|
This is incredibly well done, great work Yooper! I do agree that weapons packages would be better; there's so many possible combinations of quantities as to introduce choice paralysis. Maybe try to have an option that's just "1:1 replace whatever you expended"? Put me in the pilot list as Meat. I'd caution against buying many Russian/soviet bloc aircraft if we're this in bed with Swedish hardware. There's not a lot of crossover in weapons compatibility between US-aligned and Russian-aligned weapons manufacturers and having a giant pile of stores for some planes while the rest are stuck with their guns (are we even tracking gun ammo?) isn't a good situation. I'd also say we should actually try to find a way to sell the SK60s and trade them in for "literally anything with a RWR" - they're so vulnerable that unless we get a bunch of missions that involve blowing up lone undefended hiluxes they might as well not even be in the inventory unless we want to start assuming a rate of attrition on their airframes that would wildly out-cost just sticking some extra paveways on the Gripens. We can probably mount the rockets on drat near anything. We should definitely not buy more rockets for them until we're sure we have a use for the things. As such I'd say that for new planes we should go F4s or nothing. These particular F4s might not get us any specific new capabilities but they're reliable bomb trucks and half the world has spare parts for them. Maybe we'll get lucky and these F4s can mount ARMs. Frogfeet are tempting but again, no munitions commonality. Definitely not flankers, they are way too expensive for what they'd add, which is not much. The various other light aircraft seem redundant between the Gripens and SK60s and so far we haven't had a "not enough planes in the air" issue. We should probably also keep some amount of money in reserve in case some weird mission comes up that requires a capability we don't have at all and we have to go buy some anti-shipping missiles or some other nonsense. Longer term, what about spending some of our money on a SAM system? I know aircraft are far flashier, but we can't always count on the Indians or whomever loaning us a missile battery. Ideally we'd get something capable of missile interception so it could do double-duty to protect the expensive AWACS that spends missions cowering behind the frontlines in case some Chinese fighter decides to lob a missile at it before our fighters can take it down. I'm not sure what's available in that regard (can NASAMS target missiles? can anything target AA missiles at all?) but it may be worth keeping in mind. --- Stuff I've done: All about planes (for procurement):
MEAT's Journey:
power crystals fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Oct 27, 2017 |
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
CMANODB apparently doesn't list maximum altitude? If the UAV can get above MANPADS altitude it'd be worth it, maybe. Otherwise at 100kt max they may be the only aircraft less likely to return than the SK60s. Given the high rate of failure on the F4s I'm not sure any of these aircraft (other than the UAVs) are worth our time. They're either mostly redundant or would necessitate two entirely separate sets of munitions. If we do go F4s, I vote at least one of the recons. It's a capability we don't have.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:I'm no good with numbers, so could someone run the probability of all (or even just half) our Phantoms being out of action per-mission if we bought all 8 F-4Es? I specify all 8 since basically that'd be the best case scenario in terms of availability. If we want to be pessimistic/conservative then we may also want to evaluate the probabilities for a 4-ship of F-4Es? I dunno, I could just be retarded. Assuming I didn't gently caress this up, Wolfram Alpha claims 1/625 for 4 of them being down (all 8 is incredibly unlucky at 1 in 390,625 which means it should happen on the first mission we use them on). And ok I'm sold on the UAVs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Thanks. That's... better than I was expecting. Could you also check the probability of half of 4 F-4Es being down (since I doubt we're going to shell out for all 8)? It's just 1/25 (1/5*1/5) for two disabled Phantoms no matter how many you start with. Number of possible tests doesn't matter because the results don't depend on each other. I think. I hated statistics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:# of phantoms of 8 down: % chance Huh. I think you're right because yeah, the more of them you have the more likely it should be that any one fails. This is why I hated stats  e: I think mine is for two specific Phantoms to be down rather than any two anywhere in the fleet. Which is useless. Go with the fine goon above me who knows enough more about math than I do to be correct ^ My vote for weapons is the existing proposal with halved AA missiles because what on earth are we going to be facing that requires 44 Meteors onhand? Can't we only even get half of that in the air simultaneously? power crystals fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Adding that I vote buy all 8 F4s along with my aforementioned vote for the halved AA missiles ordnance list. Even with my staggering inability to understand statistics they're still reliable enough to be worth it, and munitions commonality is big since sticking bombs or mavericks on them would free up the Gripens to do CAP. We can buy them AMRAAMs or sidewinders later. I'm also still voting "sell the SK60s" if that's a thing that's even possible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:My preferences are: Agreeing entirely with this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
A for American (ground voting isn't closed yet, right?) because we need a small number of competent dudes more than a larger number of mediocre ones. Bread And Circus for the mission. We don't need to expend AShMs on some freighters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yeah, we really shouldn't have bothered with that few phantoms or the frogfeet. Agreeing with all of this. Bacarruda posted:Buy mid- to late-block F-16s. They can carry HARMs (or can easily be modified to carry them). But not this. F-16s are too competent to be interesting. This entire outfit is based on plan Bs, get us some of those Polish Fitters or some other such nonsense if we wanna drop ARMs on some assholes. The more unreliable and single-role aircraft we have, the more goons we can potentially get into the air simultaneously, after all!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Absolutely the yak 38! What could possibly go wrong? Funding option A
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
I told you all we should sell those SK60s!Bacarruda posted:-The altitude shenanigans at the end cost us a Jf-17 kill. That was a missed opportunity. No, that was the second guns kill (hell yeah). Arguably it did lead to the loss of the other Gripen since I'm pretty sure the reason the reinforcing one wasn't firing was that it was way too low to get a lock. Let's just not tell Saab we lost a Gripen to a goddamned Fishbed. e: Also in the age of the internet/twitter I don't know how you hide the destruction of two freighters and a frigate. You just know one of those fishing boats is already posting the thing to Liveleak. power crystals fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:What nailed me btw? I'm on a phone so can't read the log. Was it a gun kill? R-60? A Python 3, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
No, as much as the idea of a pile of soviet bloc garbage appeals to me this is a terrible investement. Even assuming they all work there's no new capabilities. Can we maybe buy some surplus Mi-8s instead? Utility choppers would be nice and I bet those cost a lot less...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
How likely would our AWACS be to see the J20s before they murder it? Or is its radar just as unlikely to succeed as the Gripens'?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Yeah, but these aren't that good as fighters or as ground attack aircraft. I'd rather us not paying anything for mediocre aircraft right now. Maybe we can buy them to literally feed them to the J20s so they run out of ammo. That's how real militaries plan things, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I'm not going to make a scenario that requires us to fly against an unstoppable, undetectable, unkillable dragon. And here I was about to draft a plan involving using unarmed SK60s to draw them out so we could intercept them after they winchester. Best thing those SK60s would ever do Getting artillery fire or some other first strike onto Lhasa airbase sounds like a good way to both take out the J20s and utterly gently caress international relations in the area so I am 100% behind that idea. e: vvvv this would count! If we buy the museum castoffs, are those available after the next mission like the last purchase was? power crystals fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
If only we'd bought all the phantoms  So what loadouts can our new planes actually use? And at what stage of planning do we know how many phantoms are down?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:But the phantoms have a very slight chance of malfunction that can easily be amortized by buying more airframes, so clearly we need to buy fewer and weigh ourselves down with fighter bait! No see they're busted Vietnam-era planes that aren't of any value. Here's why we should buy some literal museum relics, Quinntan posted:Apparently our Phantoms can carry a pair of Mjolnirs designed for anti-runway ops. We should have bought more of these. See!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Also seriously, what the gently caress is with people freaking out about quality when we know that if they're good they're good and we've got actual numbers showing we'd be getting a ton of planes? People did it with the Phantoms, and now they're doing it with the museum pieces. (Don't get me wrong, if you wanted to say they're wildly obsolescent fuckbarges that can't carry anything modern enough to make them less valuable than chaff for the new stuff, I'd probably agree) Seriously though, don't let a gamble scare you off. Hey I just thought we could do better for that money (doubly so now that it turns out we're now leaving this theater). If we want sacrificial chaff we have the SK60s for that and they're significantly cheaper anyway; at $600k per you can get 33 of them for $20M. Or if that's the sale price and new is double that (I forget) that's still 16 vs 12 if we're perfectly lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Do we know how many of our Phantoms are actually operational? Or will we find out when we go to launch and the engine falls out?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Yooper posted:They're good to go. Yooper posted:Greece RF-4E http://cmano-db.com/aircraft/1528/ $5,500,000.00 Qty 2 20% chance at each mission that plane will not be flight worthy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
I guess I'm just confused by the meaning of "from then on" but that does seem like a reasonable explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I don't think you've accounted for us being able to run out of that airfield in Bhutan. We could stick the Su-25s there for the Lhasa strike. Nah, he mentions that but is afraid of them getting bombed while on the ground if they're up there. I am mildly concerned about a flank from the north/northeast into our tanker which would be an absolute disaster.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Our Su25s can mount the Vikhrs racks, right? I do like the idea of getting every single plane in the air, so if we can safely neutralize the SAMs (a giant if) it'd certainly be exciting to have those come in after the bombs and just tell them to blow up anything that looks interesting. Sending the light aircraft at the TLA position as a diversion sounds like a great idea regardless; worst case, we help get the volunteers there faster. Imagine the damage we could do had we bought eight phantoms 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
My heart says kill, because I'm sure some rear end in a top hat with a 25mm will shoot down the transport and ruin everything. But this is so absolutely insane that we need to try it anyway just because the success outcome will be utterly out of left field so gently caress it, let's do it live. Entebbe this fucker.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Adding my vote to Strict Parenting with Light Attackers
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Pfft, some GBU-12s would more than show those fishing trawlers who's boss.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
For future aircraft purchases I'd say our priorities should be, in order:
Personally I think Mirages are ugly (yeah I went there) but they'd probably help with a fair amount of the above. As an aside, let me say that thematically I love the idea of a mercenary outfit equipped with a weird mix of modern underused jets and upgraded 60s-80s tech tangling with modern air forces. It leads to some pretty neat "what if"s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:01
|
|
). More aircraft in that vein would be great - something that goes fast and can carry a ridiculous amount of ordnance. I saw someone suggest F111s earlier which would also be amazing, but if any still exist they'd probably require a shitload of maintenance cost. Swing-wings aren't cheap.
|
If we buy hornets it better be Es/Fs with the ridiculous ace combat loadout where it's what, 10 AMRAAMS + 2 sidewinders? And nothing else, ever. Sure they'd have an effective combat radius of "wherever the tanker is" but it'd be great! But yeah as much as they'd be great I think they'd be kinda too good. Egyptian Mirages would be an option, I wasn't aware they could mount ARMs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
I have no idea how we'd get these but they seem pretty nifty. I'm also totally okay with Tornados. Especially if we can somehow dig up an ECR or two.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
My point was more that an aircraft built domestically for one specific nation will likely be hard to get as they probably want to use theirs. Stuff exported all over the place would likely be a lot easier to find for sale somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:They're almost too good for us, to be honest. I kinda like the idea of us using whatever ragtag fleet we can throw together instead of just getting a bunch of pretty high end aircraft. I kinda like the idea of having the handful of high end fighters escorting weird old junk around, personally. Though I doubt we'd ever need more than the eight we started with if we can get enough ground strikers to free them up for CAP.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
VKing posted:Set the missions to disallow automatic refuelling and/or launch the tanker when the strike is on the return leg. Agreeing with this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
A fair amount of us probably have enough knowledge to figure this stuff out, I just usually don't bother because generally once I have time to look up purchases in that much detail one of those two beats me to it. So I'll just stick to grumbling about Phantoms until we find out what we lost and what's for sale.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Definitely proposals.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
To hell with the NYSE, we should set up sponsorship deals where we can sell gun cam footage. An air-to-air guns kill this side of 1991 would certainly be exciting in the youtube age...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
We have to be multiple theaters away from being able to afford any kind of meaningful warship. Seriously, we could outfit an entire air wing for less than it'd cost to buy the ship to put it on. As much as I want one, we should really wait. Also c'mon the ideal absurd boat purchase is a diesel-electric submarine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Think bigger. The USN is still retiring some 688s. I was thinking quieter. We're not gonna really ever challenge another navy head on so I'm not sure the advantages of a nuke would be that useful, but with how quiet a diesel-electric can be imagine how much more fun sinking that frigate and the two freighters would have been. Jimmy4400nav posted:The Absalom is a good ship, the Stanflex mission module is an awesome idea too. My only issue with a surface warship is what's gonna defend it? Our aircraft can only get so far from shore (without the aforementioned amphib battlegroup) so if someone decides to lob a few Silkworms at it we're kinda boned.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
That was fuckin' beautiful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Yooper, can you post the Losses and Expenditures sheet if you still have the end of scenario save? It won't tell us who did the killing, but it will tell us who got killed. I am really, really hoping at least one J-20 got nailed by the SK60 rocket strikes because that might be the most embarassing way to lose a high end fighter of all time. I am all in for Mirages. I'm less sold on the Flankers, so far our problems haven't included much of "not enough missiles for CAP" and those things are expensive to operate. I'd rather buy enough bomb trucks that the Gripens can all switch to CAP loadouts. With that much money though another tanker wouldn't be the worst idea. I also still want that SAM battery!!!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 12:31
|
|