|
Radio Free Kobold posted:I think delicious gyros would be points in favour of the Skyguard, not points against. Maybe not if they're failed gyros 
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Going for Sky Bow if we want gyros maybe we can see if we can talk the Albanians to opening a Greek restaurant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
Sky Bow fer sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
Cactus
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Sky Bow Taiwanese food > gyros IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
Cactus, because we too are prickly and contain a large portion of water by volume.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
I'm going to go out on a limb and vote for the Chaparral. You might ask yourself, why would he do such a thing? Here's why: Sky Bow missiles have pretty good range at 55nm, but there are critical downsides. 1. We only get 2 sets of them. 2. The missiles have a *minimum* range of 2nm, which means if something comes in low over the mountains, it has a chance of getting within minimum range before we can even lock radar and fire. 3. They are SARH missiles, and we all know how bad SARH missiles are when planes can just duck below something and get out of LoS of the launcher. Cactus missiles have pretty short range at 7nm, which is only slightly better than the Chaparral, and the have a minimum range of 0.5nm, which is better but still not great. They also suffer from the same issue the Sky Bows do, which is they are also SARH missiles. Sparrows are trash, I think everyone agrees on that based on our use of the A2A version, and these aren't much better. They certainly outrange the Chaparral, but only by a little bit, and at the engagement point we'd likely place them at, the max range wont matter much. Their minimum range is 1nm, and they are again, SARH missiles. The Chaparrals on the other hand have all the advantages for what we're looking for. We get 6 of them, meaning we can cover all the approaches planes can come in low on (the I-HAWK and SA-22 are there to cover the high flyers), they have a minimum range of 0.2nm, which means we will almost never encounter a time where they can't shoot a target due to it flying too close, they are mounted on vehicles for rapid redeployment if needed. The main selling point is that, instead of crappy SARH missiles, these are IR missiles, which are harder to spoof and will continue on to target even if the launcher loses sight of the enemy plane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
Voting Cactus If skybow had more launchers e.t.c then maybe, but fukken SARH? At that kind of range? We fire off a volley only to have the hostiles duck behind a hill or some fuckin' russian turns on a jammer and whoops, all them missiles are useless and we can't fire anymore because there aren't any fuckin more missiles left, and that shiny expensive sam system turns into a sitting duck. I want that kind of range and hitting power but if we were facing it as a threat we would have its arse kicked in short order due to the known limitations. Our opponents aren't always gonna be stupid. Vote cactus. Vote lots of loving missiles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
Cactus Only 2*4 launch tubes on Skybow is a little too few IMO (though if we can later on beef up with a battery of 4-6 to round out, it'd be a great final stage for our defenses at Gjader), and we get more eurotrash, which is always a plus. The only slight worry I have is that we might get a few climate-related problems with them, as the system is optimised for use in deserts IIRC. On the other hand, we might eventually be able to upgrade these to Crotale-NG, which are pretty drat rad short-range SAMs that can also help the Pantsirs with point defense. Chunky Monkey posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and vote for the Chaparral. 0.5nm minimum range on the Cactus is practically irrelevant, simply spreading out the platoons makes it impossible to actually take advantage of it even in the once in a million case that something somehow manages to get within half a mile without getting shot at already. And at the ranges they engage, ducking below something to break radar lock will more likely than not involve slamming your plane into the ground. (Also, the SA-22s are specifically there for low altitude targets, not high. It's a SHORAD system through and through.) 8 Cactus is strictly better than 6 Chapparal in functionally any realistic scenario. Magni fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
To give everyone an idea of what our sensor and engagement ranges look like (figures in nautical miles). Radar Ranges  We have excellent long-range radar coverage, which is great! One, that gives us great situational awareness. Two, it makes us much harder to blind with ARMs. Three, it lets us use interceptors more effectively. If the Ground Master spots a target moving towards us at Mach 1, we still have 24 minutes before that target gets over our airbase. That's more than enough time to get our interceptors airborne and up to altitude. For what it's worth, another valuable thing about the Sky Bow is that it would give us a backup long-range land-based radar in the event we lost the Ground Master. Weapon Ranges  If we get the Sky Bow, we'll have a quite a solid layered IADS: 1. Long-Range - Sky Bow SAM (8x ready missiles, 55 nmi) and interceptors (e.g. 2x MiG-21 Bison, each with 2x 40 nmi AA-12 Adder-A and 2x 10 nmi AA-10 Archer) using GCI from the Ground Master and frigates. 8 SAMs, 8 AAMs 2. Medium-Range - I-HAWK SAM (18x ready missiles, 22 nmi) and Sea Sparrow (14x ready missiles, 14 nmi) 32 SAMs 3. Short-Range - SA-22 missiles (24x ready missiles, 10 nmi), 30mm cannons on SA-22 and Goalkeeper (1 nmi), Shilka (0.8 nmi) 24 SAMs, 11 cannon sites Remove the Sky Bow, and we have no long-range SAM coverage at all. The Cactus and Skyguard are nice (the Chapparal is an irredeemable piece of crap, sorry) - but neither of them add any new capabilities. We have a ton of short-range SAMs. We have no long-range ones. We've got some formidable interceptors...but we have to consider the possibility we won't be able to launch them (runway sabotage, mechanical failure, bad weather, etc.). And if that happens, we need another long-range weapon in our pocket. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 10:50
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:
Jack being drunk and passed out where we taxi
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
Switching to Sky Bow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
Sky Bow
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 11:16
|
|
|
How hard is it to reload a Sky Bow launcher? Is it a whole days job likely to be botched by unskilled goons and drunk Albanians? Or is it just to drop in a new pack of missiles and we'll be ready to launch within an hour of expending the previous load?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 11:56
|
|
|
Noshtane posted:How hard is it to reload a Sky Bow launcher? Is it a whole days job likely to be botched by unskilled goons and drunk Albanians? Or is it just to drop in a new pack of missiles and we'll be ready to launch within an hour of expending the previous load? For $50 million, I assume we're getting a bunch of ex-RoCAF guys to man the missile battery. Reload time for Sky Bow I is 10 minutes, assuming I read the DB entry right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Sky Bow
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Sky Bow, with the reservation A) The package we're getting comes with the radar set (we aren't just getting the missiles), and B) getting more launchers is a high procurement priority going forward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
sparkmaster posted:Sky Bow, with the reservation A) The package we're getting comes with the radar set (we aren't just getting the missiles), and B) getting more launchers is a high procurement priority going forward. Yeah, agreeing with this. I've done a little bit of limited testing and I like the layered approach the Sky Bow brings. As an added note I found the Sea Sparrows to be pretty useless against low level attackers when I had the Dutch in the nearby harbour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Weapon Ranges 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:For $50 million, I assume we're getting a bunch of ex-RoCAF guys to man the missile battery. 10 minutes is really hustling it, at least if it's anything like the Patriot. According to this video, certification to reload a Patriot requires you to unload and reload in less than 60 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRIlARqoCHA
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
I understand why people would vote for the Sky Bow, but the Cactus is probably the better bet. Long range doesn't necessarily help us because of the sheer amount of fighting going on around us: we might not know who's an enemy until they start moving against us, and trying to play it safe by forcing a big exclusion zone might force us to face a bunch of angry PMCs instead of one or two. We might also end up facing some silver bullet SEADs if they come after our base: in that case, it might be necessary to shut down the radar on our pricier stuff for a bit so it doesn't get whacked from range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
I like the Sky Bow here a lot. Long range sites like this give us nightmares in operations planning over pretty much everything else.Yooper posted:Should we want less modern AAA please let me know, I'll see what the market is offering. Hmm. I guess Tunguska batteries are about the same era, what about SA-8b? 1976 in Soviet service. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Going with that Sky Bow train. All aboard, baby!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
My objection to Sky Bow is that we'd only have 8 missiles and that's basically a Gripen and a half's worth of combat endurance. Our long range interception is in our planes. So I'm voting Choice 2: Cactus, because four groups of launchers means much more area defense at important points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
I vote Sky Bow for republican Chinese shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:I vote Sky Bow for republican Chinese shenanigans. Same, but mostly to pass off the Chinese cause we haven't hosed with them this theatre yet
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Don't they sort of need their ant air? Aren't they still under a ceaseless bombing campaign by the PLAAF?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Cactus It's a weird plant to name your SAM system after, so I'm supporting whoever made that decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Cactus Racists did. Sorry. Davin Valkri posted:My objection to Sky Bow is that we'd only have 8 missiles and that's basically a Gripen and a half's worth of combat endurance. Our long range interception is in our planes. So I'm voting Choice 2: Cactus, because four groups of launchers means much more area defense at important points. Cacti are a good pick but I reckon we'll get more than eight missiles out of the Sky Bow so long as enemy SEAD isn't too stiff. The Sky Bow can force enemy aircraft defensive and then as it starts to run out of missiles the scrambling fighters and I-HAWK might just be able to hold the line for the ten minutes needed for another eight shots, and at shortish range with oodles of spare energy and the flat terrain immediately around Gjader the Sky Bow is going to do some serious work. I'd need to do a bit of testing to see if it's actually practical though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Chunky Monkey posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and vote for the Chaparral. By the way, I wanted to address this. You know what else is SARH? Our I-HAWK is SARH, and so is our SA-22. SARH is the go-to standard for almost every SAM system. It doesn't have the same issues SARH a2a missiles have because you don't have to turn your radar around to dodge, or rather, you can't. Likewise, you can't fire and forget anyway, because your SAM has no capability to turn itself around and RTB regardless of the guidance system. That Buk that we planned for in Timisoara was SARH, and so were those Indian SAMs in Sofia, and so was that big bundle of SA-17s that we avoided in the Constanta mission. SARH is not really an issue for a SAM system, the only problem is it means that if you knock out the radars with ARMs, you knock out the SAM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
Modern high-end SAM systems solve that radar neutralization issue with a combination of datalinks and onboard terminal homing. It's kinda like what we see in CMANO with targeting SAMs off a different radar emplacement and the little radar cones our meteors have. Contrasting with smaller/older missiles, modern large missile systems like the Patriot, SM-2, S-300 and S-400 actually have enough radar and computing power on the missile itself to take care of terminal homing. So you can send an SM-2 off at the general direction of an aircraft and if it doesn't find the target it'll turn on its own radar set and run a search pattern. Even if you think you dodged the missile it'll turn around, try to reacquire you, and hunt you down.
Radio Free Kobold fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Option #3 : Skyguard (1 Platoon) I like the mix of guided missiles and AAA batteries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
 SkyBow - 19 Votes Cactus - 7 Votes Skyguard - 2 Votes Chaparall - 1 Lonely Sorry Vote  These guys look rough and tough but we'll see if 10 minute reload time is realistic. Half of the crew have arrived to prepare the facilities while the other half is accompanying the physical assets. Our IT folks assure me that the combat tracker system can translate french json from the GroundMaster and parse it into something the Skybow can use. We'll see.   The locals in Gjader have realized that all of this hiring, earthwork, and alcohol consumption can only mean one thing! Even our honey lipped PR and relations folks can't smooth them over. And, as all folks living next to a giant bunker want, they want in if we come under attack. Our runways pass right through their small town. A major source of employment for people under 16 is driving go-karts in front of our planes and clearing out the goats, chickens, and cows. To the residents of Gjader this is home. We are just temporary guests. Which means they won't leave and we have no authority to kick them out. Do we let them in? OR Lock them out? If we let them in it will take us longer to launch aircraft if we're attacked. If we lock them out there will be civilian casualties and the chance of a riot on our facility if/when we come under attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
Would it be possible to build bunkers that the townsfolk could use just so they don't all go to the big bunker?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Let them in the workers and peasants must organize to defeat the capitalist invaders! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Would it be possible to build bunkers that the townsfolk could use just so they don't all go to the big bunker? Unfortunately no. They don't want there own bunkers, they want the big bunker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Let them in, no reason to make even more enemies than we already have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Let them in, for reasons both humanitarian (no civilian casualties if we can loving help it!) and practical (we don't need a riot burning down our airbase).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Let them in We have 24 minutes warning time for hostiles approaching at mach 1 at the max range of our ground master, our Sky Bow and I-Hawk will also help to extend our launch window by forcing hostiles to go defensive and disrupting their attack runs. That gives us a fair amount of time to launch interceptors. We're also in Gjader for the long haul, it's imperative that we have the locals on our side since we're the reason they're facing this attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:20
|
|
