|
Voting Ivanov because Flankers are awesome and those Hinds could be pretty drat useful. Plus the MiG-29 and SU-24 are going to be decent, even if the other 8 fighters are horrible garbage.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
I thought the G stood for ground, it's primary operational envelope.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Yeah I like simplefish's plan, with the minor caveat of having a second escort. As for A2A loadout, if we have to choose between 2 Meteors and 4 IRIS-Ts then I'd have one plane with each loadout. In a perfect world I'd want each plane carrying 2 of each but that wasn't an option iirc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Semper Fi and I'll be back
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Dropping all my votes on the Mirage 2000s. We desperately need air-to-air capability and it brings a 40km BVR missile to the party. We have plenty of mud moving poo poo already, we need something to protect those assets.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Why do people keep saying the F-16DG has 9Ms? The page lists it has having the same P-4 Sidewinder as the Mirage F-1s.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Yooper posted:4 Years Later So, just wanting to help out anyone having trouble deciding how to vote. If you're unsure which aircraft would be best, you can look at which weapons are legal/illegal on each one. 20 nm translates to 37 km, so anything with a range of <37km is usable. I'm leaning towards Ivanov or Wild Willies but haven't made my mind up yet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2019 03:44
|
|
Choose One Supplier
|
Voting Level 1
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Back In the Saddle The ground strike is an unnecessary and unwise distraction.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
That went pretty well, but I think the tail-end of the mission did expose a real flaw in this plan. We really should have had some fighter cover based out of the south. Maybe the Lightnings? Might have saved a couple of the Cheetahs that way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:The F-7 (export J-7, which is in turn a MiG-21). There are versions with AIM-9Ps and PL-9s. The design has been exported so widely that I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturing was both easy and cheap, with optimized blueprints readily available (and therefore more reliable... or even cheaper). This is a pretty solid list, but I'd go so far as to say, anything that's readily available from 3rd rate (or lower) powers would be getting 3D Printed. In terms of what would be popular, the Mirage III, A-7 Corsair and any version of the Fitter (Su-17/20/22). There are some others that haven't been mentioned that I think would definitely show up, but I'm not so sure about the popularity of them, like the SEPECAT Jaguar, Mirage F-1, F-8 Crusader and MiG-23/27. edit: I have a suggestion I've been hesitant to make because it might make Yooper's life harder, but what about different airframes having different operational lives? For instance, on this last mission, what if the F-18s were only good for 1 mission, but the F-4s would have been good for 2? Might make procurement votes more interesting. Q_res fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2019 11:04
|
|
|
See, I think the trade-off of taking more capable planes that are only useful for a single op vs less capable stuff you can reuse is a compelling choice to make. The thing is though, if Yooper actually used my idea, he could actually do it both ways during different procurement cycles. I'm imagining something simple like each plane type having a stat like "Ops = 1" with the options being 1, 2 or 3. It could be a trade-off with different planes in a package having different lifespans. Maybe our J-7s would have been single-use, but the Cheetahs would have been good for 3 ops. Wouldn't have actually worked out really well for us in this case, but it could make things interesting. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear what I have in mind, whether or not he uses it. So I'm going to drop it, because I don't want this to come across like me trying to tell Yooper how to run poo poo in his thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
The discount is good until January 31.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
We definitely need to go with ISARM.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
My read on the options: Niger - There's a lot to like here, they're the underdog of the scenario. The problem is the possibility of the paychecks not coming can't be ignored. Nigeria - This is the most unpredictable situation to put ourselves in. Unlike Niger we probably don't need to worry about our employers going broke mid-deployment. That said, there's a distinctly non-zero chance of getting stabbed in the back by one of our warlords depending on how things go. Cameroon - I'd say this is easily the "safe" option, in terms of back stabbing and actually getting paid on time. On the other hand being good, corporate lap dogs doesn't sound like a ton of fun to me. My vote is for Niger
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
Yeah that's probably going to add atmosphere, if anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
I was going to say munitions, but yeah, basically what you said.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Honestly, I'd rather have it than not. At least try it out once.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2020 17:20
|
|