|
Can we check with our client that when they say escort, they only mean against AA, and not also making sure tanks don't roll over the airport while MSF is taxiing on the apron. Seems it'd be a juicy target. Is there any way to check possible loadout combinations, or does it just take the aircraft max payload and any mix and amount of valid weapons up to that limit? I vote for the boat and that it should be named Gay Viking hiven our PMC heritage. If we do get the frigate I'd prefer to be Captain Fish, but if that's not possible, please put me down as Hard Pink on the waiting pilot roster simplefish fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Apr 2, 2017 |
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
The Sandman posted:So what's everyone's plan for dealing with jerks on the ground with MANPADS launching on the cargo aircraft? I'm hoping Indian ground forces will have taken care of that, but that's why I said to check we aren't going to get yelled at if something happens on the ground. I am bummed we are attacking Tibet, but you guys did pick the best PMC and a great name, and mercenaries can't have soft spots, so on with the show simplefish fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for the clarification. So the available loadouts are the ones you posted with ranges above, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Allow me to present Plan P for your consideration: Launch 1x Gripen with AA Patrol loadout, followed immediately by AEW plane, from Banks, gain altitude towards Ayu Ensure area clear of airborne threats before India launches transports A2A Gripen goes ahead to partway along B Launch 2x Gripen with Paveway and Iris-T loadout, to be overhead when Indian transports depart Ayu AEW stays back under Indian SAM cover (I know they won't shoot first but sounds like they'll react if a hostile launches at us or our clients) Our 2 bomber Gripens stay with transports, A2A Gripen stays a fair distance ahead so it can drive off any threat that appears before it gets in range of our convoy A2A Gripen loiters above Perch (the airbase) until transports get close All 3 Grippens stay over Perch while MSF transports get in the air MSF transports to be escorted south ASAP by A2A Gripen who stays slightly behind and West. If the transports can be convinced to fly more Easterly, so as not to re-fly over the same terrain twice, we should do that As late as possible, the two bomber Gripens head off along C to their target (Carp). They should stay on Perch as long as they can (as fuel allows, leaving enough to complete the mission: with a reserve), so as to give the MSF transports as much time as possible to be close to home when we blow the bridge. >> if poo poo goes down while they're still on Perch, of course they should assist the convoy Bomber Gripens should be high and fast (but making sure they have enough fuel to cheese it after dropping). By high, I mean above likely SAM and AAA altitudes but still having good acciracy with our laser guided bomb, and ability to identify bridge as destroyed. >>One bomber Gripen should be a minute or two ahead of the other. The rear Gripen will react to Air threats while the front one bombs. If the first bomb run is unsuccessful, the second Gripen will also try, hence the couple of minutes gap. If not, save the bomb for another day. I know borders don't mean much any more, but once bridge is confirmed destroyed, both bomber Gripens are to run away very fast, along a route they didn't enter by. In essence they're running for the nearest borders but it's also in the direction away from Tibet so that's good too. Air to Air Gripen to head along F and then remain on station above Eel, as time allows, after MSF transports are safely on the ground at Ayu. It will react to any *imminent* threats but the policy for ALL Gripens should be to run under SAM cover first, turn and fight only if running isn't a viable option. All 3 Gripens meet at Eel then fly together back to Banks, again choosing to run rather than fight if they have to choose. Note: I'm still not clear on loadouts. We should pack the cheaper paveways. I'm guessing one doesn't need to lase the target while the other bombs or anything. I also don't understand when the loadout says "paveway, short range, heavy" vs "short range, light" etc. Questions for discussion: What's a good Air to air loadout? Do we have enough fuel (see mileage on Google map, bear in mind going fast and climbing fast use a lot more fuel)? I also have no idea about loiter radius etc Can we keep our Gripen radar on passive? According to Davin's Air Search Circles below we should have lots of warning How far back do we keep the AEW? And how close do we let enemy aircraft get before we turn it around? Bear in mind that if we expect enemy aircraft to launch and leave, the missile will have a long flight time after it launches where we can turn back - but if the AEW is far from friendly SAMs (not so here) or air support then the incoming fighter can run us down as it flies far faster simplefish fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Our AEW will provide plenty of warning; there's no need to preemptively launch all of our fighters at once. Our Grippens can cruise from one of the mission airports to the other in about 10 minutes, if I counted right in the scenario. I say launch a couple armed for A/A just before the first transport takes off and station them near Nyingchi. If more than a couple bogies appear, we scramble more. After the transports perform their missions, a 2 ship of Grippens with Paveways goes the the bridge and bombs from high altitude, using one bomb at a time until the bridge is confirmed destroyed, since the likely threats seem to be limited to low altitude SAMs. Yeah pretty much this is what I wrote but in more detail with a map
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Thanks, I thought about a second escort but we actively aren't expecting air interdiction. Still, I wouldn't argue too hard against one, unless it turned us from profit to loss or something drastic
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
The problem with the SK-60s is that they are exactly what MANPADS was designed to counter, and we expect to encounter those. They'll be worth their weight in gold though when we can send in the Gripens to knock out ADS first and we need to lay a shitload of HE on the target
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Ooh is Drunk Jack getting his mitts on Frogfoots and BAE Hawks? Me likey I also want to echo that the production efforts you're making are really making a huge difference Yooper, thanks for that --------------------------------------- I don't want to muddy the waters by changing plans after we've had two pretty solid ones and people are voting, but... What about a compromise? Some people said they would have preferred that my plan incorporated a second escort, like Bacarruda's does. I personally like his idea of a High CAP, but I prefer my strike part of the plan. In some ways, air patrol is what the bomber Gripens will be doing when they loiter serving rearguard and waiting for the MSF to return home, in my plan. But armed with heaters, they may not be the best at Air to Air. It's also what the Air-to-Air Gripen would be doing once the MSF transports have landed, around what I called Point Eel. So it's not like my plan lacks it in its entirety. But since people generally seem to want a 4th bird in the air with A2A loadout, as the reason for not liking my plan, and since my plan and Bacarruda's plans aren't wildly different - the main one being CAP - I think I have an idea. The compromise I'd suggest would be to add a 4th plane, with the longest range A2A that we can muster (seems like Meteors unless I'm mistaken) to serve as what Bac said for CAP, while running the rest of the planes (close escort of transports and strike part) to my plan. Now, I don't know if that will interest you, Bacarruda. Your plan is ahead so if you think the compromise would still not work as well as your original plan, you have zero reason to change. For reference, I went and counted: Plan Simplefish has 7 votes Plan Bacarruda has 14 votes I don't know what the deadline is for us getting a plan set in stone. Yooper, any thoughts on when you might run it? nothing to seehere posted:I don't think we'd have the range on the Gripens to fly there and back with both Meteors and IRIS: I'd just upgrade to 2x Meteors loadout only: they are modern missiles, two should easily be enough to enforce the corden. simplefish fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
I liked the length and detail, no issues with quality, felt I knew what was going on at all times so good commentary. Can't think of anything to change, good job!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I presume it was trying to figure out what exactly happened to the first two, I doubt that the finback has an advanced enough rwr for its pilots to figure out that they were getting locked up by Gripens. For all they knew the Indians were shooting at them with MiG-21s. We fired heatseekers, I'm not sure what the radar lock is for those but I'm guessing we don't need one to fire them I am also staying out of Procurement, except for giving a vote for boat I also think we should decide if we're going to have principles, and if so, what they are. I've seen a few posts about always taking the Eco angle, we could also be staunchly anti-rebel if any kind, pro-NATO or pro-UN, become COIN or anti-air specialists, or whatever else, or just go for the highest bidder. From a game angle, I like planning missions with whatever we're given, and the challenges that ensue. I am not so much in favour of people 'pre-running' missions as a test scenario, but I understand that many players will be thinking along the lines of '13.5cm rocket, great - but what does that actualy mean' since I doubt most players have the same knowledge of what our pilots would about what that sort of ordnance is capable of. Personally I think it's more fun to learn the hard way when our arsecheeks aren't on the line in reality, just in pixel space, but I know others will disagree with that stance and it's not one where I'd dig my heels in. I second the thing about no spoilers in the AAR image, but realistically I'm gonna watch either way. Finally, good job Bacarruda, that was a good mission with a very favourable outcome. Yooper, I'll try to make sure my next plan is in a format similar to his
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
Honestly I'd be happy to set the SK-60s on the shipping in the South, but we get paid more for destroying more up north and if the Grips kick in the door on the anti-air, I think we follow it up with those fat-rear end rockets into whatever we see. Is destroying the container ships - as civilian vessels with military reinforcements - a war crime and do we care if it is? Seconding on not using ASM due to penetration. In the Falklands war a helicopter shot a rocket at a submarine and it just punched straight through without detonating. I think it would be way worse here. E: yes don't sell our poo poo. If we have too many assets (and if Yooper lets us) we can send it round the other side of the world and bomb some dirt there at the same time
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
I will get a plan together later today I vote to go with the full Russia lot More gear, more men, means more options and more fun
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Basically I'm with Plan Bac. It's not *exactly* what I'd do but close enough and I don't want to split the vote, becsuse an alternative is the 0 freighters option and I'm well against that. For everyone else, please consider: Q: Should we have the AEW in the south? A: hell loving yes. Who identified the supply dump last run? Was it the AEW? BZZT! No, it was the Gripens. We're in the mountains, things hiding in valleys need us to get close. It's basic trigonometry. Q: Should we use anti-ship missiles? Absolutely. Not because paveways are weak, but because once we have AEW down there we can benefit from our range advantage, especially regarding freighter escorts. If anyone is thinking of radar as fuzzy green blips on a CRT monitor, we're way beyond that these days. We will easily ID a warship vs a container vessel. Personally I'd go 5 anti-ship and Meteor planes, with 1 of those AntiShip plane giving top cover and to act as a backup if we get a dud or a surprise extra escort I think 3 Grips would be enough to pacify the North, I'd maube put one on anti-radar in case they have radar-assisted AAA which will gently caress us up bigtime But don't misunderstand how quick Gripens should reload. It's something like 5 conscripts, a Lt, and a trucker rest stop gets it rearmed in 25mins. There are youtube videos of just this. So we shouldn't launch the SK-60s until everything is clear, and we have pretty much guaranteed it, even if it takes a couple of runs with a 3-ship strike group. Then we can just run them into the ground til we run out of daylight. WARNING I don't know what the range of our Burmese friends is, but once we shoot at ships, someone should do the sums on if they can interfere up north. Of course, we should do the 'Around The World' flight path to avoid angering them sooner thsn necessary. E: for some reason I thought Mavericks were anti-radar, not TV-guided. In any case we should load up with both versions of Mjolnir at some point because those look like real fucker-uppers simplefish fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Using paveways means massive extra fuel burn, means getting in closer, and means more threat to our tanker etc. Worth the money imo. We went Swedish to get the job done right, not get it maybe done cheap
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
I think we could hazard a guess that something the right sort size hanging out near a Chinese frigate would be our boy, but as I said, I'm backing Bac and he has covered that in points 6, 7 and 8 of his plan, so that's a bit of a moot point
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
All the GBUs hitting that 15% failure or whatever is bad luck but please let stuff like that slide in future. I don't mind failing hard if we have enough left to try building ourselves back up from the ashes
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Voting no on the museum buy. I was expecting a couple of helicopters really. I don't want to go crap and commie with our fleet. Sleek and Scandinavian, please. Failing that, I'm into slightly more unusual stuff like the Hawks, the SEPECAT Jaguar, Bucaneers, Soko J-22 (to show the Chinese anyone can have a J plane, also has LGBs) or G4M, Alphajets are surprisingly versatile, or anything French really. Hell, I'd take a FIAT. I know F-16s are a Smart Choice but we didn't pick the ANG. We didn't pick the Russians either. Obscure Eurojets are the way to go. You don't get to hear about them often l, or see what they can do, so it might be nice to take that angle in-game. In fact, if Jack could get his hands on a couple of Magisters, they come as 2-goon, V-tail, 50s light jets with ATGMs (designated AGM-22 bu the Americans). They're actually very variable missiles. Not sure the game has it but they came with HEAT, HE, Anti-ship and even bunker busting warheads
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Good job on the mission Yooper. It looked like a lot to juggle. I am sure you'll figure out next time about the...erm.. odd flying in the Bay (I think I saw Terrain Following was on at some point), but it does mean we got guns kills, which let's face it, are pretty much Max Profit to the Max. You've already replied about hard/soft target differentiation. As for fighting a stealth jet, this could be fun. I think stay within the bounds of higher power ground based radar wherever possible, be ready to book it, try to drag the stealth jet into our territory, try to run it out of fuel again or whatever if we catch sight of it. It's certainly a risk to us, but if we manage to shoot one down, it's a massive risk to the Chinese too. Whichever commander is in charge may lose his stomach for flying them if his political masters put the heat on him about losing their rarest, most expensive, most highly trained jet/pilot package. I think we should ask the Indians about a leave date (or read our contract if it has one). We aren't going to win against the entire PLAAF and if they swing the Navy into the bay, we start to look real trapped real fast
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:The AGM-22 is the SS.11, a MCLOS (manually commanded line of sight) (!) missile with a wire going from the missile to the launch aircraft. The pilot (or backseater, I would hope, in the Magister) has to manually guide the missile to the target while also flying the aircraft, he's basically flying two things at once. Trying to aim a missile like that while stationary is hard enough as is, but trying to do it from an aircraft while maneuvering to avoid ground fire... how are you going to hit anything like that? It did get a SACLOS upgrade. I have a soft spot for Magisters, and the anti-shipping variant could be nice and cheaper than our current AShMs if we... yeah ok I just have a soft spot for em!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Yeah, that guy was just taking a job to earn some holiday moonlighting cash to buy his kids half-decent Christmas presents
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Man the CMANO Alpha Jet doesn't get Mavericks, Sidewinders or Matra Magic IIs that I've seen listed elsewhere, otherwise they might be a nice little in-between jet On the other hand, the AMX seems like a Gripen analogue with a diverse loadout, if we can't get another to replace our lost one
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
quote="Quinntan" post="471191930"] The AMX is not a Gripen, it's more akin to the Frogfoot out of all the aircraft we currently operate, being a specialised ground attack platform. [/quote] I meant in terms of size. I wasn't clear though, with this mission my head is only looking at ground attack stuff. You're right, they come with very poor air-to-air options.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
I think we should ask the Indians. I didn't sign up to not do crazy poo poo like this. If the thread doesn't have "the big ones", as Rohan out it, to try, then we can think a little more realistically. I mean, I do believe as long as we can knock out the runway for, well I don't know when the airfield is planned to be overrun, hours? Days? Anyway, stopping stuff landing there is about all we need to do and that's just a few big ol craters of work. In the bad old days you could fill them with gravel, but I don't think any of the Chinese strike fighters are rough-field capable in that way. The arms and fuel won't be much use without plaaanes to load them onto. Plus more facilities left intact means less repair and a quicker return to action once in Volunteer hands. About catching planes on the ground: I strongly doubt we can. What hasn't launched at the Indians will launch at us (or away from us) while we're on the way there. We should still keep hidden as much as we can en route, if only to stop the ones heading for the diversion from turning back to get us too soon. I know they aren't planning to launch their strike on our base until they have gained permissive airspace from destroying the Indians, but think about what we would do with our skyeye if we say a strike flight inbound. I don't think we'd just padlock the hangar and for the best But again, if we take out the runway, and stop them taking off on a retaliatory strike, it's still a win in ny book. Now the problem is: what if some of our munitions are duds, or miss? The whole appeal of only going for the ADS and then a few craters is the few planes we would need, meaning we can go fast. But few planes increases risk in other areas. So then we would have to send pretty much everything we have. Because if we're slowing down for one Hawk, we might as well slow down for the whole lot. My personal choices of mission would be: 1) land a drat transport (or paratroopers also acceptable) of Volunteers, just because it's bonkers 2) Barely A Pass: do what we need to to kill the ADS, then hit both runways as hard as is possible in a single pass, have some CAP, you know the drill by now 3) TORA TORA TORA: send. loving. everything. (E: looking above at what Bac said, I don't know the altitude limits, i.e. what the lowest point on our journey to the airfield will be, and if our planes can fly above that with the bombs we want) Yooper, could we, in voting for missions, do two-stage voting, where we all field ideas, vote on a shortlist, settle on one, then individuals can go off and plan the mission in detail? simplefish fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Entebbe The Dragon If we go for this plan and someone flying didn't vote for it, and doesn't want to be flying in case they die on a ridiculous mission, I will offer to take the seat. After all, I apparently become a hostage anyway according to the poster! simplefish fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Popete posted:I imagine China, a country with the largest standing army will better defend an airfield containing their top of the line J-20s. This isn't the Ugandan national guard. There is no way we would be able to take that air field. I don't know man. They have issues moving land units around, we were told that last mission. They have the rogue general to deal with, the Indians to deal with, and if I remember correctly they're embroiled in another conflict elsewhere in this timeline. An airbase that they think is safe from land attack may not actually have that many people hanging around on sentry duty.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
I thought about 'Pose as a civvy plane in distress, maybe report being hijacked by the Tibetans that the Chinese don't like to get landing clearance' but then I remembered a whole 747 was shot down for less and scratched that off my list
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
The 747 was neutral too and wasn't asking to land at a military airbase about to launch a strike... We're going to have to take out the ADS then either land or drop in Indians. Probably land, for numbers. And yeah I don't know that it can be done in engine but hell, we gotta try
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Yooper posted:An Entebbe style operation is beyond the capabilities of this organization. For now. Really appreciate you looking into it and thanks for being willing to go with our craziness
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
I have to say I'm also feeling Strict Parenting With Light Attack
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
RTB and rearm for CAP, yeah get back in the air til we can declare threats gone and safe for everyone to land and start packing our suitcases.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
I am against anything swingwing because we will go bankrupt trying to keep them in the air (probably. I don't know about this game)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
I say keep the Hawks
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Shine on Jack you crazy diamond
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Voting AngerPeace Tempted by The Count but fighting for peace is like loving for virginity, and I love a bit of rumpy pumpy. Plus, y'know, Fish. It's in the name. I'll back whatever procurement plan has the most Eurotrash jets simplefish fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Growler is slang for vagina so I'm not voting for any proposal that has an EF-18, what a silly name for an aircraft. Prowlers are fine by me though I'm waiting for the shortlist before I vote on what we buy As for missions, I already said but I vote Angerpeace
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Hot drat
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Roll with Rohan
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
I will not be voting for anything with cluster munitions, just on flavour principle
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Gonna put up a plan later
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 06:44
|
|