|
Count me in on the Klaus and Petersen bandwagon. If there's any spots remaining I'd like my callsign to be Bandit. Now watch as I get shot down before I ever get a chance to do anything. 
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
The SK60 is kind of cute, to be honest. As for my vote, I say we throw our lot in with the Indians in Tibet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
The best war crimes are the one perpetrated by the last people you'd expect with the fanciest kit. It's like war crimes 101.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Good Dumplings posted:Also good luck resolution associates!!! I think we've found our head of marketing and public relations.  Although it took me longer than it should have for me to realise that it said "Hired Goons".  And let's have a Jack attack.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Alright, looks like I'm in with the mud movers (which is fine by me, the SK 60 is pretty  ). Assuming we get to go up to bat at some point, unfortunately I'm not very confident in my ability to pick out loadouts that don't suck, so I'm not going to weigh in there. I think the fighter jockeys should lead the planning since their mission (escorting the transports) is arguably the more important one.Some enterprising goon might want to mark down the various salient points (like the Indian Army exercise area) etc. In the meantime I'll look up '70s SAMs and MANPADS to see what we might be up against. Also I know nothing about either of these games, so I'm relying wholly on being a massive milsperg. e: I am an idiot the SK60B doesn't have much in the way of loadout options, so I needn't have worried. 
Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:How do you think the 135mm rockets will do on the bridge? Sounds like we may want to send the Sk 60Bs to the bridge (running low and slow through the valleys) while the Gripens run with the cargo planes. 135mm is pretty hefty, so we should hopefully be fine on that count. I agree our best bet is to go low, though I'd argue we want to belt it so that enemy air defences have only a limited amount of time to acquire and engage us. However, we need to keep this in mind: quote:As we only have one airstrip we can only launch limited planes at a time. Please plan accordingly. So we can't surge aircraft willy-nilly. Also a casual look on Wikipedia (yes, I know) indicates that the SAMs/MANPADS we may possibly encounter (focusing only on the "'70s" caveat) are Kubs , Strela-2s, Chaparrals, Crotales, Rapiers, Blowpipe (lol) and Osas. I've excluded systems like the S-300 and Buk because it seems unlikely that random rebels would have access to sophisticated equipment like that. My list is predominantly Soviet because I imagine that most systems present will be Soviet in design. I've included some late 1960s vintage systems due to the vagueness of the intel. It's not much but it may be useful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
It may also be useful for us ("us" being the strike pilots) to try to figure out a good ingress and egress route that provides concealment from enemy anti-air. I agree with Enfield303 in that we'll probably only have one opportunity to take a crack at the bridge before everyone with a missile and a cocky attitude wakes up. Remember: speed is life!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The mission description specified MANPADs, so I think that puts vehicles like the Kubs and Chaparral out. More likely stuff like Grails or maybe old Redeyes. Yeah, somehow I got confused and thought everyone had SAMs (though it'd be a very well dressed insurgent that wears a Kub, I suppose). Because AAA was mentioned as a possibility, here's some hypothetical AAA we could see: M51 Skysweeper, Oerlikon 20mm, Oerlikon GDF (possibly with Skyguard radars), Type 63, or ZU-23-2. This is by no means an exhaustive list and excludes WW2 types!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
It may be worth noting that during the Vietnam War there were several examples of bridges getting pounded for days by iron bombs and rockets, while a single guided munition brought it down. However, Yooper did say that our rockets would be plenty big enough to damage/destroy the bridge. Also can we confirm if the SK60Bs do indeed lack warning receivers and countermeasures? If so then that means they can only fly in the most permissive of airspace, which is troubling.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted: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> From the sounds of it, our SK60Bs are turbo-hosed if anything more threatening than small arms fire targets them and the operators aren't incompetent. Although I might just be overly pessimistic about their chances in contested airspace.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
I'm going to chip in with the compliments - it's seriously impressive to me the amount of care and effort that's gone into this! Also going to support Bacarruda's plan. Although I'm slightly disappointed by the fact that none of our SK60s are coming out to play, the idea of (potentially) getting some new toys to play with helps soften the blow - particularly since the SK60s aren't the most well protected aircraft around.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
It was surprisingly tense watching a bunch of symbols dance around a screen. It's been an excellent effort on your part, Yooper - you're doing fine. I did like how you took the time to explain what each of the symbols etc. actually meant, since whenever I've seen CMANO in screenshot form it's been nigh-on unreadable. I'll agree with the guy earlier who said that the sounds from the game were rather loud (though I'd say the volume of your voice is okay). Combined with unfamiliarity, when I heard the take off sound effect I thought something had been shot down. One last critique - FOR YOOPER'S EYES ONLY: Is there any way to hide the "event fired" messages in the dialogue box during missions? I spotted them by accident, and although they didn't affect much here, in missions where you want to give us an unpleasant surprise it could cause problems. Perhaps consider non-indicative but memorable names for the events? If I had PMs I would've sent you one, but I figured it was more important to give you a heads up now while it's still minor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Quick rundown of what these actually are: I might be underselling the SK60B here, but I think that the Su-25 - except for maybe the most basic variants - would be a straight upgrade to our ground attack assets, particularly since as it stands the SK60B can only really do work in permissive airspace. Although xthetenth has a point about using the Gripens as makeshift SEAD, we may not always have the luxury of splitting our Gripens, in which case us SK60B drivers are poo poo out of luck. It may be worth noting that if memory serves the Su-25 can carry short range IR missiles for self defence. e: Also the Su-25 is designed to be operated from rugged areas with extremely low turnaround times, which also makes them attractive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Actually Bacarruda just reminded me of a downside relating to nabbing Su-25s - namely, as ex-Warsaw Pact birds they won't accept the munitions all of our other stuff does, complicating our supply chain and making it more expensive. We may want to seriously consider the F-4s as alternative mud movers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
The recon Phantoms seem like a kind of trash option considering we've got the Saab AEW&C plane and the potential to grab UAVs. Unless we're looking to build some redundancy. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
power crystals posted: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). 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)? As I said, I'd do it myself but I don't trust myself not to botch the calculation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Since we all seem to be piling on to the Phantom bandwagon pretty hard, I'd say don't buy all the Phantoms. We can't afford to blow too much of our cash at this stage! Yooper, if we sell our SK60Bs, will their pilots get auto-transferred to the Phantoms?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:goon aircraft carrier Only if we get a goon Carrier Battle Group to go with it. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
I'm a bit late here, but is our budget for purchasing things inclusive of our maintenance budget or not? Because if we'd need to only eat 10 year old cans of baked beans as a result of our purchases and we'd be scraping from contract to contract we should seriously consider cutting our buys significantly. And I wonder if it'd be possible to use shows of force to deter the ships from continuing? It might look bad if we're seen to be attacking an ostensibly unarmed ship, particularly since I wouldn't put it past the PRC to spin it as hardhearted mercs attacking a defenceless merchant vessel for nothing more than cash. That might make it more difficult to acquire contracts and equipment from Western nations in future.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Popete posted:I'm all in on the Frogfoots, they are awesome and could provide us with a crap ton of CAS capability especially for a mission like this. You know what? Sod it, put me down for this option too. The sheer diversity of the Frogfoot's armaments are hard to beat, and even the complication of the supply lines is arguably an advantage (i.e. proofing us against a supplier shutting us off). Triple A posted:I don't think we need more dedicated CAS crafts, we need multi-roles. Do you mind explaining your rationale?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
I'm Option Phantom Frog, it seems to provide a reasonable balance between capability and affordability.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
It's a shame about the Gripen; honestly if any of our birds were going to go down I thought it'd be the SK60Bs. But I have a feeling we were lucky as hell not to lose anyone else considering what happened post-shipping strike. And it's stating the obvious at this point, but I think we're not going to be welcome in China or Myanmar, either... chitoryu12 posted:Hey my SK60 didn't suck! I think Bandit and myself scored the most reliable rocket hits of any in the air on that mission. Obviously we're the sharpshooters among the CAS pilots.  Incidentally if we survive until we retire, we should form a soft rock band, possibly with other guys who flew the strike birds. Baloogan posted:https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/850724118228066304  Wow, I never expected that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Count me in as another dice roll guy. As for the museum planes, no thanks!Yooper posted:
There's something ironic about the Chinese planning to use their equivalent to the Durandal on us just after we lamented the loss of our own Durandals... We're going to need to be really on top of things this time around if we don't want to eat a lot of losses. I wonder if it'd be possible to bounce the bombers as they launch? Of course, that's highly optimistic (for one thing it relies on no-one receiving a SAM or MANPADS up the tailpipe, and I doubt the J-20s will take long to get within firing range once they hear us tearing into their bombers), but it does remove the immediate danger to us.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Our prime target at Lhasa will be the runways, in all probability. If those are knocked out or at least severely damaged, we'll have achieved our goal (disabling Lhasa) and things like aircraft on the ground etc. will be irrelevant if they can't take off. That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage other targets, just that our main effort should be aimed at the runways.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Your plan looks solid for the most part, Bacarruda, but I have to ask - why do you have your strike packages prioritising the aircraft rather than the runway when disabling Lhasa is our main objective? Is it because it's arguably going to be easier to disable the aircraft than the runway? e: Beaten by the edit?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
VKing posted:I did a quick test scenario and I couldn't really get it to work. But I don't have any idea how it works either, so These systems (usually ~4 stations in a system, confusingly) typically work by listening out for radio, radar, datalink, etc. emissions. Even the most sophisticated VLO aircraft on the planet can't remain entirely silent for the duration of a mission, and by sniffing out these electronic emissions you can learn a surprising amount about what they're doing, where they are, etc. and thereby deprive them of the element of surprise (which let's be honest is one of the big draws of stealth). They can operate independently, but are normally employed as part of an IADS. I'm pulling this half-remembered from that pdf on counter-stealth technologies and tactics Yooper was kind enough to post earlier, so take with a pinch of salt. e: I get the troubling feeling you were talking about how it works in CMANO rather than real life. Ignore me.
Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Be sure to watch the video of the plane coming in. Our pilots are gonna be crapping their pants. That just means that we're dumping unnecessary weight! This will clearly improve our range.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Like some of the other guys I'm torn. Ignoring whether it's viable or not: on the one hand Operation Mikadgoon (Goonkado?) would be the stuff of legends if we could pull it off, but it's ridiculously risky. Like "if we gently caress this up then we're probably done as a PMC" risky. If we do go through with it I feel like it'd be better to focus on flattening the main airbase and do any sort of commando raid on the back-up airfield since it's likely to be staffed by lower quality units than the main airbase (even if not by much). It might also be worth seriously considering bug out plans if we eat poo poo and fail to prevent the strike against our airbase from launching. That way we can salvage things if it all goes tits up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:The backup airfield is nearly 300km inside Tibet proper. It's an even worse target to try and land troops at. The TLA will take months to get there. This is what happens when you don't click links to airports. Never mind!In all seriousness though, I think it's worth at least considering where our aircraft could disperse to if we fail to knock out the airfield. Except not ones in enemy territory, obviously. Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
I've always thought that the laser seekers didn't look too well secured since they usually seem to be tilted at an angle, as if balanced precariously on the "neck". Though to be fair that's probably to allow the seeker head to gimbal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
To be honest I want to see us use more European platforms in general since they hardly ever get shown off. Though that isn't to say that I'm opposed to us getting more American hardware, either!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Excellent work, guys! We more than earned our pay today. The Indians had their pound of flesh too! Hopefully Jack will show up again soon, too... and hopefully not behind bars. PS: Paint "Dragon Slayers" on the side of our SK60s and/or whatever we replace them with. Clowning J-20s (even on the ground) in lovely light strike aircraft is worth commemorating. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Admittedly I'm speaking out of at least partial self-interest here, but it also doesn't feel particularly fair for some of us to be basically flying around in the line of fire being wholly reliant on things going off without a hitch whilst almost everyone else gets to have more than a hope and a prayer of surviving if we actually get shot at.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
I have to admit that I'm struggling to pick a proposal, though I'd definitely prefer something that leaves us with a comfortable financial margin in case it all goes tits up. As for the SK60B "Dragon Slayers", well, if we end up selling them off we should pass the nickname on to whatever CAS we replace them with. A sort of little tradition, y'know. Also Count me in for Angola! JcDent posted:I Was A Goone And Young  drat straight I'm no heroin smuggler! I'm not ashamed to admit that thanks to stuff like this I'm toying with writing some half-assed story about the SK60Bs hitting the airbase (or at least Survivor and I). It would probably be very subpar though. v v
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
A friend of mine suggested an idea to me that piqued my interest, but it kind of hinges on certain information. Hey, Yooper, is it possible to source replacement parts for our Phantoms to fix them permanently? How much would it cost? And if we sold our Frogfeet and Hawks, how much would we get? Before anyone makes assumptions, I'm personally of the opinion that they're not too bad for what they offer. e: Just to repeat my vote since now we seem to be on the actual voting stage: support the Count in Angola Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Thanks, Yooper. Okay, here's my buddy's suggestion: Proposal: Pennypincher The objective is to buy a minimum of aircraft and streamline our current hangar. Although logistics aren't something we need to fret too much about, it still simplifies mission planning. The overriding ideal is to spend as little money as possible to get up to spec but make sure it's the best we can get. Besides the Gripens, which we should keep 8 of, we only need max 4 of each aircraft; if it's so necessary to pull more for a mission we can afford to pull Gripens off whatever they're doing to achieve it. NOTE: Ideally this plan would sell the SK60Bs as well, but 1) we're going into the exact type of operation they were built for and 2) they've earned a place as the Dragon Slayers. Sell them but only after we pull out of Angola, and keep 2 for marketing/PR purposes. Paint them bright red and yellow with "DRAGON SLAYER "in big text along the fuselages and across the wingspan of the two we keep when we're done! BUY: 1x Gripen (70M) 4x Multi-role Tornado (120M) 2x F4-E (30M) 2x SA-22 (36M*1.2=43.2M) 1x EF-18 (95M) 1x VC-10 (23M) 18.8M to upgrade the Gripens and replacement parts for our F-4s. Total: 400M SELL: 2x Froggies (8.5M) 2x Hawks (~14M) Net cost: ~$378M I can't vouch for this proposal's soundness but to summarise it's basically a "budget" option. e: Yooper, is there any chance of ol' Willy wrangling some A-10s? Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Coffeehitler posted:
Yeah it's actually budgeted for the multi-role Tornados. Edited!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:A bit of a look at all procurement proposals that have been proffered so far, with their pluses and minuses in my eyes. Thanks for the summaries Quinntan, they've helped make everything less ambiguous. I'm curious by what you mean by a "decent number of Phantoms" with regard to my proposal; with replacement parts sourced for our extant Phantoms we would be able to reliably field a full flight of them with the purchase of the two other Phantoms. Or I suppose to rephrase: what counts as a reasonable number of Phantoms in your opinion?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I counted a reasonable number of Phantoms as four, and I was under the impression that they would be under the same 1/5 chance of not working as our current pair of Phantoms. Alright, I understand. Yooper, would the new Phantoms be subject to the same chance to fail as our previously bought Phantoms? If so, can we cough up the cash to ensure their proper functioning? How much would that set us back? I know I'm asking a lot of questions but I want to get this right.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Yooper posted:FYI : Our mercs, after the previous stellar mission, have decided to have a Thunderdome. Why? I'm not sure, maybe to decide who's the boss or who carries the M60? Apparently our ground component is slowly descending into madness.  I wonder if we could sell the rights to a reality TV show?And since third time's the charm - Count me in for Angola!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:15
|
|