|
sebmojo posted:Quia tuti sunt tibi gradibus Either that or paying homage to the Ace Combat 5 LP: Omnes rapiunt illud
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
There's always the classic Sic semper tyrannus
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:
I like this. It is an obscure reference, understood by few, that harkens back to a bygone era of greatness and novelty that has probably long since passed - in other words, it's a perfect match for the Latin language.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Latina sit cum inferno muta Google translate says that's Latin for 'Latin is dumb as hell" and for a bunch of nerds flying around blowing poo poo up, it makes sense as a motto. At least its not from some loving Japanese game, that poo poo's probably the Free State Air Force's motto. CoffeeQaddaffi fucked around with this message at 00:18 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:I like this. It is an obscure reference, understood by few, that harkens back to a bygone era of greatness and novelty that has probably long since passed - in other words, it's a perfect match for the Latin language. Another vote for stairs
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Liberate tuteme ex infernus? 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
People please, there's only one possible motto: Avion sans frontières
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Ok how can we NOT do the stairs?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
"Sordidis actibus valde pretium".
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Ok how can we NOT do the stairs? Because using self referential Somthing Awful inside jokes makes us no better than the Reddit parrots in the Free State.  I'm down for Avion San Frontiers! or Latin is dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:People please, there's only one possible motto: Avion sans frontières Oui 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Because using self referential Somthing Awful inside jokes makes us no better than the Reddit parrots in the Free State. You are implying that we aren't just that. I think you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Given the previous adventure with insurance fraud and the new iDestroyer, I figured I should stick my head into motto chat to present Boatmurder(er) or how to best sink a boat with planes. You can fire on ships with all kinds of things. The most common choice is anti-shipping missiles (sometimes abbreviated as AShMs or ASMs), of which the most famous are probably Exocet, Harpoon, and Silkworm. But you can also just drop bombs on them, or use most air-to-ground missiles equally as well if you don't mind getting close. So what's out there? Note that in addition to my normal "no hypotheticals" I'm also excluding things like Tomahawks that planes don't carry. I'm also going to mention but mostly ignore things equipped only on bombers as we haven't yet seen signs of being able to acquire any of those. Finally, as before, I'll just pick one when a family of planes is available. I'm going to additionally clarify that I'm not saying any of these weapons are actually a good idea (especially vs Zumwalts), just that they're noteworthy in some regard. In particular GPS/INS guided weapons probably aren't a great idea vs anything that, you know, moves. I'm just here to stare at stats and maybe call out some fun oddities, not actually run simulations and min/max our odds of sniping a Chinese carrier with hardware from the other side of disco. So, where were we? Right, anti-shipping missiles. Do you want range? The AGM-158C has a range of 430nm, which is pretty insane. Unfortunately pretty much the only thing that can mount it is some very new F-18E/F variants and the B-1B, so we're probably never going to see one of these. Tied is the YJ-100. Problem is that, if the YJ- prefix didn't give it away for those of you who know such things, it's Chinese. We're only likely to see this if we're on the receiving end. It's also bomber-only. Russia comes up next at 325nm with the Kh-32, available only on the Tu-22M-3M (Russia, what on earth is with your designations?) - a bomber, so that's out. That same aircraft can also carry the Kh-22N, at 215nm, which like several other Russian AShMs also has a nuclear variant for those of you out there who are Loel. Finally, we get something a non-bomber can carry in the YJ-12... which is Chinese again (215nm). It's carried by the JH-7B Flounder, which can also apparently mount every kind of weapon ever made. Look at this nonsense. Multiple kinds of AShMs, cluster bombs, dumb rockets, laser-guided bombs, and loving sea floor mines. If only we hadn't pissed off China so badly. I'd love to get some of these! Skipping a bunch more bomber-only weapons (but in the process learning there's a Badger variant named "God of War"), we run into the PJ-10 Brahmos, an Indian-Russian joint developed missile. A 160nm range and carried by the Su-30MKI Mk2 Flanker H (also the non-Mk2), a perfectly fine aircraft in addition. At 150nm, we've got some Harpoon variants in the AGM-84K and AGM-84H. Equippable on a million F/A-18 variants, classic and super, as well as South Korean F-15Ks, Turkish F-16DJs, and American P3-C Orions as well as P-8A Poseidons. We saw Orions for sale prior to Angola! P-8s are vastly better aircraft but also newer/more expensive. Tying the above Harpoons for range is the Delilah. You might remember that from my Phantom post; and yes, you can still get it on Israeli F-4Es as well as a couple different Israeli F-16s. These are pretty nice missiles in general. Oh and there's the Joint Strike Missile, which is available on nothing but Norwegian F-35As. Nope. Moving on. What about warheads? The most powerful non-nuclear warhead belongs to the... AGM-62B Walleye II? Not what I was expecting. This Vietnam-era weapon is more of a glide bomb than a missile, similar to the SPICE 1000s we have. Only 30nm max range. You can get it on the A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair II, or some F/A-18s (classic only). The Hornets are geriatric but still capabale (comparable to our Phantoms), and the Intruder's also pretty nice. Corsairs are too ugly to live and I will veto any purchase that includes them. As for the Intruders, well, I mentioned those earlier in the napalm post - anyone remember sea mines?  Next up is the KAB-1500L Penetrator. While we have KAB-1500s on our surviving Frogfoot, we do not have the penetrator variant. That one's available on the Su-24M2 which can also carry everything ever (look at that scrollbar!), as well as this one specific Su-30M2 Flanker, the Su-34 Fullback, and the Su-35S Flanker E. Of course, you'd have to be right on top of the ship to use this thing with a max range of 4nm for the laser-guided version or 2 for the TV/EO one. Any one of those planes would be pretty nice. Some more bomber stuff, the non-penetrator KAB-1500 that we actually do have, and then we get Mk84s, of which there's a million because everybody has their own artisanal version of "GPS guidance and tailfins" on the same warhead, so I'm not even going to call any out. Just go pick your favorite F-16 and it'll probably have some. Also included in here is the PGM-2B, equipped only on UAE Mirages of all things. Then some more bomber stuff. Finally, the GBU-28 is another bunker-buster; this one is for F-15s (and the B-2). Get yours from the United States, Israel, or South Korea. Again, 4nm max range, so not exactly a great idea unless whatever you're shooting at isn't shooting back. (Note that there's some other GBU-28s that actually do noticeably less damage for reasons I don't feel like trying to figure out; don't get them confused!) But if the target's probably shooting back. What about speed? Russia is unsurprisingly the top dog here as building hypersonic missiles is kind of their "thing". The true fastest are the Kh-32 and Kh-22M/N, which are bomber-only. The best option otherwise is the Kh-31A, available on among other things Indian and Russian Fulcrums and a variety of Su-30MKs. The second best is actually the AGM-88E AARGM, which actually isn't an AShM at all but an evolution of the HARM. You can get it on Growlers, a whole bunch of Hornets (classic and super), and Italian Tornadoes. I'm sure the thread is absolutely riveted at the possibility of owning a third family of Tornado. And... that's kind of it, there's a whole bunch of Russian missiles that are only valid for bombers, some other Kh-31A and AGM-88E variants, and then we return to the PJ-10 and YJ-12. For completeness' sake, the first entry not one of the above is the Marte, which is only available on (Italian) helicopters which is its own kind of terrible idea. The best part? Sea Kings. Apologies to any Canadians I just triggered. In conclusion, there's quite a lot of ways to sink boats. Seriously, there's hundreds more I didn't cover, these are just some of the better ones. Unfortunately I have no way to map airframe costs in here or I'd try to find whatever the cheapest option was and I can't really do a "sort by weird", so not quite as many oddities here as normal with the exception of those UAE Mirages. Also a strange lack of Iran compared to my average (though remember the Iranian Phantoms can carry AShMs, they just aren't very good ones). I'd say the most interesting planes that aren't F-15/16/18s are probably the Indian Fulcrums/Flankers, since India at least outwardly likes us, the P3-Cs because they're drat good maritime patrol aircraft on top of that, or the Fencer. Cheaper but still fun choices are the Israeli Phantoms, American Intruders, or, if like me you hate our mission planners and want them to suffer, the Italian Tornadoes. The real choice is of course to buy the Iranian Phantoms anyway. Happy anti-boating! PS at least one Russian nuclear AShM has a warhead of "1mT", which I guess means the Russians figured out how to make a nuke equivalent to 2lb of TNT. I am angry about prefixes.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Because using self referential Somthing Awful inside jokes makes us no better than the Reddit parrots in the Free State. Our roundel is a goatse-nade, we've long since fallen down the SA Self Reference Hole. E: power crystals posted:PS at least one Russian nuclear AShM has a warhead of "1mT", which I guess means the Russians figured out how to make a nuke equivalent to 2lb of TNT. I am angry about prefixes. This is atrocious, don't worry I'm right there with you. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 00:41 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Regarding the limiting of weapons we commonly use, I support it in situations where it might make things interesting. For example a mission in the beginning of the operation where we're limited to what we can truck in on the aircraft and cargo planes.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:Because using self referential Somthing Awful inside jokes makes us no better than the Reddit parrots in the Free State. I have to agree with this, and I'm the company weeaboo! I personally wouldn't mind three mottos, one for each "philosophy" at their own pleasure. The honorable Knights get "Avion Sans Frontieres." True-blue dyed-in-the-wool Mercenaries get "Denarii Est Potentas" [Money is Power]. Professional Soldiers get "Consummatum Est" or "Puta Factum" [It is finished/Consider it done].
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
And the butchers get Liberte, Egalite, Fratricide?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Boatmurder(er) Okay so whats the best way to actually use these toys to sink boats? It is just ID with AWAC/Patrol -> Launch many planes -> Lob huge amounts of missiles to overwhelm anti-missile defences?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:05
|
|
Saros posted:Okay so whats the best way to actually use these toys to sink boats? It is just ID with AWAC/Patrol -> Launch many planes -> Lob huge amounts of missiles to overwhelm anti-missile defences? Use them to distract from the SSK that's about to put torpedoes into everything, most likely.
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Saros posted:Okay so whats the best way to actually use these toys to sink boats? It is just ID with AWAC/Patrol -> Launch many planes -> Lob huge amounts of missiles to overwhelm anti-missile defences? It'll depend entirely on what kind of bote you are trying to sink. Smaller coastal patrol ships and older frigates like that Chinese ship we sank you can get away with lobbing just one or two missiles at them and you should be fine, their radars either won't be strong enough to pick them up, or their A2A assets will be limited enough that they have a small chance of interception. If you go against an Aegis equipped ship, or one of the US's larger combatants, then you'll pretty much have to make a scene resembling Macross to sink one. The Zulmwats arn't Aegis equipped, but they can carry SM-3's and Evolved Sea Sparrows. Both missiles give them anti-air and antimissile capabilities that can extend outward of more than 50 nautical miles, while the SM-3 is more designed to intercept ballistic missiles, in game it can shoot down anything in the air. If you see an Aegis ship, run the hell away, those things are designed to chew through missiles and airplanes (especially Ticonderoga class cruisers, but Burkes and Burke derivatives). The Aegis system is a remote control system integrated with a suite of sophisticated radar arrays and various electronic, passive and active countermeasures to throw off incoming attackers. Anything that gets too close can be hit with SM-2's, 3's and 6's along with Evolved Sea Sparrows and normal Sea Sparrows. After that you have CWIS which will be computer controlled. Any destroyer can carry dozens to almost a hundred A2A missiles depending on their loadout (they won;t carry the max as they need room for some TLAMS and ASROCS). But thanks to the advance systems, you'll need insanely overwhelming firepower to hit one. Or you can just hope they forget to turn their defense systems on
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Quia tuti sunt tibi gradibus I am saddened at so many of you turning your noses up at this.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Saros posted:Okay so whats the best way to actually use these toys to sink boats? It is just ID with AWAC/Patrol -> Launch many planes -> Lob huge amounts of missiles to overwhelm anti-missile defences? There's something of a doctrinal split. The US and allies opted to make missiles that flew as close to the water as possible (sea-skimming); the Soviets opted to instead make their missiles insanely fast. Both believed this would allow their weapons to evade enemy defenses and that the other side's ideas were poo poo and useless. Thankfully, we never really got to find out how correct they were. But that was in the 70s-80s. These days? If it shoots back, for the love of god don't opt for anything with a short range, as hilarious as dropping a bunker buster on a ship would be. If it's part of a fleet of anything even remotely competent, or if it's a single very well-armed ship (see Jimmy4400nav above), we're gonna have some serious problems saturating its missile defense. This is probably why there's so many Russian options with nukes on them. We'd probably actually spend less money buying a lovely suicide mission diesel-electric sub than it would cost to overwhelm a modern destroyer's defenses in missile expenditures alone. Realistically, actually trying to sink a modern cruiser would be an entire mission itself. But if it's another couple of Vietnam-era frigates and a few bulk freighters? A handful of half-decent missiles is all you really need. PS I'm voting for the stairs quote.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Finally, we get something a non-bomber can carry in the YJ-12... which is Chinese again (215nm). It's carried by the JH-7B Flounder, which can also apparently mount every kind of weapon ever made. Look at this nonsense. Multiple kinds of AShMs, cluster bombs, dumb rockets, laser-guided bombs, and loving sea floor mines. If only we hadn't pissed off China so badly. I'd love to get some of these! With all the civil war and chaos in China at the moment, I'm sure we'd be able to find someone with some Flounders they'd be willing to part with...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Re: how to sink ships, Jimmy's right on the money. We can snipe old/unarmed crap with a few missiles or bombs, and anything modern is basically impossible to sink from the air. If we wanted to, purely hypothetically, sink a carrier battlegroup or even just a lone Burke, the only realistic option is to get a sub in among them. Or, potentially, lob cheap poo poo like cannon/railgun shells at them until they run out of interceptors and/or get sunk. Battleship gun duels are making a comeback
Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 01:59 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
How do you say "gently caress Boats" in Latin?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nunns6d09vU https://www.twitch.tv/hiredgoons_pmc Channels Live. Going active shortly.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
I'd like to say I'm sorry in advance of us losing our entire force.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:How do you say "gently caress Boats" in Latin? Futue Navibus?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I'd like to say I'm sorry in advance of us losing our entire force. I'm not sorry. We deserved it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Caecilius pecuniam numerat 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Syphilis Proximum Immanate
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
I should probably think about adding my name to the reserve list. I looks like there are going to be quite a few openings coming up.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
I'm just going to hope that we got sprayed with shrapnel rather than the drat thing ramming its nose right into the cockpit, because that way we'll get to come back. I might even get to write lovely fiction about it. I knew this was only a matter of time!   e: I'll edit this in the morning if it reveals too much.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Guess that largely answers the question of what to do about the SK60s, but a fine job sanitizing the coast and taking down His Eminence
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
RIP Dos Santos Bit much time compression on this one, which caused some issues with plane management but otherwise a great mission orcbuster fucked around with this message at 03:48 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Quia tuti sunt tibi gradibus Good plan, good stream, good motto.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
orcbuster posted:Bit much time compression on this one, which caused some issues with plane management but otherwise a great mission Yeah, there was way too much x30 which made it seem like things were getting missed. Also the Vikhrs firing on a FOB was kind of embarrassing, and I have no idea if it was accurate but chat was screaming that the gunpod SK60s couldn't fire because they had strafing turned off.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
[spoilers] The mission would have taken way too long if time compression wasn't kept at x30 for most of it. It's perfectly understandable.[/spoiler]
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Lessons learned 1) For every op going forward, I need to set hard floors for the missions. This time around, I had it at 12k unless needed by attacking aircraft. A better solution would be to just retire those aircraft and only use stuff capable of firing above AAA range. The losses we incurred, however, remove a fair number of those aircraft. 2) Not enough CAP. I'd underestimated just how hectic things could get and we came very near to paying a heavy price for it. 3) I have to get a lot more specific with what I'll order as targets. We had no reason to be bombing FOBs on this, our final push. We had even less reason to have our frogfoot fire anti-tank missiles into the drat thing. 4) Right now it isn't really practical, but in the future we should have our jammer escort anti-radar strikes closer to the target to give it better OECM coverage. Quinntan fucked around with this message at 04:11 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 04:05
|
|