|
Psawhn posted: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. Here is a "hard numbers" example: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4091 Note that this is a "worse case" example for the SAM operators because the need for SARH guidance is the Achilles Heel of the 48N6xxx missile family. This is part of the reason why modern SAM systems increasingly use active-homing missiles. In this example if the S-400 battery was using 9M96s it would be able to shoot much further out, despite the jamming.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
Saukkis posted:I have few questions I'd like to find the answers for and get tested in CMANO. You know, CMANO is not some super-secret program that you cannot get your hands on. In fact it's on sale 30% off until tomorrow. Just buy the drat thing 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Dimitris posted:You know, CMANO is not some super-secret program that you cannot get your hands on. In fact it's on sale 30% off until tomorrow. Just buy the drat thing Where? It's 74 goddamn euros on Steam right now
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
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. I think a better question is "Is it plausible that a PMC group in 2023 can get their hands on a piece of super-sensitive mid-2010s tech like the EA-18G and use it effectively?" We're not talking about merc soldiers using AK-47s. IMHO even the EA-6B should be out of reach. The best that a PMC group could realistically shoot for would be second-hand noise jammer pods.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:Where? It's 74 goddamn euros on Steam right now MatrixGames is running a 30% Easter sale on all its titles until tomorrow: http://www.matrixgames.com/news/2210/Happy.Easter.Sale!.30.Discount.on.everything! And CMANO itself goes on deep sale regularly: http://www.steamsales.rhekua.com/view.php?steam_type=app&steam_id=321410 Dimitris fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:Where? It's 74 goddamn euros on Steam right now Extremely podcaster voice: Buy it from Matrix Games and use promo code "HappyEaster" to get 30% off your purchase. That's H-a-p-p-y-E-a-s-t-e-r to get 30% off your purchase. and then there's a bunch of other hoops to get your Steam registry key.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Dimitris posted:I think a better question is "Is it plausible that a PMC group in 2023 can get their hands on a piece of super-sensitive mid-2010s tech like the EA-18G and use it effectively?" We're not talking about merc soldiers using AK-47s. Yeah, honestly I don't see the US ever allowing that tech out. The EA-6 maybe, given that it's pretty old now, but not the EA-18
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:poo poo, I just noticed something. drat! I actually didnt know a Hawk battery came with all that goodness! By chance do you have the numbers for the Pantsirs? However I will stand by my original suggestion. When I made that I thought we'd only be getting one launcher per purchase, but getting a whole battery means we are getting a much better deal, each launcher adds redundancy and it also lets us space out ou launchers even further if we want, expanding the effective defensive radius of our airfields or it allows us to make an extremely dense defensive fortification that stops most jets and helicopters that could be feasibly thrown at us. Really for an investment of 100 million we're basically gaining the abilities to keep our airfield on lockdown, have a wider possible net, be more effective in surface to air combat and we'll have units avalibe to replace any losses to AAA we could endure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
simplefish posted: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 I was torn on this one, I gotta admit. One one hand, the SK 60s are the Dragon Slayers and they're fun little planes. Yooper posted:In nearly every test I did the SK60B's were slaughtered. On the other hand, they are extremely vulnerable to even small arms fire. We're very lucky we haven't lost one to ground fire already. Plus, they have a terrible record doing CAS work (they've only killed one target in twelve CAS sorties). They got very, very lucky at Lhasa -- what happened there was a once-in-a-lifetime event. We just aren't going to get many big, unprotected, soft, unmoving targets like that...and that's pretty much the only thing they can kill. I also think we can get a premium on these particular aircraft given their...unique history. I guess we could keep one as a museum piece or as a showpiece to give to would-be investors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
These plans are all too expensive. We need at least 100 million in the bank in case we have losses or opportunities come up. Plan Pennypincher
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Proposal: À la carte It gives us the greatest versatility to deal with any scenario that gets chucked at us. It's too heavy on spending on SAMs though, ditch the SA-22s, we already have HAWK and I'd prefer to have that extra 50mil to spend once we have an idea of our operating environment. It's the only major plan that gets us a long endurance very capable UAV plus an extra transport in case we have move some assets to another airfield. i.e. 1x Gripen = $70 000 000.00 4x Tornado = $120 000 000.00 6x Phantom = $90 000 000.00 1x MQ-9 (USA) = $33 000 000.00 1x Prowler = $62 400 000.00 1x C-130E = $8 400 000.00 1x VC-10 K4 $23 000 000.00 1x I-Hawk = $24 000 000.00 2x Shilka = $11 200 000.00 Total price =$442 400 000.00 Balance remaining = $92 012 376.00 Mr Crustacean fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Voting for À la carte. Is there an explanation somewhere of how Parabellum would deal with an air attack? Is the plan to operate 2 Grippens on CAP continuously or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
I think Angola is going to have more opportunities for our SK60s to shine, since we're away from huge superpowers like China.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
I vote Parabellum for being the only pseudo-runoff plan with more than one Gripen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
I vote for A La Carte in lieu of my proposal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Slaan posted:These plans are all too expensive. We need at least 100 million in the bank in case we have losses or opportunities come up. What opportunities could possibly be better than the ones we have in front of us now? Remember the last in-theater offerings we got? We got cheap modern aircraft, modernized 3rd-generation fighters, and a museum full of Ukrainian rejects. Why would we pass up the chance to buy excellent Gripen and Tornadoes on the off-chance some Russian scrap merchant will one day offer us some bent-up MiG-25s? yurtcradled posted:Voting for À la carte. Bacarruda posted:
To add to this, I'd also point out that Parabellum gives us a total of 14 fighters with BVR missiles (Meteors or AMRAAMs), along 6 Tornadoes that can carry IRIS-T short-range missiles. That's the best CAP force any proposal has to offer. We'll see what the threat level looks like when we get in-country. If there's a major air attack risk -- we'd be sending up a CAP anyways, regardless of how many tens of millions of dollars we sunk into ground-based air defenses. And if there isn't an air attack risk, Parabellum lets us turn around, take aircraft off base defense CAP and use them destroy more targets (eighty SBDs in one sortie, anyone?) and make more money. Air defense doesn't earn us a red cent. Aircraft can earn us hundreds of millions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
 12 hours to close of procurement Bac posted a list of all procurement packages that people have proposed. (And saved me from doing it, Thanks Bac!) https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3815107&perpage=40&pagenumber=56#post471435150 Psawhn posted: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. It is the ATR-72 with ASW. Link is correct. Procurement has been a mess, but hey, we're doing pretty good compared to the F-35 procurement process. I like the proposals you guys have brought, the arguments one way or the other, and the end results. If I can think of a good way to streamline this process (or you can, PM me) then we'll change. Otherwise it'll be the usual cat herding next time. I'm still waiting on my news reel from Fiverr. :grumble:
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
As much as I would love to get F-16s, it looks like our best bet right now is Parabellum. Just in case my fairly early vote was missed, I'm voting Count in Angola for the theatre. I think Bacarruda had a good idea for the voting: after a certain window to make proposals, any proposal that has not received more than a single vote from its own creator is discarded and a runoff is held between the remainder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think Bacarruda had a good idea for the voting: after a certain window to make proposals, any proposal that has not received more than a single vote from its own creator is discarded and a runoff is held between the remainder. I like this. I think 48 Hours followed by a 24 hour vote period. We can always haggle the little details once we've settled on a proposal. But I think I'm seeing option/analysis paralysis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:To add to this, I'd also point out that Parabellum gives us a total of 14 fighters with BVR missiles (Meteors or AMRAAMs), along 6 Tornadoes that can carry IRIS-T short-range missiles. That's the best CAP force any proposal has to offer. Not true! Mo' WSOs Mo' Problems gives us a total of 16 fighters with Meteors or AMRAAMs, as well as 8 Tornadoes with IRIS-Ts. However, if you're reliant on German Tornadoes for CAP, then we've already hosed up. Bacarruda posted:And if there isn't an air attack risk, Parabellum lets us turn around, take aircraft off base defense CAP and use them destroy more targets (eighty SBDs in one sortie, anyone?) and make more money. Air defense doesn't earn us a red cent. Aircraft can earn us hundreds of millions. Air defence probably earns us bonuses for shooting down aircraft, and on top of that it safeguards our own fleet. Aircraft can earn us hundreds of millions, but air defence can save us hundreds of millions
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Procurement has been a mess, but hey, we're doing pretty good compared to the F-35 procurement process. I like the proposals you guys have brought, the arguments one way or the other, and the end results. If I can think of a good way to streamline this process (or you can, PM me) then we'll change. Otherwise it'll be the usual cat herding next time. I did think at one point yesterday "I wonder which office at the Pentagon these guys are posting from?"  But yeah the only change I'd really make is from my earlier post: have the peanut gallery throw around what sort of ideas we want to do, THEN put together the supplier inventory based on that. And definitely don't add anything after that point: if we come up with a cool idea for something to use, we just have to wait until at least after the next mission for "specials".
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
One of my favorite things about CMANO is that you can see all these different weapons systems in "action." In terms of maximizing our capability I think the versatility and modernity of the Grippens make a max buy of them the optimal choice, but I think that's actually a less interesting option. I don't think we're sabotaging ourselves by not being totally optimal, so IMO we should try to operate with the maximum diversity of units that is practically effective and not too much a pain in Yooper's rear end to inter-operate. I think the single most important capability void to address is EW/SEAD and, again, the Growler is by far the best option, but I'm put off by the cost. The Prowler is more complicated to mission plan because of its low speed and lack of self defense capability, but I think its performance in-role is sufficient for the sorts of threats we will face as long as there are supporting aircraft on SEAD missions, and given it's limitations there always will be. I was tempted by several of the plans that mix in interesting ex-Soviet options but my pick for the best compromise is Proposal: À la carte, though I'd be happier if we cut some Phantoms to make room for Mirages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Procurement has been a mess, but hey, we're doing pretty good compared to the F-35 procurement process. Speaking of which, can Willie get us an F-35 for Nails?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:What opportunities could possibly be better than the ones we have in front of us now? Remember the last in-theater offerings we got? Plan Parabellum gives us zero early warning radar. None. An infrared early warning system is useless in adverse weather and I'm not even sure how effective it would be in the daytime. You're relying on "spies with cellphones" to provide early intel of enemy air operations, which basically means a constant need for CAP given we'll be based in a war zone. I really don't like the lack of air defenses at all, but people seem to think because of the last mission that they're useless. Let me be clear, there's a reason SEAD is it's own category of mission, because it's both vital and difficult.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Velius posted:Plan Parabellum gives us zero early warning radar. None. An infrared early warning system is useless in adverse weather and I'm not even sure how effective it would be in the daytime. You're relying on "spies with cellphones" to provide early intel of enemy air operations, which basically means a constant need for CAP given we'll be based in a war zone. I really don't like the lack of air defenses at all, but people seem to think because of the last mission that they're useless. Let me be clear, there's a reason SEAD is it's own category of mission, because it's both vital and difficult. It just moves the early warning radar off the ground and into the air, if needed. Our Gripens and Phantoms have longer-ranged radar than the Hawks, so they're vastly better at that mission. And we can send up the Argus if there's a serious risk of air attack, which gives us god-level radar coverage. As for the "spies with cellphones" point, you're ignoring the host of other air-defense things we'd do in conjunction with intel-gathering. But since you brought it up, it's a tactic that's been used with great success for 20+ years. It's cheap to implement and hard to counter. As for bad weather hampering the SPAA spottin and killing aircraft, I'd point out that bad weather cuts both ways -- their IR and visual sensors will be hosed, too. All-weather attack is a niche role and any enemy air force will struggle to attack us during the middle of a thunderstorm or some poo poo. Quinntan posted:Air defence probably earns us bonuses for shooting down aircraft, and on top of that it safeguards our own fleet. Aircraft can earn us hundreds of millions, but air defence can save us hundreds of millions We can pay $24,000,000 for a Hawk battery that just sits there. Plus, it'll need $5-10 million dollars worth of SHORAD to watch its back. They can only cover a small patch of sky. Or, we can take that money and operate two Gripens on constant CAP for 1,791 hours. That's over 74 days of continuous operations. They can cover a great deal more airspace than SAMs can. If the skies are clear, those Gripens can go bomb some things and pay their keep. For lower purchase cost and a slightly higher operating cost, we can operate twwo F-4 Phantoms as CAP birds while the Gripens are off playing. Which one of our choices makes more financial sense? And which choice gives goons more things to do? I get the appeal of having our own SAMs, I really do. When we have more money, we can go and buy some. But there are most cost-effective ways to accomplish the same goal at this point in time. We need to stretch every dollar as far as it will go. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:We can pay $24,000,000 for a Hawk battery that just sits there. Plus, it'll need $5-10 million dollars worth of SHORAD to watch its back. They can only cover a small patch of sky. I am assuming that your CAP loadout is 8 SDBs, 2 Meteors, 2 IRIS-Ts and a drop tank, yes? Assuming you're always leaving a pair of Grips behind while the rest of the force is off doing things because otherwise you'd be weakening the side of things that's off doing things, that'd be at most 8 AA missiles on CAP station, and given just how lethal modern BVR missiles can be, it's very unlikely that we'd get all eight missiles away. Consider how big of a force we used to take on Lhasa, and that wasn't a particularly big raid. I would expect anyone doing this to us to do it with more aircraft than we had available at Lhasa, and the CAP wouldn't be able to put much of a dent in it. A Hawk battery, in comparison, has 18 missiles. At least that gives us a chance of taking out more of an enemy raid on our home field.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
It's also comical that he wants to put two Grippens on permanent babysitting duty because he doesn't want to spend 1/3 the cost of a Grippen to give us more than a token base defense. Given that Yooper explicitly said we should think about AA etc I don't understand this at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:It just moves the early warning radar off the ground and into the air, if needed. Our Gripens and Phantoms have longer-ranged radar than the Hawks, so they're vastly better at that mission. And we can send up the Argus if there's a serious risk of air attack, which gives us god-level radar coverage. You've presented a very false economy with using planes for a constant CAP. The opportunity cost of using planes to protect our airfield 24/7 is really terrible. We cannot have 24hr early warning radar coverage using planes unless you want to devote 100mil of AWACS, 140mil of Gripens to baby sitting our base for the entire scenario/theatre. Spend 24 mil on a HAWK and we don't have to worry about anything less than a SEAD supported strike on our base and we can dedicate the rest of our planes to accomplishing the mission. As well as having some early warning 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
It is impossible to maintain a 24/7 CAP unless we got a full squadron of Gripens and even then the operating cost alone would be off the charts. Buy an SA-22 site and be done with AA forever
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
power crystals posted:
Protest vote for Plan Power Crystals! VOTE FOR FUN! VOTE FOR FIREHOSING! VOTE FOR VRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTT! VOTE VADS! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:If we're worried about air attacks, we should take proactive measures instead of relying heavily on expensive (and reactive) air defense measures. Thanks, that makes sense. The proactive approach to air defense seems to work best if we stay at a single airfield where we've secured territory in a ~600km radius. In Angola, our employer may require us to relocate to a less-secure airbase. We may have sketchy intel or insufficient resources to reconnoiter a large area and clear all enemy air bases. SAMs add a layer of redundancy that forces attackers to do better than just getting a couple of strike planes past the CAP - I think that's cheap at twice the price. I do like the idea of cheap 80nm infrared sensors on the VADS though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:It is impossible to maintain a 24/7 CAP unless we got a full squadron of Gripens and even then the operating cost alone would be off the charts. Fast Turnaround allows a flight to get back into the air quickly but the problem becomes you can't do it for longer than 3 ops in a 24 hour period. Things will get really funky if I have to cycle a bunch of planes in and out of that. I'd like to do some bigger, more free form, missions in the future. I'd much prefer a pair of "Ready Planes" that launch to investigate problems, or a full CAP if we're expecting trouble. In CMANO you, the player, can learn from your mistakes and start over again. That isn't a luxury we have here. It's not fun if we get F-35'd on the ground. Sure, it might be realistic if we piss off the right people, but it makes for a bad narrative. But the AI, given the right circumstance, would have no problem punishing a mistake like an undefended airfield. My hope is to get more scripting so that these theaters behave like the Live Scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:You've presented a very false economy with using planes for a constant CAP. The opportunity cost of using planes to protect our airfield 24/7 is really terrible. It's actually worse than that. To have a dedicated flight up at all times would require us to have essentially four gripens dedicated to the role as the ones in the air will need to land for refuelling and changing the pilots and we'd want to have someone in the air at all times to provide coverage. We'd also require a second Erieye, unless we are willing to accept either reduced or no AEW coverage for offensive operations, which as bacarruda said earlier, is what makes us money. Quinntan fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:Speaking of which, can Willie get us an F-35 for Nails? Come on, the man has morals!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
I vote for Peanuts Proposal
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Maybe the AI is a gent won't attack us during off-mission hours? Speaking of which, 3 month in yheater/game translates to how much time IRL?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Come on, the man has morals! Willie is a man of many talents, but acquiring an F-35 is pushing it. For now. JcDent posted:Maybe the AI is a gent won't attack us during off-mission hours? We'll always have an opportunity to respond to a threat. How much knowledge we have of what's coming, and how much warning, is dependent on the decisions we make down the road. It wouldn't be fun if I made an update and said, "Sorry, everything died, game over." I'll always offer interesting, if difficult, choices. I'm aiming for a mission every 1 to 2 weeks of real time. Ideally this theater will last us for 6 to 8 missions. Maybe more?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
I haven't played CMANO in a long time. Is there damage and maintenance times? If we try and run a 24/7 CAP we may just end up with a bunch of grounded Gripens. Maybe even operational losses!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Voting À la carte
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
EDIT: Sorry, Jimmy, but I need to vote A La Carte to protect our airfield from being defended by just a couple of SIDAM 25s! Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:26
|
|
