|
Considering how many enemies we have, maybe some built-for-purpose vehicles would be worth buying? The Commando Ranger can mount a grenade launcher, spotlight and winch and has a crew of 2 with 6 potential passengers (at $140,000, it's the Cadillac of internal security.) Some downscale APCs might also work, like the Chilean Orca (16 passengers, armed with machine guns, costs roughly $33,824 basic, $48,652 with extra guns, far more with a cannon) or Spanish BMR-600 (11 passengers, one .50 cal and optional stuff like a mortar, costs up to $265,000 depending on variant [I couldn't find the cheaper, non-turret variant]).
thetruegentleman fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 23, 2018 |
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
thetruegentleman posted:wench I don't know how useful this would be in a combat situation. Given we're an equal opportunity employer we might get some push back too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
slothrop posted:I don't know how useful this would be in a combat situation. Given we're an equal opportunity employer we might get some push back too. The end result of a feisty autofinish that just fights to the death. :-/
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
I definitely think it's worth beefing up some of our vehicles - get some more AA/SAM's and maybe a mobile radar or two. At the very least it hopefully gives us some better spotting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
I'd make a couple of points about Baloogan's plan: For the reasons Orc laid out the digging of an anti-tank ditch is a pointless diversion of effort from building better bunkers for our aircraft. If tanks get up to the plotted position of the AT ditch then they can deliver direct fire onto the runway and we've lost anyway. Additionally I'd swap the positions of the Pantsirs and the Shilkas at the corners. Assuming a strike from the North this means that any PGM trying to get onto the runway area has to travel directly over one Pantsir and anything trying to hit the bunker complex has to travel directly over two. Our surrounding geography is actually very good for the ground defensive. There are an extremely limited number of ways that serious numbers of troops can approach and they are all over bridges: None over the Bojana in the West, four over the Drin and its tributaries in the North, two mountain roads to the East that are useless for anything larger than a jeep and four over the Lumi Mat in the South. Most of these roads and bridges are near each other or share approach roads so we could cover all of these approaches using a handful of non-combatant locals with mobile phones to provide early detection of serious ground movements, they'd be outside the bubble of any phone jammers we buy and even if they can't call us they can still call HG HQ in Switzerland who can pass the message on. Methods like this could also be used for air early warning in valleys leading towards us but I'm finding positioning very difficult to work out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:I'd make a couple of points about Baloogan's plan: For the reasons Orc laid out the digging of an anti-tank ditch is a pointless diversion of effort from building better bunkers for our aircraft. If tanks get up to the plotted position of the AT ditch then they can deliver direct fire onto the runway and we've lost anyway. The purpose of the AT ditch is partly to stop tanks from rolling down the runway, yeah. But it's also to stop someone from pulling a Diamond Team 5 and blocking our runway with a truck. Or someone gatecrashing the fence and offloading a truckfull of pipe-hitters. If we wanna use Jersey barriers or hedgehogs or something instead, that's fine, too. FrangibleCover posted:Additionally I'd swap the positions of the Pantsirs and the Shilkas at the corners. Assuming a strike from the North this means that any PGM trying to get onto the runway area has to travel directly over one Pantsir and anything trying to hit the bunker complex has to travel directly over two. Anything trying to hit the runways or bunkers will be within the SA-22's engagement envelope (18.5km for the missiles and 1.85km for the guns). Similar story with the 23mm guns on the Shilka. FrangibleCover posted:Our surrounding geography is actually very good for the ground defensive. There are an extremely limited number of ways that serious numbers of troops can approach and they are all over bridges: None over the Bojana in the West, four over the Drin and its tributaries in the North, two mountain roads to the East that are useless for anything larger than a jeep and four over the Lumi Mat in the South. Most of these roads and bridges are near each other or share approach roads so we could cover all of these approaches using a handful of non-combatant locals with mobile phones to provide early detection of serious ground movements, they'd be outside the bubble of any phone jammers we buy and even if they can't call us they can still call HG HQ in Switzerland who can pass the message on. Methods like this could also be used for air early warning in valleys leading towards us but I'm finding positioning very difficult to work out. Phone and radio jammers are a good idea, as is a far-flung Observer Corps. It might be worth surreptitiously wiring those bridges to blow. Send in Oks and the most level-headed Zambians to keep an eye on her. If any hostile forces are about to cross it, blow it up. Alternatively, just drop a Paveway on it. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Feb 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Anything trying to hit the runways or bunkers will be within the SA-22's engagement envelope (18.5km for the missiles and 1.85km for the guns). Similar story with the 23mm guns on the Shilka. quote:But it's also to stop someone from pulling a Diamond Team 5 and blocking our runway with a truck. Or someone gatecrashing the fence and offloading a truckfull of pipe-hitters. quote:It might be worth surreptitiously wiring those bridges to blow. Send in Oks and the most level-headed Zambians to keep an eye on her. If any hostile forces are about to cross it, blow it up. Alternatively, just drop a Paveway on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Ackt-chu-ally... Considering that what we're doing is going to affect the civvies, maybe we should do the responsible local government thing and liaise with the town's leadership. They have a dog in the fight (  ) too, so in the long term, it would be beneficial to make sure they have input too. We do not want disaffected townspeople helping out the opposition or sabotaging us; we would very much like friendly townspeople lending us their local expertise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Big shoutout and huge thank you to whichever one of you magnificient bastards sent me this. I'll savor it during the next op. And at 13% ABV... whew. You can't have a Slaughter without some laughter!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:It's less about range and more about angles and engagement time. We all know that missiles in Command are more accurate from the front than the side and I think guns are too. If the weapon goes directly over the Pantsir we have the maximum possible amount of time to kill it, be that with missiles or guns. The Shilkas are a bit more of a hail mary option IMO. I put the SA-22s there for that reason. Right now, the most widely-proliferated strike threats are the 3DP Viggen and the 3DP MiG-27. Given that we have an I-HAWK and Sea Sparrow umbrella over Gjader, a Lo-Hi-Lo or a Hi-Hi-Hi attack using their A2G missiles or PGMs is suicidal. That leaves a low-level attack with bombs or rockets. Given that YugoImport is to our north, I figure a run down the northern valley at high speed is the most probably attack route for them to follow. It's in the blind spot of the Dutch frigates and something that low is gonna be a tough target for the I-HAWK. So I put the SA-22 where it can see straight down the valley to engage anyone trying to do that. On the subject of SAMs... What SAMs and AAA should we try to buy? Keeping in mind Yooper's constraints. Yooper posted:
Maybe we should give Colonel Dani a call?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
Oooh, new bakery for Mr Dani?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
The problem with SAM systems is I don't think there are systems that are particularly easy to operate. Older systems may be prolific but some even require you to manually plot intercepts. Newer systems may be easier to track and fire at a target but will be more expensive and harder to find. About the only easy-to-use system are MANPADS, which come with that altitude and range limitation we've encountered so often. Funny enough if our criteria is SAM systems that can be operated by Adosh, then we want systems newer than 1980. We should obtain MANPADS, actually. Don't put them over our base, instead use them to block low (valley) approaches miles out. No idea what system though. Milosh and Adosh should be able to operate these just fine. In terms of placement, don't spread our units all over the airfield, stack our air defence systems up. Those Pantsirs are excellent SHORAD and medium-range missiles, almost top-of-the-line really, but they're pointless if we aren't putting one next to the GroundMaster and one next to the high-value targets on the airfield. That especially goes for the far more ancient ZSU's, they have a tiny little range, so stick one next to the I-Hawk and one next to the GroundMaster just as an example. As for what to obtain? Two SA-19 (Tunguska/Grison) batteries should be readily available and cover SHORAD needs. The Pantsir batteries we have right now are upgrades of the Tunguska and are incredibly good, but the old SA-19 will do okay at engaging missiles if we manage to detect them early and covering the airfield itself in short-range SAM, and notably should be dirt cheap. Then get us a SA-11 (Buk/Gadfly) btn or another set of I-Hawks. They're about the same era as the Tunguska so again they should be similarly prolific. That will add to our ability in medium range air defense. Would rather have older I-Hawk models to stuff like the SA-6b Kub though. e: Quick note, the SA-17 upgrade to the Buk isn't worth it except for the version exclusive to Russia (and Romania in this timeline apparently). The range upgrade is not significant unless you have the modern Russian version, which we have no chance of getting. Also park those boats so that the Sea Sparrows cover inland. SA-19 and SA-11 should be all over the old soviet sphere, heck, the Indians operate the Tunguska. Finland, Syria, Ukraine, Algeria, Belarus, Egypt, etc all have Buks. I-Hawks might be even easier to find, they're all over Europe and the middle east. Best of all these systems all have commonality with the systems we're already using. We were sold our current Hawk battery for $24 million and our SA-22s for $25.2 million each. We aren't likely to find top-of-the-line SA-22s what with the Russians hating us and them being far too expensive, but I suspect if we dug we could rustle up an I-Hawk battery and two SA-19 systems, plus a nice collection of MANPADS. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Feb 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
What are the non-Western equivalents to Tunguska? I know that outside the US there are some pretty decent SHORAD systems. Gepard, possibly, or late-model Crotale/Roland. Or perhaps the Israelis have something...
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
bibliosabreur posted:What are the non-Western equivalents to Tunguska? I know that outside the US there are some pretty decent SHORAD systems. Gepard, possibly, or late-model Crotale/Roland. Or perhaps the Israelis have something... The Gerpard is guns only. Its replacement the Skyshield is pretty neat but very modern. The Type 95 SPAAA (PGZ95) has some missiles attached. So does the earlier version, the Type 92 Yitian. I feel Chinese poo poo is not what we want though. There is the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger, which I feel is kind of poo poo, because it does little that man-portable Stingers don't already do. The ADATS is an option I guess. It is longer ranged than the Tunguska at 5nm, if barely. The MIM-146A is the best missile of the bunch outside the Crotale NG, but it's a 90s system. The Crotale NG is fairly good. It has a range of a whopping 7nm with 75% pk missiles. It is however newer than most things. The earlier Crotales also have okay 5nm range, slightly better than the Tunguska. I don't recommend the 3000 with its 55% pk, but the 5000 is acceptable at 70%. The Roland 3 is the same range as the Tunguska, 4nm. I can't find anything to recommend it. The Tunguska is 4nm, the missiles have 70% pk, and it comes with guns attached, which is not found on the Western options. Israeli SAM systems are all fairly new. They use Hawks and Patriots in their older inventory. Overall I'd think about modern Crotales (1995) if they were cheap, same for older Crotales (1986) I guess. I'd take ADATS (1993) maybe, the manufacturer is Swiss so we may have an in, but there won't be many used systems on the market. The main reason I suggested Tunguskas is availability and that we get a free ZSU in the package, and the missiles are decent if slightly shorter-ranged. Keep in mind our Pantsirs are the best compared to all these options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
Some other possible systems: Osa-AKM - Decent range at 8nm, remarkably accurate missiles at 85% base Pk, prolific, ancient. A good option to support the missiles on the Pantsir, less range but more precision. No, I don't know why these are so much better than Crotale NG. The only one in the DB is Soviet/Russian but apparently the Poles got something to the tune of 64 of these and the earlier Osa-AK variant and upgraded 32 to AKM-P1 standard, presumably leaving some basic AKMs for us to nab. Thinking again this is actually worse than the RBS-70 as well as being more expensive to run and probably more expensive to buy. It can move quite quickly and I think it can even fire from the match, but the only thing we need it to keep up with is continental drift. Don't bother unless nothing else is available. Skyguard (Taiwanese or Greek) - Your Western Pantsir, except fixed. MIM-7M missiles with 75% base Pk at 14nm, 35mm Oerlikons as you would find on a Gepard for the close in work. A pretty old system and Greece is the country next door, these should be achieveable and I'm frankly stunned by how good they are. The ones with MIM-7Fs or with Aspides are also okay but not quite as good and the ones with Aspide 2000s or AHEAD rounds are probably too modern for us. In terms of MANPADS they're all terrible with about 3nm range. Equally, they're all cheap and reasonably easy to operate (except the British and Swedish ones which require optical tracking of targets). My pick would be the Igla for a mix between a great presumed price point and decent capability: 55% accuracy but it's a dual spectral seeker that's better against flares. Pop a bunch down in the approach valleys and even if the target isn't hit or killed they'll break defensive and crest the hilltop where the HAWK can get them. Another good option is the Swedish RBS 70 Mk.1, which was widely exported and is from the far-off year of 1976, but has a better range than any other man portable system we could reasonably buy at 5nm, 65% accuracy and is very difficult to counter due to its laser-homing guidance. A bit more of a challenge for Adosh but I'm sure he can keep a target centred in crosshairs admirably. FrangibleCover fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Feb 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
There's a great training tool out there we can use to get Adosh and his buddies trained up on old-school Soviet systems. There's a free online sim out there with the SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa (the system Colonel Dani used to down the F-117), SA-4 Ganef, SA-5 Gammon, SA-8 Gecko, and the ZSU-23 Shilka! https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/04/06/1289863/-Game-Review-SAM-Simulator https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/12/20/serious-sam-simulator/ https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home The SA-8 in particular is a promising SHORAD solution. 7nmi range with a 75% PK and an anti-missile capability. There's a Czech-surplus model we could probably get a hold of. https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataFacility?ID=1479 Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Feb 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
Given how apeshit Albania was wrt defending itself, would it be likely that some locals in Gjader were formerly doing ADA work for the Albanian army?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Given how apeshit Albania was wrt defending itself, would it be likely that some locals in Gjader were formerly doing ADA work for the Albanian army? Possibly, but then Albania's air defence forces were a total joke: http://countrystudies.us/albania/158.htm
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Skyguard (Taiwanese or Greek) - Your Western Pantsir, except fixed. MIM-7M missiles with 75% base Pk at 14nm, 35mm Oerlikons as you would find on a Gepard for the close in work. A pretty old system and Greece is the country next door, these should be achieveable and I'm frankly stunned by how good they are. The ones with MIM-7Fs or with Aspides are also okay but not quite as good and the ones with Aspide 2000s or AHEAD rounds are probably too modern for us. Holy poo poo those skyguards are good. We should definitely see about bribing the Greeks to give us a few, maybe in exchange for a favor? Out of the available MANPADs, the RBS 70 is probably the best bet. Good range  , good accuracy, and most importantly, it's Swedish
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't realize Skyguards were 1987, I thought they were much newer than that. The SA-8b Geckos look amazing though, considering their age.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
SA-8s, Tunguskas/Skyguards and RBS-70s look like they'll cover most of our needs. Doesn't YugoImport more or less own the Greek military at this point, which would make buying Greek stuff hard, though*? The Taiwanese Skyguards are probably a safer choice. Speaking of , why haven't we seen more Gripens? Aside from the fact that mirror matches are boring the Catbird's, as mentioned, more or less the perfect merc aircraft. The Gripen A is about 25 years old at this point and would be a serious competitor to the Bison.(I'm just curious, not saying that we should buy more Gripens. The last fighter version of the Viggen with the AMRAAM-Bs on the other hand..  )*Correction: it's ROMARM that hates us, not YugoImport. Not sure if they're that keen on selling us stuff but not as impossible as ROMARM. PenguinSalsa fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Feb 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
I will note that the Skyguard's guns are notably worse than the Tunguska/Pantsir ones. 25% PK against a whopping 50%, with the special AHEAD predicted airburst rounds achieving 30% on the 2009 Skyguard that we're not going to be allowed. On the other hand I think we should have two guns per battery from the Skyguard so they're just as good if we pretend that 25%+25%=50%. The Skyguard guns also have half the range of the Tunguska again but I don't see that making much difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Whatever we choose I say quantity over quality. If we put enough missiles in the air nothing can get through cause it'll be like a flak screen. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
 With 18 votes Chingola LLC has been retained. They are in the process of extracting from a Nestle-Nabisco conflict in Guatemala and will be transitioning to Gjader. The infantry assets will be in place with 10 days and the remaining heavier weapons shortly behind. The Albanians are rather confused and some, well, offended, that we didn't think they alone could handle it. They are a proud bunch. The Albanians have focused on acquiring Our next phase is acquiring SAM's and AAA. And this is where the bummer comes in. The proliferation of 3DP planes has created a massive and sudden demand for SAM systems. We've got four choices available to us in the short term. Each option is the same price, $50 million. Should we want less modern AAA please let me know, I'll see what the market is offering.  Pick ONE Yes, we could mix and match, but it's tradeoff time! Option #1 : Sky Bow I (2 Units)  http://cmano-db.com/facility/389/ https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataFacility?ID=389 Yes, the DB is for 6 units, we only get 2. Option #2 : Cactus (8 Units)  https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataFacility?ID=814 http://cmano-db.com/facility/814/ Option #3 : Skyguard (1 Platoon)  https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataFacility?ID=1094 http://cmano-db.com/facility/1094/ Second hand unit. Recovered and remanufactured after a gyro truck collided with the command unit and both burst into flames. May suffer some interesting "hiccups". But on the plus side it smells really yummy. Option #4 : Chaparral (6 Units)  http://cmano-db.com/facility/2231/ https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataFacility?ID=2231 Back to you Hired Goons!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Sky Bow
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Skyguard
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Yooper, please clarify for the Cactus and Chaparral--does "X units" refer to "X launchers" (meaning 4 placed units of Cactuses and 3 of Chaparral) or "X platoons" (8 placed units of Cactuses, 6 of Chaparral)? "Unit" means "launcher" in the Sky Bow, but it's a bit ambiguous with the comparison to "Platoon" in the Skyguard choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Yooper, please clarify for the Cactus and Chaparral--does "X units" refer to "X launchers" (meaning 4 placed units of Cactuses and 3 of Chaparral) or "X platoons" (8 placed units of Cactuses, 6 of Chaparral)? "Unit" means "launcher" in the Sky Bow, but it's a bit ambiguous with the comparison to "Platoon" in the Skyguard choice. In the case of the Cactus and Chaparrals it's how many physical vehicles we have. So 8 units translates to 4 "icons" in game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Skyguard because I want to see how terrible a surface-to-air Sparrow derivative can be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Sky Bow I have the distinct feeling that we would go "nah, gently caress it" if offered a mission where we would face a pair of sky bow launchers that where protected by Pantsirs. Unlike us, our opponents lack SDBs(I hope) and the ability to spam ARMs as easily. They will have to face these things with MiG-21s and the like which must be oodles of fun for the guys who are going in the first wave. Noshtane fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
So it's quantity or quality, eh?Wikipedia posted:The Sky Bow I (TK-1) (天弓一, Tien Kung I) is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system developed by the Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST) in Taiwan, ROC. Originally based on the aerodynamics of the MIM-23 Hawk missile, the original missile design resembled a scaled-up Raytheon AIM-54 Phoenix.[6] The TK-1 missile was subsequently redesigned and eventually became very similar in appearance to the US Patriot missile after the US government allowed Raytheon to transfer 85 percent of the MIM-104 Patriot missile technology.[6] There is no track-via-missile (TVM) homing capability as this technology was not included in the technology package licensed to Taiwan;[6] the TK-1 system operates in a similar manner to the US Standard SM2 missile, requiring an illuminating radar during the terminal phase. Significant similarities to the Patriot and SM-2 systems (Raytheon  ) is definitely points in favor, as is a 100km range @ 80% PK and built-in 300km RADAR set. Problem is, the missiles need the Illuminator set on a target for terminal guidance so knock that thing out (say, with one ALARM) and the whole thing is useless. We'd need to park a Pantsir on the Sky Bow's radar set to protect it from anti-radiation missiles.Wikipedia posted:The weapons system itself consists of two 35 mm (1.38 inch) revolver cannons with a rate of fire of 1,000 rounds per minute, a fire control system made up of a sensor unit and a detached command post. The Skyshield can also use up to two surface-to-air missile 8-cell modules for an expanded air defense capability. The Skyshield is designed for traditional anti-aircraft roles in addition to defense against missiles (see anti-ballistic missile). The Skyshield is a modern system but uh. This Greek one is just chucking ground-launched AIM-7 Sparrows at a target with 25km range @ 75% PK. Objectively worse than the Sky Bow, but comes with its own PD battery. Problem is the 35mm Oerlikon burst has only 25% PK at 1nm. Contrast the autocannons on the OG Tunguskas and the Shilkas and our own Pantsir with 50% PK at the same range and that Oerlikon is just bad Meanwhile the Cactus and the Chaparrals are both only 65% PK. Out of the two the Cactus is probably the better pick due to marginally better range and two more launchers. Our own Pantsirs which are as good as it gets for this role are sitting at 70% PK so it's not as bad as it sounds. If I had to pick a system for general use, man that Sky Bow will be so nice. 100km range, that's loving power projection, man. You can shoot from Helsinki over to northern Estonia. If I had to pick one to defend a base, knowing it's going to have anti-radiation missiles chucked at it, probably the Cactus. Less range, no power projection, but also much less vulnerable to ARMs. Plus, filling the sky with ineffectual SAMs is Ace Combat as hell. The Sky Bow really is the best on-paper option here and I have to hold myself back from trying to gently caress it but considering it's absolutely dependant on its RADAR set, well, that's just another thing we need to cover with SHORAD. We've been on the receiving end of that kind of threat before so I really hesitate to discount it. Remember the S-300 emplacement over Angola that we had to design whole missions around? Having a cheap Taiwanese knockoff Patriot is that kind of threat, but it's only one launcher with only four missiles. I'd say it comes down to usefulness vs vulnerability. Do we want base defense? Do we want filling the air over our base with a shitload of mediocre missiles? If so, get the Cactus. Do we want area denial? Do we want four lances of god that had their ability to hunt you down removed because it was too powerful? Noshtane posted:I have the distinct feeling that we would go "nah, gently caress it" if offered a mission where we would face a pair of sky bow launchers where protected by Pantsirs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Sky Bow
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
i think it says something that i spent that whole post trying to convince myself not to pick the skybow and still wound up picking the skybow
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Sky Bow
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
Sky bow We already have a bunch of short range(and altitude) air defence systems. If we rely on then then we'll have a bunch of enemy planes right in our nose saturating them from above 30k feet, instead we need to shoot the archer, not the arrows. The long range Sam gives us a huge area denial capability that we can also use offensively. The range is a huge deal for the enemy to have to deal with, which also allows us to do some nasty rear end tactics like kiting enemy planes deep into our non radiating skybow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Buy the Sky Bow - we could park it on the ridgeline south of Gjader and guard it with an SA-22 (relocate the SA-22 in the south?). While we're moving things, make sure the Argus gets put inside the mountain bunker ASAP. Our current systems are as follows: 1x ex-French GM 406 Ground Master radar Radar range: 275 nmi 1x ex-USMC M192 I-HAWK SAM Battery Unit composition: 6x towed launchers, 2x radar and TV vehicles, 2x radar vehicles Missiles per towed launcher: 3x ready missiles (6x launchers per battery for a total of 18 ready missiles - 42 total missiles counting reloads) Missile range: 22 nmi Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile Probability of Kill (PK): 75% Warhead: 74kg (19.6 damage points) Sensor range: AN/MPQ-61 search radar (45 nmi) and TV camera (80 nmi), other radars (40 nmi and 54 nmi) Capabilities: anti-ballistic missile? 2x ex-Russian SA-22 Greyhound/Pantsir SAM Platoons Unit composition: 2x vehicles per platoon Vehicles per platoon: 2x vehicles (4x vehicles total in our two platoons) Missiles per vehicle: 12x missiles Missile range: 10 nmi Missile Probability of Kill (PK): 70% Missile Warhead: 20kg frag (7 damage points) Missile Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile Guns per vehicle: twin 30mm cannons Gun range: 1 nmi vs. Air Gun Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile Gun Probability of Kill (PK): 50% Gun Warhead: 30mm HE shell (1 damage point) Rounds per burst: 50 rounds Sensor range: IR and TV cameras (100 nmi) and two radars (15 nmi and 30 nmi) 2x ex-Russian ZSU-23-4 Shilka platoons Unit composition: 2x vehicles per platoon Vehicles per platoon: 2x vehicles (4x vehicles total in our two platoons) Gun range: 0.8 nmi (air), 1 nmi (surface) Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile, Surface Vessel, Land Structure, Mobile Target Probability of Kill (PK): 50% vs. Air, 99% vs. Surface Warhead: 23mm shell (1 damage point) Rounds per burst: 50 rounds Radar range: 27 nmi (Gun Dish radar) 3x ex-Dutch Karel Doorman frigates, each with: Sensors SMART-S air search radar (80 nmi) LW.08 air search radar (180 nmi) STIR 180 radar (32 nmi) TV and IR cameras (100 nmi) 1x RIM-7M Sea Sparrow system in Mk 48 Mod 0 VLS Missiles per launcher: 14x missiles Missile range: 14 nmi Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile, Surface Vessel Probability of Kill (PK): 75% vs. Air targets Warhead: 39kg (5.6 damage points) Capabilities: anti-sea skimmer 1x 30mm Goalkeeper Gun range: 1 nmi (air), 1.5 nmi (surface) Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile, Surface Vessel Probability of Kill (PK): 70% vs. Air, 99% vs. Surface Warhead: APFDS 30mm shell (1 damage point) Rounds per burst: 240 rounds Capabilities: anti-war skimmer 1x 76mm/62 Mk100 gun Gun range: 1.5 nmi (air), 6 nmi (surface) Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile, Surface Vessel, Land Structure, Mobile Target Probability of Kill (PK): 4% vs. Air, 99% vs. Surface Warhead: 76mm shell (2 damage points) Rounds per burst: 4 Yooper posted:Option #1 : Sky Bow I (2 Units) Unit Composition: 2x launchers, 2x radar vehicles(?) Missiles per TEL: 4x ready missiles (8x ready missiles total per two-vehicle platoon) Missile range: 55 nmi Target types: Aircraft, Missiles Probability of Kill (PK): 80% Warhead: 90kg (31.5 damage points) Radar ranges: 120 and 160 nmi This would be an excellent supplement for the I-HAWK in the medium- to long-range envelope. If we lose one to an ARM or a cruise missile, we'll still have long-range SAMs. Would let us hit anyone before they can get in glide bomb range. Limited missile number means we could get saturated. BEST OPTION Yooper posted:Option #2 : Cactus (8 Units i.e. four two-launcher platoons) NOTE - this is just a South African version of the French Crotale. Unit Composition: 2x launchers and 1x radar vehicle per platoon (we would get four platoons) Missiles per launcher: 4x ready missiles per launcher (32x missiles total between eight launchers) Missile range: 7 nmi Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile Probability of Kill (PK): 65% Warhead: 15kg frag (5.25 damage points) Sensor range: TV camera (40 nmi), radars (10 nmi and 16 nmi) Having eight units is a nice perk. We'd be able to throw a ton of missiles into the air at nearby threats, but a ton of them would miss... and it can't kill most ARMs. No ability to engage ground targets. But we can shoot down (slow-moving) missiles and glide bombs. I'd say this is an overall better buy than the Skyguard, given that we get twice the shooters and no reliability issues. GOOD OPTION Yooper posted:Option #3 : Skyguard (1 Platoon) Unit Composition: 2x twin 35mm Oerlikon cannons, 2x MIM-7M Sparrow launchers with radars, 1x radar vehicle Missiles per launcher: 4x ready missiles (8x total in the platoon) Missile range: 14 nmi Missile Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile Missile Probability of Kill (PK): 75% Missile Warhead: 39kg (5.6 damage points) Guns per vehicle: twin 35mm Oerlikon Gun range: 1 nmi (air), 1.5 nmi (surface) Gun Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter, Missile, Surface Vessel, Land Structure, Mobile Target Gun Probability of Kill: 25% vs. Air, 99% vs. Surface Warhead: 35mm HE (1 damage point) Rounds per burst: 20 rounds Sensor range: TV camera (80 nmi), radar (14 nmi) In practical terms, the Skyguard is like parking another Dutch frigate right over our airbase. It would improve our medium-range and short-range air defenses. The Sparrows give us a nice bridge between the I-HAWK and the SA-22's missiles. The 35mm Oerlikons can also beef up our ground defenses a little, but their anti-air effectiveness is surprisingly bad. With malfunction, I'm not sure we can count on them. MAYBE Yooper posted:Option #4 : Chaparral (6 Units) - NOTE - this is basically just a land-bound Sidewinder Unit Composition: 2x vehicles per platoon (we would get three platoons) Missiles per launcher: 4x ready missiles (24x ready missiles total) Missile range: 4.5 nmi Target types: Aircraft, Helicopter Probability of Kill (PK): 65% Warhead: 1.25 kg (4.38 damage points) Senor range: optical sight (15 nmi) This is a hunk of junk. Inaccurate missiles. Fewer units than the Cactus. No anti-missile capability. No radars or TV cameras. PASS Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:The long range Sam gives us a huge area denial capability that we can also use offensively. That's honestly the Sky Bow's biggest selling point. Remember those SAM sites in Alaska? The ones that were locking us up almost as soon as we took off? We could do that with the Sky Bow. poo poo, with the area denial capability we can project an AA bubble over not just our airbase but also the relevant city. The distance between Toronto Intl. Airport and Downtown Toronto is only half the Sky Bow's range. Park it in Dulles Intl. Airport and both DC and Baltimore are in range. If there's a factory complex that needs defending then basing out of a nearby airport will take care of it. That's a selling point for the whole company tbh. Radio Free Kobold fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Sky Bow Basically the Chap is useless and the Cactus is a nice spam option but kind of the antithesis of what we're doing here. That leaves us with the Skyguard and the Sky Bow. Essentially they're both roughly equally good against pop up targets within 14nm so the question is whether you want two okayish AAA pieces or whether you want to be able to dominate the skies over a 30,000 square kilometer area. Add to that the random gyro-related-failure chance for the Skyguard and this isn't even a choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
CACTUS Because I like redundancies and point defense with these things have proven quite effective and I think long range munition spam is the greatest threat to our assets.
orcbuster fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Add to that the random gyro-related-failure chance for the Skyguard and this isn't even a choice. I think delicious gyros would be points in favour of the Skyguard, not points against.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 04:12
|
|