|
I'm game! I'll be callsign Peanut
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
I like Jack , since we went with sleek euro trash for our gear, doubling down on that polished exterior seems like a good call.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
So would it be possible to have a mix of ATA and ATG assets on our Gripens for this mission? Having a duo or trio of planes could allow us to fly where we need to while keeping enough overhead to protect the cargo planes and AWACS and keeping us above the range of any MANPADS in the area. Thoughts?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:I don't see how we need more than 1 plane for the bombing run and more than 2 for escort duty. Looking into this, we might be overthinking some of this. If we can get one of our cheap ground attack planes to come in for a solid run on the bridge with rockets while having a pair of Gripens on overwatch with an AWACS we should be solid. The wildcard is how vulnerable our ground attacks will be to 70' era ground AA. Can they carry any kind of chaff or other counter measures>
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
One more question, are there any targets of opportunities in this mission apart from the bridge? Wasn't sure if the UN/India had any additional things they might want popped if we happened across them. If so do those have any bonuses attached to them?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
For those of us without the game is the an easily accessible way to see all the weapon specifics? The website is a tad sparse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
I support Plan Bacarudda
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Alrighty, I might now have a ton of time in this game or really any time at all playing it, but I do have time to look at Wikipedia entries and absorb knowledge for the future! While we won't know for sure what Jack might have dug up with those Hawks or what the Spanish might be interested in selling, I think we can make some reasonably well educated guesses based on whats been available. -Reasonably top of the line equipment from last generation. Our main two attack craft are the Gripen C and the 105B. The former is the baseline for the Gripen, a number of A variants from the initial production batch were upgraded to this variant, but Saab is already starting to roll out an E/F variant upgrade for the C/D (C is single seater, D is dual seater). We payed for quality here that's for certain, the Gripen is a well known 4th generation fighter and represents a plane known for a relatively low operational costs compared to other fighters while still offering a comparable platform. We're also using newer missiles (the Meteor entered service 2016 compared to 1991 for the AMRAM). The Saab 105 has been around since the 60's, its land attack variants haven't seen a ton of use but statistically should place similar to the Dragonfly. Taking that information we can probably extrapolate what might be available. If the Spanish are planning on liquidating a frigate to the private sector, than it will likely be a Santa Maria Class Frigate-. These puppies are being phased out by the Alvaro de Banzan class, and while they've received midlife upgrades, if the Spanish were to let go of some ships due to budget, it'll likely be these knock off Oliver Hazard Perry classes rather than the nice and newer native design. The Santa Maria will be capable of holding two seaborne helos (not sure if it would come with Seahawks), but won't have as much missile diversity as later ships due to a lack of Aegis and VLS systems (these ships will use the older Mark 13 launching system rather than the newer, sexier VLS system). Unless I woefully misjudge what the Spanish are willing to give up expect to possibly work with that class of ship, which will be speced to fire RIM-66's and Harpoons. We'll have some diversity for our helos though. For the Hawk Jack mentioned, it'll likely be the 128 BAE Systems Hawk These guys will be like newer sleeker versions of our 105s with some additional ATA possibilities, however the Saab is lighter and has a significantly better fuel economy and can carry a roughly similar ground attack payload to the Hawk. Really for COIN operations both are solid enough planes and can even be well suited for anti helo operations so either way having more of these kinds of planes in our back pockets will be good as they enable us to have more mission flexibility. In short, we might have a possible Oliver Hazard Perry and some decent ground attack planes coming into our inventory in the future. So it would behoove us to ask ourselves how we can best maximize the use of said equipment for the long term profit of our corporation. A frigate will open the door to possible anti-piracy operations which can be be a boon in this uncertain world, the Santa Maria class is a solid design for open sea and littoral operations, and with the right helo combination and our ground attacks modified for surface warfare, we can have a potent force at the ready. Keeping our Gripens alive is key too as they are a versatile craft that works well in conjunction with 5 of the 6 primary warfare areas* We also will want to expand our helo force at the earliest possibility. Ideally we should use a platform that will be capable of flying out t sea an flying over land as well. MH/SH 60's would be my primary recommendation though a number of offerings could be out there, *Mine warefare is an area we have little gear in place to counter. I also want to echo everyone by saying Yooper I love the effort placed in this LP so far, keep up the awesome work!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
While we wait for the mission, a random organizational effort port! SO YOU WANNA MAKE AN AIRWINGA squadron will be the most basic unit used to organize the aviation assets of a country/ organization. In general you will 12 to 24 planes in a squadron depending on your country and the mission of said squadron. In general a squadron can be composed of one type of aircraft, though some organizations (such as the US Marine Corp) will mix and match aircraft for their squadrons as they see fit. For example a USMC composite medium tilt-rotor squadron might compose of as much as 12 MV-22s, 6 AH-1s, 4 CH-53s, 3 UH-1s, and 6 AV-8s. In general though, sticking to the 12 to 24 rule of single types of aircraft is a good indicator to follow Each squadron itself will be broken up into flights. Flights can be anywhere from 3 to 6 aircraft, but in general a good rule of thumb is that each flight will be 4 aircraft (hence where you get those images of four man fighter formations flying around). Those flights are then subdivided into sections, which is usually popularly imagined as a two planes (a fighter and his wingman). For a fighter/attack squadron, this two man formation will represent the absolute basic minimum for any kind of strike warfare. Transportation, patrol and other types of squadrons with larger planes will follow a similar organizational pattern though in these a section could compose of a single plane. The squadron will slot into an air group or air wing depending on which country you are in. In general in each wing/group, you will have 2-4 squadrons as well as ground based assets used to support the mission of the wing/group. For example, lets look at the 3rd Wing of the USAF: • 3d Operations Group (Tail Code: AK) 3d Operations Support Squadron 90th Fighter Squadron (F-22A) 517th Airlift Squadron (C-12, C-17) 525th Fighter Squadron (F-22A) 962d Airborne Air Control Squadron (E-3) • 3d Maintenance Group • 3d Mission Support Group • 3d Medical Group • Wing Staff Agencies As one can see, there are several components of the wing. The first is that there is an operational and a support side. In many militaries, the support side is also considered a “squadron” or a “group” even if it remains ground side. Those assets will often be folded in the larger wing. The “operational” side is where you get the actual aircraft that will do their jobs. In this example you have two squadrons of F-22s, a squadron of C-12 and C-17 Transports and a Squadron of E-3 AWACS for command and control. The squadrons of a group can be as diverse as the 3rd, or they could be highly specialized (for example the 1st fighter wing is composed solely of F-22s). As our PMC builds up and expands its influence and builds its inventory, keeping in mind organizational doctrine and how the components of an airwing will operate is key. While we definitely aren’t as rigid as a traditional military, it pays to know how we keep all our ducks in a row and how we will build up our assets to meet the various challenges that might rise before us. So far, our “Wing” looks something like this: 1st Fighter Squadron: Total of 8 JAS 39C Gripen to make 2 flights of four planes each. 1st Ground Attack Squadron: 6 SK60B Saab 105's Close Air Support to make 2 flights of three planes each. 1st Air Control Squadron: 1 Saab S100B AEW&C 1st Airlift Squadron 1 Airbus CN235 Cargo Plane 1st Air Mobility Squadron 1 KC135 Airborne Refueling Looking at this wing, it looks to be a self-contained fighting force designed to basically be a one stop shop for all the mission assets needed to accomplish any mission in a theatre (the 18th Airwing the US has station in Japan is very similar to this, it has fighter, attack, air control, airlift and mobility squadrons in one wing). Normally, you would want 2 or 3 of the mobility and air control assets for redundancy and crew rotation purposes. Bringing our fighter and ground attack assets to 12 aircraft in each squadron would also add additional redundancy and capabilities, though for ground attack, that can be reduced to nine if we stick to three planes in each flight. Transport I’ll make a separate effort post since I’m not sure how that is handled in CMANO and how Yoopers is handling it. In general you want quite a few planes there so you minimize the number of flights to move crap. In conclusion, as we look to acquire more stuff for our awesome company, lets remember to see how things slot into the overall organizational framework of the company’s airwing and prioritize what is needed for operational successes. Yooper, how are our transport planes being used? Are we going to have missions in the future where we are airlifting stuff to people, or are our transports mainly for our own logistics? I noticed ground forces aren’t in CMANO so I wasn’t sure what we use most helos and transports for (attack helos for sea and sub warfare I can see and recon helos too).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:And there's the Jimmy we all know and love. Welcome back, hope the Navy's treating you... passably, at least. So far so good, 3 months of training down, another 1 to 2 years to go!  Yooper posted:At the moment we'll simulate any transport duties using a ferry mission. Otherwise it's an assumed logistics unit going on boring supply runs. Though we may take on missions that require moving, or evac'ing assets. Good to know! IF those are the kinds of missions we're expecting for the future that might tie into our logistical units, then sticking with medium transports might be the way for us to go. Team I can do some analysis if you all want if you want a run down of possible routes we can go for our logistics wing. In addition if we are interested in developing a maritime patrolling wing (for anti or pro piracy, long range scouting, anti-sub warfare, recon, etc) I can also work up an analysis on this as well, we have a ton of options here and having a rough idea of assets we could develop would be good to have. Quinntan posted:I know that the Indians are offering Hawks, but would it be possible to try and get some of their Jaguars instead? They'd be fairly fresh from a modernisation and would be a substantial upgrade on either Hawks or Sk60s in the air-to-ground role while also retaining some capability for defending themselves. The Jaguar is a fairly solid ground attack unit, if we want I can also track down some more information on that and comparable units. If Jack keeps pulling through we might want a range of units in our wish list for possible expansion and an idea of what we'd like (would we like 3-4 Jaguars, or 3ish F-111 Aardvarks or 1-2 Tornado's for example?). Psawhn posted:
Oh snap, that's good to know. Yooper, sorry to bug you, but are we going to want to develop a ground combat section as well at somepoint, or are we mostly sticking to air and sea? Jimmy4400nav fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Nuclear-tipped side launched torpedoes! If we wanted nuclear torpedoes then we should have gone with the Soviet Surplus brothers the US decommissioned all their Mark 45's years ago. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Maybe the AMX and the A-7 too? The AMX would be nice and with the Portuguese and Greeks retiring their Corsairs several years back I'm sure we can find those for the cheap if our suppliers Greece some palms in Europe. Really we have a lot of options in this field, so I think we should probably put together a wishlist on features we'd like for a ground attack. Going A-7 isn't bad, but thats 60's/Vietnam era tech and probably would't stand up to well to stuff today, the AMX has a more expensive fly away coast, but will be faster and have more gear. Then the Tornadoes have crazy speed and versatility, while the Jags can carry a pretty good payload.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:The A-7 started out in the '60s, aye, but they got upgraded fairly heavily. They'd have a significant payload and good tankbusting capability, what with their Mavericks. They'd also have Mjolnirs if we're looking at Greek ones. Good analysis, I'll admit Ground Attack Planes aren't something I'm as familiar with. If we are looking at all our options, could the Saab 37 Viggen, F-111 Aardvark or F-4 Phantom II be an option? I'm just looking at planes available in India or Europe and it seems like all 3 of those are readily available in Europe. *Edit* Good mission Yooper, it was helpful for someone who has no clue ho this game is played for you to slow down and explain the process of things. In some of the downtime in the future maybe some more fast-forwarding might be warranted, but I can;t think of too many critiques. Good work pilots, the Finbacks might be older planes, but any mission we can walk away with none of our assets destroyed and a happy customer is a good mission. Jimmy4400nav fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:In terms of what'd be available in 2019... maybe the F-4s? The US retired its F-111s long ago and I'd be frankly amazed if any of those aircraft ever make it out of the boneyard again. The Australians were the only foreign operators of the Aardvark and they dumped all of theirs in a landfill when they were retired. Realistically, even if they were available, they'd suffer the same disadvantages of the Tornado without the advanced capabilities that it offers. Good to know! So the F-4 would really be the only worthwhile onr of the 3 there. For anti-radar could we use them in a Wild Weasel style configuration or is that too risky? I saw that the Tornados also come in an EWar configuration in addition to their ground attack role. Could that be another point in their favor to try and aquire some? If we want Phantoms and Corsairs then the Greeks seem to have a good supply of both, i wonder if Jack could liquor some of their ministers up to get a good deal out of them for some surplus? For Ewar, it looks like thr USMC retired their Prowler fleet in 2016, if we could snag one or two of those planes would that help plug the capability gap you mentioned? Jusy trying to think ahead, I'd love for our company to have a long term goal of capabilities we need to fill and planes that could help fill it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:
I back this proposal. The F-4's are versatile enough that they give us a good number of options an they can carry enough ordinance to drop some serious warheads on foreheads if need be. Plus having extra cans of parts laying around will hep us keep them in the action. Watch the F-4 deliver much needed freedom around the world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Cathode Raymond posted:I'm leaning toward package B w/vehicles right now. Those BMP's will make the troops a lot more mobile and effective. Same, those armored assets make B attractive. Is there anyway we could get some Strykers or hell even some M113's with some armor for the Americas? If not I'm down for dropping a chunk of change for some backwoods Ruskkies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
I vote No on that Ukrainian deal. Lets see if we can't possibly get better gear for the future. Could Jack see if the Canadian have anything locked away in the tundra we could borrow, or could maybe the Indians see about parting with a few of their jets? They have a pretty diverse and NATO friendly arsenal along with some fun Warsaw Pact era stuff since they had their dammed neutrality. Yooper, I love the LP, the production efforts here really make it something special, please keep up the awesome work!  Also we need to tell our pilots that if they have a turkey shoot, they can be thrifty with their laser guided bombs and slowly pick away at targets, no need to atomize infantry platoons that have already been splatted!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
I also have an analysis on planes we might want to try and acquire based on this mission, note they are more low key, but I feel are just as, if not more critical to our long term success as a PMC Logistics I think this most recent mission demonstrated that more than anything, we need some more logistical assets for our budding mercenary air force as quickly as possible. Currently we are just rocking one KC135, it took about three of these kinds of planes to make this mission over the Bay of Bengal possible and we only got those two refuels from India thanks to bribes/favors. We cannot rely on that for the future. We should, when we can, prioritize getting some more KC135's or even some KC-130's (basically a supped up Hercules or even an IL-78. Pretty much the more aviation fueling assets we can get our hands on, the more mission possibilities open up for us in the future, be it either more legitimate hunter killer missions like this one, or possible eco-pirate raids I know a bunch of us are eager to get into in the Bering Sea. If we do the later then having extra capabilities to refuel our craft over sea and air will be critical, or if we stick to more legitimate operations, having more extended range is key. Maritime Patrol I know I harped on it the last time I posted, but I do think we have a niche to fill here and we will want to fill it ASAP. Maritime patrol covered a wide array of areas when it comes to aviation missions, but suffice to say it includes attacking warships, attacking subs, striking and targets and doing advance recon with radar and other mission packages. In addition, almost all MPAs will mount internal bays that can carry a number of heavy anti-ship missiles or torpedoes to accomplish their mission. A P-3 for example can carry almost 20,000 lbs of ordinance. I bring this all up because if we find ourselves out to sea more with missions like the Bay of Bengal mission, having assets like the P-3 or other craft would be immensely helpful as they can perform recon and also sink other shipping targets. In short, we can possibly get a plane that performs similarly to our scout plane, while at the same time it can enagage targets. If we find them, the Breguet-Atlantic the P-3 Orion or the C-295 all fit the bill for stuff we'd want out of a dedicated martime patrol plane. If we could digging a Nimrod out of storage would also be nice, but most of those have been scrapped. Alternatively, if we need, and its more feasible for our small ops, finding a pair of S-3 Vikings would give us a scaled down MPA capability on a strike fighter package. Transportation This hasn't really come into play yet, but currently we are using only one CN-235. Its not a bad transportation plane, but with a maximum payload of only 12,100 lbs, we have a plane with only 1/4 the capacity of a Hercules. Yooper mentioned that these kinds of planes might or might not have some kind of interface with the other LP, so we might want to keep in mind our logistical line with these planes. That and who knows if we ever need to rapidly transport more Meteors or other assorted weaponry to the front having more cargo planes would be nice to have, that or if we get more humanitarian aid runs, having a small fleet would be nice. If we can, lets look into getting some surplus C-160's. They have a payload similar to a Hercules, and most have been maintained until recently with a lot of European countries ditching these for the latest gizmo dreamed up in the Airbus laboratories. Baring that, getting some AN-12's could work too, or getting additional CN-235's. Or we could just find some spare C-130's in some boneyard and fix them up. There are drat near 3000 of the drat things made, and nearly 2/3rds of the planet either operate them or operated them at one point or another.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Tythas posted:Voting NO to the museum trash we should hit up the french and see if we can get some Dassault Rafales The Rafaels are good planes and if we can some that'd be peachy (especially since the Indians theoretically have a pipeline to them). Barring those the Mirage 2000 would be a good pick too. The Indians and Greeks both have them along with a number of other air forces and they have a number of good ground/air attack variants that have just recently gone through quality of life and operational upgrades. If we see some of these snagging a few might be good, it'd help round,out the Gripens if we can"t get more of those. Also holy snap, looks like Tibet is heating up! For destroying the airfield should we alpha strike with all our light attack planes and then follow up with Phantoms pasting the thing with heavy ordinance while the Gripens overwatch?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
As we prepare for our next fight, I feel like a proper de-brief on what we've fought and a brief on what we plan to fight is warranted. So without further ado, I give you... The Peanut Gallery Finback Alpha  In-Game Statistics Wikipedia Entry The Finback was developed in the 1960’s as a Chinese response to then recent developments by the Americans in the field of high altitude aircraft such as the Hustler, Thunderchief and U2. The design was largely based of technology and specifications from the Mig-21 which had been transferred over to China before the deterioration of relations between the PRC and the Soviet Union. Production of this plane though would not place until the late 70’s due various domestic issues in China (namely the Cultural Revolution) and the first of the Finbacks wouldn’t launch until 1980. Since its launch, the Finback has received a number of upgrades and iterations, with the latest models being developed as late as 2006. The J-8IE A represents the I generation (first generation) that was upgrade with an all-weather avionics package and changes to its structure to allow forImproved all-weather version control. In terms of weaponry to quote Wikipedia “With SL-7A fire-control radar (40 km range), twin-barrel Type 23-III 23 mm cannon, & up to 4 AAMs (or rockets/bombs)”. In game the J-8IE mounts only PL-7 Missles for ATA combat. The PL-7 its self is a Sinoized version of the French Magic missile, a 70’s era short range infrared targeted missile for short-ranged interception missions. The plane can also carry several combinations of bombs and 57mm/90mm rockets for ground offence. Assessment The Finback A is a 60’s era jet that was born too late into the 80’s, its avionics and weapons are fairly pitiful and unlike our Phantoms they don’t have the modularity to mount heavy packages for bombing. While we should never be over confident, so long as we keep this plane at arm’s length we should be fine. TYPE 53H JIANGHU-I  Wikipedia Entry Game Entry The Type 53 was born based off of designs and information reverse engineered from the Soviet Riga class frigate. Originally China had been licensed to build 4 of the Rigas by the Soviet Union, but following the Sino-Soviet split in the 60’s the Chinese began to reverse engineer their Soviet gear to make their own domestic products. The Type 53 (dubbed the Stag Hoof by NATO) was one of these products. Armed with 4 Generation 1 Silkworm Missiles, six twin 37mm cannons, two single 100mm cannons and some ASW rockets and depth charges, the ship was already considered to be of poor quality for its mission purpose by the time it rolled off the slipway in the 70’s. Poor foreign reception did little to help that when the Bangladeshi, Egyptian and Thai navies all heavily criticized the ship after receiving the export variant. Much like the Finback, the Type 53 has received a number of iterations and improvements over time. The latest being the H3 which entered service in the 1990’s. ASSESSMENT While saying we sunk a frigate sounds nice on paper, the reality is the Type 53 we sank was by and large hardly worth its weight in steel when it comes to combat. They are armed only with a handful of obsolete anti-shipping missiles and have no air-defense to speak of unless they are rocking some MANPADS below deck. The Chinese have by and large transferred many of their 70’s and 80’s era Type 53’s to their coast guard to use as cutters, which is honestly a fair assessment for this this ship, its an up gunned Coast Guard Cutter With a receiving radar that only has a range of 120 nm, its limited in scouting capabilities and with only a handful of decoys, it also is quite limited in defensive capabilities as well. Coupled with poor damage control, it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that we sunk one of these in just one shot. I suspect that the best kind of combat effectiveness for a ship like this would be to turn it loose in a dense area of the littorals where its 70nm ranged Silkworms could possibly reach a target and start to sink as much shipping as possible. For this ship to be able to project power at sea it needs air escort, and if you have enough planes to do that, you might as well just have them dropping the ordinance. J-7G FISHBED  Wikipedia Entry J-7G Variant Info In-Game Statistics If the Finback is a weird modified version of the Mig-21, then the Fishbed is a case of evolutionary divergence for the platform. As mentioned previously, the Chinese had been working on developing a licensed version of the Mig-21 when the Sino-Soviet Split occurred. In the spirit of reconciliation, Khrushchev had much of the 21’s technical data sent over to the Chinese, but in the end, some of it never quite arrived and the Chinese in turn did a lot of reverse engineering. Like other designs mentioned in this report, the Chinese made incremental, iterative improvements to the airframe, at first just to bring it up to Soviet standards (something which wasn’t achieved until the 1980’s), but then to make even greater leaps for the plane. Most changes came in terms of the avionics carried by the craft, but engineering changes allowed for greater speed/handling and better fuel efficiency. The J-7G in particular is a major leap as China was able to install a BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagement suite into the plan to allow it to better utilize native PL-8 missiles and helmet mounted systems. The plane also incorporates an Israeli developed EL/M-2032 fire control radar. Production of the Fishbed ceased in 2013, more than 50 years after the initial run in China. Modernized versions of the plane as well as the 2000’ iterations of the J-7G are quite plentiful and the parts are easy to find. The J-7E is a late 90’s production version of the plane that forwent longer ranged weapons for a delta wing design to allow for better speed and maneuverability. It uses the avionics of the AMX. Assessment Despite the fact that it is based on a 50 year old platform, the Fishbed is a surprisingly capable fighter and as demonstrated by its downing of Whiskey Delta 69, it is still capable of standing toe to toe with modern fighters, especially if engaged in a manner that best suits its design (high speed interception). The PL-8 is a nasty little short ranged missile that should be paid due diligence, proper counter measures and spoofing can help keep our planes safe, but if possible, just keep this foe at a fair distance away and plink them off one by one as they will lack the means for longer ranged interception. Also be aware that like the Finback, the Fishbed is capable of similar, limited ground attacked. IRL this plane can engage from a much further distance but it appears in game that it is limited to the 8nm for its missiles. JF-17 Thunder Block 1  Wikipedia Entry In-Game Statistics Developed and launched in the early to mid-2000’s as a joint venture between Pakistan and China, the JF-17 was designed from the ground up to be an exportable 4th generation fighter which sacrificed some engineering and avionics in exchange for an affordable price tag and a performance which could theoretically be similar to an F-16. However, the Thunder has less speed, payload capacity and range compared to the Falcon, but has a price ¼ that of a Falcon. Unlike the other Chinese fighters we’ve encountered, this bad boy rocks the PL-12, a BVR missile with a range of 50 nms. This would be the Sino response to our Meteor missiles. This makes this plane particularly more dangerous than most of the other chaff we’ve encountered. ASSESSMENT We got super loving lucky this engagement, it looks like the Thunder’s were being operated by Myanmar, and the pilots didn’t take advantage of the speed and range offered by their planes. Our IRIS missiles have only half the range of the PL-12, so Unicorn really earned his pay by threading the needle and taking down those two planes. Normally we’re we to engage these kinds of planes, expect more of what we could expect fighting a Falcon, a high speed, long ranged aircraft that could offer a tough, equal match to our Gripens. J-20 Mighty Dragon  Wikipedia In Game Stats The J-20 is China’s attempt to create a plane capable of matching the F-22/F-35 fifth generation stealth fighters. Development started in the late 90’s and the first plane was produced only in 2011 for testing purposes. The plane was reported to have been plagued with a number of software issues as well as performance and stability problems. Cost overrun also appears to have been an issue as well. However, in March 2017, the PLA confirmed that the J-20 had entered full service, with many online sources speculating that the number of planes at that time were around 10-20 craft. By 2019, the number of such planes operating in the world is unknown at this time given the governments tight control on information regarding the plane as well as the metronomic political situation in China presently. Assessment The J-20 is one of the most dangerous planes operating in the world at this time. With a stealthy and speed profile of an F-22 Raptor with a weapons lead-out to match, this plane was designed to do one thing, stealthily seize control of the skies. It mounts a number of improved PL Missiles with ranges of anywhere from 50 to 70 nautical miles and will have a built in radar and avionics suite that is more than a match for our Gripens. The saving grace is that since this plane is so new, there are only a handful of them presently in the world, so we can be reasonably sure that the ones we are hunting here are the only ones present. Sadly the advanced capabilities of these planes means that the massive number of Indian assets dedicated to killing them is well warranted and even with all present success are by no means guaranteed. Use extreme caution, as we won’t be able to outrun these planes. If detected, recommend massive, overwhelming fire to destroy. Jimmy4400nav fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Ah hell, why not, we have the rugged transport plane. designed for small airfields too.. Okay if we want to do this, here are some fun CN-235 Facts -It has room for 51 Passengers or 35 Paratroopers, so for non paratroopers probably room for 40 or so give or take. -Range of 2,350 nmi and a ceiling of 25,000 ft. -450 km/h (248 knots, 286 mph) -7.8 m/s (1,780 ft/min)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Stealing the planes sounded fun, but yeah, we really dont have the infrastructures in place for executing the mission. Kill is safer and hey who knows, if the Indians overrun the base they might still find J20s to salvage. For the kill, should we focus on the runway or the supplies? We had some discussion on that but it got a tad derailed. Bombing the runway sounds easy, but we need to really commit to it. Taking out softer targets sounds easier, but we really need to knock out most of the support to achive a mission success. Of the 2 what should we focus on?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
PHONE DOUBLE POST PLEASE IGNORE
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Strict Parenting with Light Attackers
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:The Rafale would be an all round upgrade on the Gripen. Lower RCS, better radar, more Meteors, more fuel. And a price tag to match that. Bacarruda posted:The Rafales are geared more towards standoff strike and air-to-air work and are better at it than our Gripens. They only got laser-guided bombs in 2007. Overall, their electronic warfare suite is better than the Gripens, so they'll fair better in hostile environments. Rafaels are nice, but there arnt that many on the world presently so they might cost us a pretty penny, but they would be a good addition. As I mentioned before, if we could somehow get our hands on some newer Mirage 2000's they could perform a similar mission profile and will have a lot of the latest toys on them. More Phantoms or somehow getting Tornados would be good for our ground attack capabilities. Light attack planes like the Hawk arnt bad if we need to replace our 60's with somthing actually good. Seconding the motion for Prowlers, having electronic warfare planes is s must in a modern war enviroment. In addition, they'll be packing a number of HARM missiles which rock at SEAD missions. Apart from tankers and other supportcraft, I also continue my stance that we will want some maritime patrol craft on the form of S-3 Vikings and/or P-3s orcsome other larger plane. Not only would this give us a mini-AWAC over the ocean it coild give us better anti pirate capabilities or long ranges tools to be sky pirates. We should also consider what kind of mid sized choppers we want to use since on land,they can move troops and at sea they'll be the main ASW tool for our ships. MH-60s would be a good choice, but there are some good Eurocoptor designs,too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Your hopes and dreams. Well technically the Russians payed 2.3 billion to build the ship, they gave it freely to the Indians, but charged around 1 billion to modernize it and the Indians bought snother billion worth of planes and other gear to use on it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
While I do love all the plane talk and planning, I think it does bear some caution since we won't know what we'll have access to until later and in addition we will want to acquire new planes based on what theater of operation we will be in. It wouldn't make sense to get a ton of SEAD or COIN planes if we're fighting in the open ocean or getting air superiority fighters if we're attacking ground. That out of the way yeah the Kfir is pretty awesome. If we're in a crunch we could see if the South Africans still have some Cheetah's laying around too, though our Gripens would be by and large better than those. For F-16's with the serial numbers filed off we could look at the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo from Taiwan. For ground attack, if we can't get Tornados or more Phantoms, SEPECAT Jaguars might not be a bad option to look at. For cheaper ground attack options looking into Corsairs or Intruders might not be a bad option, the Greeks, Turks and a few others used them until recently and with the Intruders too, if we get Prowlers as well we'll have some parts interchangeability among them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:There's also the consideration that she's already 30 years old before the rebuild. Then again, given that Vikrant lasted as long as she did... If we really wanted to get silly, we could see if India would be willing to part with with a WW2 carrier 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I have no idea how we'd get these but they seem pretty nifty. The F-CK-1C Hsiung Ying is basically an F-16 with the serial numbers filed off. The Taiwanese use them to pretty good effect. We could probably work a contract with them to get a few in exchange for our services, especially given our recent...er um, situations with the PRC we might find a sympathetic ear in Taipei. Of course that does beg the question of if we are willing to piss the PRC off even more than we already have and if Yooper gives us missions in that area. Also fifthing my original support/proposal for Tornadoes. For what we seem to be doing for our PMCs Tornado work fantastically for our mission slate/profile in terms of attack runs and CAS support. The fact they're still zippy planes gives them a nice advantage as well as the fact there should still be plebty of parts around. They're also NATO compatible which simplifies that logistical end,
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Bring the Tanker
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
I vote proposals! While I was disappointed in our choice last time around (I voted max phantom) I do think allowing us to get a tad...esoteric will do good for making the thread more interesting and challenging. Plus we have enough goons in here who play the game already and good who nerd out about planes that we can put together some fun options.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
On a totally random tangent, if and when we are finally able to start building up our own little fleet of ships, I just want to say we are getting into that game at a pretty good time. 2015-2020ish seems to be a prime time for a lot of countries to be retiring their late Cold War era frigates and destroyers so we'll likely find a pretty nice selection and spread of such ships on the market. We might not be able to afford a carrier, but there are still a ton of Amphibious Warfare Ships that are fairly modern and can be used as small helicopter carriers or can even launch Harriers if we can find some of those. Plus even the smallest ones can carry several hundred ground troops, which lets us create a mobile base for ourselves in the Phoenix Command offshoot!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:We need to coup a country first to give us a base of operations, then we can talk about fleet ops. Luckily we have quite a few options we could turn to without even needing the coup a country. We could always ask Kiribati if we can buy or lease an island. The Japanese got some primo land on Christmas Island to use as a spaceport and it cost them less than a million bucks a year. With global warming sinking most of Micronesia, I'm sure we could get an even better deal! If the Greeks are really firesaleing everything not nailed down in their country, we could maybe find an island for the cheap too, there are a lot of options to choose from and we'd have central locations! Plus then we'd be close to some of our suppliers!  In the Seychelles, you have Assumption Island which is currently being leased to the Indians to build a military base, Considering by the end of this contract we'll have some major brownie points with India, we could maybe see about using the facilities they are constructing there for our own usage or to get in on some rent sharing. We could also see about using an Island in the Maldives since India and the Maldives have good cooperative ventures Mauritius has a large number of islands we could use too, but the downside is they have a small issue with the US/UK using Diego Garcia so that would cause problems. We could always approach the government of Somaliland about a "mutually beneficial arraigement" to help keep them safe and keep their sea lines of communication open in exchange for being able to use the port of Berbera for any hypothetical navy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
pthighs posted:At some point we may want to get listed on the NYSE. Socotra isn't that bad of a choice, it has an airfield and a small port we could use. Depending on the political situation in Yemen in this crazy timeline we could probably score a deal to use the island as a base, likely with the proviso we support whichever factions in the civil war are still around by this time. The downside to this island is that monsoons render it partially inaccessible for about a quarter to a third of the year. power crystals posted: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... Luckily the ticker GOON isn't taken yet so we're solid. For YouTube we just need to take the raw footage, edit it to the exciting bits and get an enthusiastic twentysomthing year old to put his mug in the upper left corner and give live momentary about how badass and awesome it is. We'll make millions in ads along. Also another random thing to consider if/when we can start to have a navy. For missiles do we want to try and use Armature launchers, Box launchers or VLS. The first two are common in many mid Cold War frigates and destroyers and those ships are likley going to be cheaper, but they might not be as effective as more modern ships. Conversely the VLS systems are much more versitile, but they are more expensive and those ships that we might be able to aquire that also use this system are probably going to be few and far between. Obviously this will also all depend on the ships made available to us by Yoopers, but its one of those things we might want to keep in the back of our mind. *EDIT* I was bored and wrote this up too: For the purposes of our little mercenary company, the best kind of naval force we’ll want to look at will be the United States Navy, in particular its two forms of Amphibious Ready Groups and the Expeditionary Strike Group. An Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) at its core is just three large transportation ships that are capable of putting a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) anywhere on the world and supporting it for some of its combat operations. Now we won’t obviously be sending out 2,200 to 5,000 soldiers for quite a awhile, but the ability for a small number of ships to sustain a land based operation via resupply and airstrikes is absolutely critical, especially if we want to be a successful multifaceted mercenary company. We’ll need one amphibious combat ship (likely not one of the American big decks, but luckily there are a number of foreign options and smaller beasts) to carry our soldiers and a small number of helicopters for transportation as well as combat strikes. Obviously a ship like that will be quite expensive so I expect that we won’t acquire one for some time but we should be cognizant of the need for something that can move and sustain a couple hundred soldiers/support personal around the world. If we can, getting Harriers can be a boon here as they can give us an advanced airstrike option off a theoretical amphib (though if we get one it’ll probably require some retrofitting since jumpjets melt most decks that haven’t been reinforced).  In its final form, our fleet should be fairly similar to an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). Basically this is just an ARG that has several combat ships attached to it for defense and possible strike warfare options against land targets and surface warfare options against seaborne threats. An American ESG would for example have one cruiser, one destroyer, one frigate and a fast attack sub attached to it, though this is more of a hypothetical ideal. In reality it might just have the cruiser and one or two destroyers. In our case, it’ll be even simpler, we’ll have just one amphibious ship with whatever corvettes, frigates and destroyers we can scrounge as the escorts. Those ships will likely be the first building blocks of this fleet, so we can slowly build a force of one or two smaller ships with their aviation suites before getting to a bigger ship. This will give us a flexible force that can respond to a number of threats and situations around the world and give us a good profile to present clients with for force responses. In the end this will give us a number of missiles platforms for anti0air, anti-surface and strike warfare options as well as giving up a number of platforms to land quite a few helicopters and possible jumpjets on for additional force response. IF people want I can go more into what a Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser are theoretically supposed to do from a standpoint in fleet configuration. Surprisingly it’s not just a matter of sticking more guns and missile on boats. I can also go into the differences between the various modern amphibious ships as well. Since a lot of this is probably a ways off I can shelve it for later if you all prefer! Jimmy4400nav fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Apr 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There are thos unloved Mistral class ships, let's buy one. Ah the Mistral isn't a bad choice This ship can carry anywhere between 16 to 35 helicopters (obviously depending on the size and configuration of said helos) along with 450 troops for long term voyages (likely what we'll be on), 4 landing craft or two LCACs and about 540 main battle tanks or around 40 IFVs with an additional 15 to 17 main battle tanks. It also would have around 30 hospital beds, a generous cargo hold, a good sized chow hall and even a functional gym. It also has a range of about 10,000 nautical miles assuming you don't haul rear end with it 24/7 and coupled with its missile defense systems, it's surprisingly robust enough to stand on its own for defensive operations. The downside would be getting our hands on one of them. There are only 5 in the world, the French are using three of them and the Egyptians managed to get the two they were building for the Russians. We probably would have better luck getting one of the Egyptian ones depending on the worldwide political situation. These ships also cost more than half a billion dollars so even if we can somehow convince one of their countries to part with them, its not going to be cheap and we sadly won't be able to just Fulton one out of a dry dock. Since they are so new their host countries might just not be willing to part with one of them. For a more budget friendly modern option, we could always look at the South Korean Dokdo Class, the Indonesian Makassar Class, the Italian San-Giogio Class. For extra budget concerned shoppers, we could see about getting one of the Thai or Singapore refurbished Endurance Classes. The French also have the older Foudre Class which they sold to Brazil and Chile which might be more in our budget range. For extra comedy, we could see if New Zealand wants to offload its mechanically troubled Canterbury class which takes the cake for derpiest looking amhpib.  Dokdo Class  Makassar Class  San-Giorgio  Endurance Class  Foudre Class  Canterbury Class
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The Tarawa-class has been retired as of March 2015 and all remaining ships in real life are inactive and placed in the reserve, so they could conceivably be sold off by the 2020s. I was mostly looking at smaller Amphibs since the Tarawa, while retired, is still really expensive and honestly, pretty overkill for what we need. MrYenko posted:I love that the first proposal for ships is to buy a loving amphib group. Hey to be fair, I said get a frigate or destroyer first and work our way up. I was just posting ideas to give us inspiration. I also suggested plenty of nice island spots!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Just weld a lot of sheet metal on top of a supertanker, those are cheap, right? Depending on your size you are looking at anywhere from 42 million to 115 million, and that's just for the hulk, tack on another hundred or two hundred million to convert a ship to military specs, adding in radars, missile defenses, hull integrity, avionics facilities. At that point it'd probably be cheaper to jut get an older and/or ready build smaller amphib. Plus that means less weird coding for Yooper.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:This. Buying a big loving ships means we have no money for cool planes. power crystals posted: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. The Absalom is a good ship, the Stanflex mission module is an awesome idea too. And again, I feel I need to reiterate, I wasn't suggesting we by an amphib right away, I was saying for the distant future, as in when we have tons of money and can afford it and have an area we can base such a ship in and only after we've maybe bought a corvette or frigate or two to defend it. I was just brain storming for fun and people assumed I was talking short term. And people also started suggesting the largest and most eppensive options, I tired to show the cheaper ones (except the Dokdo, that poo poo is expensive). For cost though the Makassar is only about 45 million and needs only another 10 or 20 million million to fully equip and outfit with weapons and sensors, so IF we ever do consider an amphib, that'd be the ticket. It also has a crew of only 120 dudes so has minimal requirements. LostCosmonaut posted:Think bigger. The USN is still retiring some 688s. Sadly the USN has a "No Selling Nuclear Ships" policy, doubly so for SSNs. Plus those suckers are 2.1 Billion dollars a pop, we could afford a whole amphib group for that price
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:What if we Entebbed Norfolk A squad of two dozen rag tag commandos flying a mid-sized European transport into one of the most heavily guarded naval installations on the planets for the purpose of stealing a nuclear submarine from the most powerful nation on the planet...  ....Or we could see about getting a surplus Japanese or German sub, they've made a lot of decent Diesel-Electrics over the years and most have some capability to launch Harpoons as well as torpedoes. Though one sub can run anywhere from 120 to 400 million... Subs are expensive yo!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
yurtcradled posted:Awesome mission! If she did can we talent poach her from the Indians? Someone that awesome more than earned a spot in our fine organization. Also with that payout we'd better drat well get another tanker and some support aircraft, think of what extended range ops can afford us  In addition, it turns out that by 2019 the USAF is planning on retiring its E-8 Joint STARS. These bad boys basically act like an AWACS but specifically for ground based targets. If we can't get our hands on a Globalhawk or other drones we might want to see if we can get one of these. Or an Embraer-99 if we feel like using the smaller version. Like Added Space mentioned, we might want to avoid Asia for awhile, China seems fairly....cheesed at the moment. We have some happy people in New Delhi though, hopefully this will lead to use getting access to some primo stuff. Can't wait to see where we go next!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 06:49
|
|
