|
This is awesome! I vote that we please the Senator from Ohio, and buy 'Murican from Broadstreet Ford, Lincoln, and Military. Looking into the future, the US platforms support a wider range of weaponry and spare parts for old F-16s are plentiful. Well worth the premium today, I think. Is there any way we could negotiate for some JDAMs now? While our expensive fair-weather friend the Paveway is nice for the occasional moving target on a clear day, GPS-guided bombs can be dropped on stationary targets from high altitude with accuracy, even on a cloudy day. I can see us bombing lots of mud huts in the future.
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Already voted on supplier upthread, but I would like to second the company name Hired Goons, and will gladly take callsign Pork Chop.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
With our strong AEW, I'd have preferred the fish sticks mission, but looks like we're going to be fighting over Tibet. In either case, I think we'd ought to support the NATO-approved side of the operation; both because the missions match our capabilities, but also because it keeps the nations that make our armaments happy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
I continue my NATO bias and recommend we hire the honorable Jack Abramoff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
How's the weather been? Cloudy or clear?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
That is fantastic! Anyway, I'm also voting for simplefish's Plan P.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
That was great! Video and audio were perfectly clear to me. Great job.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I'm pretty sure the yellow circle is the surface search range--the sensor package on our particular AEW is listed as "3D Air and Surface Search". This is correct--yellow is for surface targets. AFAIK, the range rings do not reflect terrain, such as mountains, however.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:Ah, yeah, it's been a few months since I've played. Does the range circle resize itself as you change altitude? I think it does resize. Weapon ranges certainly do. "U" unassigns a unit from whatever it's doing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:My preference is B or Phantoms Galore (my actual preference is a modified 6 plane buy of phantoms with nothing else except maybe two drones, but I really don't want to get into Fractal Type Hell). The phantoms become more useful the more we buy because a decent sortie size on demand becomes much more likely (8 tails buys 4+ working much more frequently than 4 tails buys 2 working, and 2 tails is basically a lottery ticket for all the good it does if you don't feel like flying one tail 32% of the time and not flying 4% of the time). I'm not sure we need all 8, but it fills a solid role for a reasonable price. They'd be useful this run, and if we need to actually send a strike package their speed is a big asset. Phantoms Galore, but ultimately I agree that 6 is better than 8, as it's just enough to guarantee we'll have a four-ship available most of the time. But following Yooper, I also think it's best to hash out numbers once we have agreed to a general plan. Otherwise we'll never reach a decision! I'm against the proposals for us to buy a bunch of different airframes--let's keep it simple! The F-4s are great multiroles, and will serve us well until we're big enough to need more specialized assets. Right now, I think our biggest gaps are ECM and SEAD; we should keep some cash in reserve until that capability becomes available. Tetraptous fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Can we get a little more info on these new guys? I'm certainly not opposed to starting our own land branch. Let's do it; then we'll have an excuse to buy helicopters for air assault missions!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
I'm voting for Plan Bread and Circus, in part because we're not lugging around those stupid anti-shipping missiles to take out some freighters! I also like the contingency for repeated CAS strikes, should the targets present themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yeah, we really shouldn't have bothered with that few phantoms or the frogfeet. I think two rounds of voting is fine for major decisions, where the top two conductors can modify their proposals and resubmit final versions for round two. But we have to make a decision sometime and can't waffle around debating the details forever. I agree that hexaphantom was the way to go, but the design-by-committee aspect of this thread is all the fun! It's like a microcosm of DoD procurement!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
That was great; good job Yooper! If we could pick up more Frogfeet, now that we have the stupid things, or Phantoms that would be for the best to keep our logistics simple and allow us to keep our aircraft grouped during operations. Clearly we need more precision weapons, and to dump those Sk60s as soon as possible. Not sure more 4.5th gen fighters would be a good buy for us at this point, given how expensive they are. We should hold off replacing our lost Gripen until we have more of a warchest; the new F-4s and Su-25s will allow us to free up more Gripens for a dedicated AAW role.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I am going to post the Planning Scenario later this evening. The completed scenarios will come out at the end of the theater of operations, once I have some time to polish them up. Sweet! It's very useful to check actual ranges, etc, in the "simulator."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Killing is obviously the right choice; that's why I'm voting Entebbe!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Ok, so a couple of notes about tanking. Phonepostin' so I can't check it now, but I'm pretty sure CMANO does accurately model probe and drogue vs flying boom refueling setups. However, I don't know if the KC-135 we can buy can be equipped with the conversion rig or not. If it can't, then we need to buy that VC-10, instead. We probably should buy it anyway because I think it can also receive fuel from our other tanker's drogue, which could be helpful for a long range operation. Likewise, we shouldn't buy any aircraft that refuel off a boom; i.e. ex-USAF. So no F-16s. I also think any good proposal should include the Prowler option. We need OECM badly. I'm also partial to buying the complete set of Greek Phantoms to complete our fleet while we can.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Working for an arbitrary dictator seems like a good way to get killed. Let's do Angola for Von Hoff, instead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Western Angola is the only part that matters.  I don't think it's a great idea to try and defend more than one airfield, so I vote we put everything in Lubago.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Rohanbis the finest aviatrix $5 can buy--it's a no brainer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
The ground forces are stretched to their limits--we need a decisive victory and soon--Capital Strike is the only option.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Red Handed: using the Kfirs to commit a false flag operation is already our "Plan B" for if we're detected. A murderous "no witnesses" approach just increases the risk that we'll be found out as the real culprits.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 18:49
|
|