hawk. This is somewhat affected by where our base is and what exactly is trying to murder us, but the point is the same. e2: actually even less than that thanks to our good friend Pythagoras but I am too lazy to do the math on that one. power crystals fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Doesn't the Angolan air force use Su-27s? We might want to plan for fighting Flankers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
TheGreatEvilKing posted:So question for the thread - If we get meta about it it doesn't seem likely that Yooper is going to throw our planes against a facility with surprise S-300s that annihilate our SEAD planes if we don't buy the right planes now, because that isn't very fun. But the point I keep harping on is this: Phantoms, Tornadoes, and the Grippen in a strike configuration aren't all that different in effectiveness. But Without the lucky commando strike the last mission would have been a bloodbath because we weren't launching our SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) mission from out of range of their AA missiles if they'd had a functioning radar. The difference between the expensive EA-18 Growler and the EA-6B Prowler is not just the quality of the jammers and sensors (the Growler can jam newer/better missiles and radar) but also that the Growler is built on a modern fighter chassis that can fly with our Grippens. The Prowler is slow by comparison, and more vulnerable. For a specific example, if we'd been facing a base with both its own CAP and a functioning radar last time, we would have had to try and knock down their CAP with our fighters, then send in the Prowler to jam the AA radar along with strike craft to take out the AA, then send in our ground strike, before they could launch more fighters. Having the Growler would make the SEAD mission and accompanying coordination easier. Particularly with regard to refueling and all that as well, since the time for the Prowler to get anywhere is so much longer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
By the way, a meta-proposal: next time we do procurement, offer packages from the three vendors based on what we're making noises about wanting. So for ARMs BLFM would try to hand us a Prowler vs K&P's ECRs, and likewise for the ADA (Hawks + VADS, SA-22, SIDAMs + ASRADs). This would leave flexibility without devolving into arguments over the exact number of Phantoms that is appropriate to buy. Let Willie handle any wildcard requests like the Growlers if none of the offered packages are appealing. We've been at this poo poo for seven pages now and there's more proposals than votes 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
power crystals posted:e: remember, altitude counts too! Expect most aircraft to cruise at 30-50k feet, or (roughly) 5-8nmi. Even at 30k feet, that reduces the effective range to 5 on the Pantsir vs 17 on the Hawk. This is somewhat affected by where our base is and what exactly is trying to murder us, but the point is the same. Given that, our air defences aren't going to accomplish much, especially if we only have a few missiles. If the I-Hawks only have a 17nmi range, they can be easily picked off by glide bombs or other basic standoff weapons without being able to hit their targets
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
A hostile force with its own SDBs or similar would bone us no matter what, yes. The point is that they'd be forced to go buy these vs being content with Mavericks or similar, and if we get into a defensive furball trying to stop them the Hawks can lend a hand much more easily. And if they don't have access to any standoff weapons (which will likely be the case until China comes for revenge) they'll be at a severe disadvantage. A weapon that never fires a shot but instead makes your opponent rethink or cancel their mission because they have to plan around it is every bit as valuable as the ones that see front line action.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
power crystals posted:By the way, a meta-proposal: next time we do procurement, offer packages from the three vendors based on what we're making noises about wanting. So for ARMs BLFM would try to hand us a Prowler vs K&P's ECRs, and likewise for the ADA (Hawks + VADS, SA-22, SIDAMs + ASRADs). This would leave flexibility without devolving into arguments over the exact number of Phantoms that is appropriate to buy. Let Willie handle any wildcard requests like the Growlers if none of the offered packages are appealing. We've been at this poo poo for seven pages now and there's more proposals than votes Alternate proposal, do a lottery and pick three packages to vote on. This back-and-forth revising is probably good but it's too confusing for something like a popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Added Space posted:Alternate proposal, do a lottery and pick three packages to vote on. This back-and-forth revising is probably good but it's too confusing for something like a popular vote. Given how much the plans have shifted I'd err towards a moratorium on voting for about a day or so; that way all the plans can get hashed out instead of constantly being fired off and confusing the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Given that, our air defences aren't going to accomplish much, especially if we only have a few missiles. If the I-Hawks only have a 17nmi range, they can be easily picked off by glide bombs or other basic standoff weapons without being able to hit their targets I mean no offence but at this point it seems like we're spiting hairs over a number of hypothetical among a number of posts. IF the dastardly Chinese give our foes a certain type of missile then stationary defense won't protect our airfields. IF somehow a force in Angola we're to get an advanced SEAD/EWAR/ Gen 5 plane on station it could nullify our defenses. Thing is, for a number of other air threats from 1st to 4th generation, SAM defense does good work in hitting back if not nullify attacks. For about 148 million we can deploy a number of weapons that can keep for fields relatively secure while we can dedicate our planes to their tasks. Unless we're prepared to purchase a number of Gripens and other planes to dedicate solely to defending the airfield with CAP, it makes more sense to get some Air Defenses and plop them down for piece of mind. 17 nmi might not sound like a lot, but that still gives us a decent sized bubble of protection to work with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Isn't Sir Pants also good against gliding bombs and other sneaky poo poo that would try to stand us off? If you wrap a hawk (ugliest vehicle in Wargame) with Pants, they can intercept HARMs and other bullshit that can come in knocking. Shilka also ads to base defense and can be loaned out to Mercs for some support/overwatch that doesn't take most of the mission to reach overwqtch position. It can also suppress anything it can see! Going Count will make life interesting for our Mercs. On one hand, you have Rich Peoples Republic of Bitcoin, which only has poor conscripts pushed about by PMC instructors (we shoild make like Angekina Jolie and adopt them). On the other hand, we have the dictator forces that are probably better equpped than our goons (they probably have helmets, which we don't) and are dug in...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
poo poo, I just noticed something. Yooper, is it an ATR-42 or an ATR-72 on offer? The link goes to the ATR-72. The -42 only has maritime search, not any ASW. Jimmy4400nav posted:Grabbing just one of each SAM seems a it to light for what we'll want too, in general with ground SAM you want a decent amount of saturation, having just one battery of LRMs and one of MRMs crates a single point of failure, hence why in my proposal I got as many Hawks and SA-22's as we can buy at this time. For defenses we want redundancy. I'm still not sure I understand why you want so much in the SAM department. The Hawk battery on offer is already really heavy. One full battery will contain: Six M192 I-Hawk launchers, with 3x Hawk missiles each. (18 missiles on rails, ready to launch) Two AN/MPQ-61 HPI & OD-179/TVY TAS (Radar illuminators and TV camera tracking) One AN/MPQ-50 PAR (2D Air search radar) One AN/MPQ-62 ICWAR (3D Air search radar) 24 extra I-Hawk missiles on magazines. All that on mobile units that can travel at 30 knots (55 kph). I think that's enough redundancy that if we really needed wider coverage we can split it into two, with with one search radar, one illuminator/tracker, and 3 launchers each, and they'll still work just fine. (This is easy to do in the editor, just delete the "weapons mount" that represents an individual vehicle.) Any strike force that can use up all 18 ready missiles would be a pretty heavy commitment, enough that we'd be panic-scrambling everything we can get in the air. As far as the SA-22, the Pantsir is really good and I'd be happy to squeeze in an extra buy, but they're pretty expensive. I think we can only afford to use them as close-in defense for the I-Hawks for now. They complement the I-Hawks pretty well, shooting down anything that leaks through. Or they can shoot cheaper smaller missiles at things that are in range, rather than use an entire telephone pole. But because they're so expensive, I wouldn't want to place them anywhere really dangerous. (But by deleting the ATR-42 I found room for a second section of Knights of the Pants Table.) I think the Shilkas have almost as good a gun as Sir Pants, just without the missiles. I think a 1x SA-22 + 2x ZU-23-4 makes a pretty effective combo, to protect a split I-Hawk battery. Or, like JcDent just pointed out, we can loan out the Shilkas to our allies. (Why are Shilkas so friendly? Because they like their buddybuddybuddybuddybuddybuddybuddybuddy.  )Edit: Here's the data in-game: 
Psawhn fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Voting for Parabellum / The Hoff
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Dr. Snark posted:Given how much the plans have shifted I'd err towards a moratorium on voting for about a day or so; that way all the plans can get hashed out instead of constantly being fired off and confusing the rest of us. Yeah, there are like fifteen proposals on the table, none of which has more than three votes. I suggest that we automatically eliminate any proposal with only one vote (I count making the proposal as a "vote"). For people with more than one plan, I'm just using your most recent one. Here is what we have so for, with my best tally of the votes. Bacarruda posted:
9 Votes (Bacarruda, Vando, Dreamsicle, Coffeehitler, Gervasius, Bourricot, Condeleeza Nice!, CirclMastr, chitoryu12) Jimmy4400nav posted:Peanuts Proposal 3 Votes (Jimmy4400nav, MikL, gradenko_2000) + Davin wanting to vote twice Soup Inspector posted:Proposal: Pennypincher 2 Votes (Soup Inspector, Slaan) Psawhn posted:Proposal: À la carte 10 Votes (Psawhn, nothing to seehere, sparkmaster, Stago Lego, yurtcradled, Velius, glynnenstein, Dr. Snark, popete, Crazycryodude) Davin Valkri posted:Plan Better Safe than Sorry. 2 Votes (Davin Valkri, JcDent) power crystals posted:[1x JAS-39C ($70M) 2 Votes (power crystals, Neophyte) ******** And the proposals which only have one vote. Unless a coalition of people want to blend their similar proposals, I suggest we cut these and have a runoff amongst the current multi-vote proposals. Mr Crustacean posted:Parabelluem Lite Renaissance Spam posted:Plan Quinnabellum Mr Crustacean posted:Plan Quinnabellum modified TheGreatEvilKing posted:3x Gripen: 210m Coffeehitler posted:1x Gripen (70M Tevery Best posted:Here's an alternative procurement scheme: Popete posted:Procurement Plan: Red Viking Quinntan posted:Procurement proposal: Mo' WSOs, Mo' Problems e: added new votes e2: more votes e3: more votes Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Parabellum is the soundest plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
I suggest we add no more plans past this point. There is more than enough variety to go around at this point (although it appears clear that we seem to be divided along the lines of "Buy Gripens, worry later" and "One Gripen and a bunch of poo poo"). If I cannot vote for my own proposal, I'd go for TheGreatEvilKing's one. It has three Gripens and the best tanker we can get, although it does leave plenty of capital lying around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
We have the chance to do something actually good, so let's make this Count.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
That the USN CVBG left the Bering Sea was a serious strike against that theater, seeing as how we can't Entebbe it anymore if it's not there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Tricky one. I like Parabellum but I don't think we should be selling the SK-60s. For just 3 mil I'd rather have more planes in case we need to rocket an airbase again
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
I change my vote to: Proposal: À la carte. This should give us a nice addition of tools for the jobs ahead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 10:54
|
|