|
Yooper posted:They're good to go. Yooper posted:Greece RF-4E http://cmano-db.com/aircraft/1528/ $5,500,000.00 Qty 2 20% chance at each mission that plane will not be flight worthy 
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
I believe what Yooper means is, much like the museum pieces would have been resolved prior to us trying to send them up in the air rather than us trying to fly one and finding out it had no engines while it's sitting on the runway, the Phantoms will have their operations roll made during the planning phase, not the execution phase, so we will know whether or not our Phantoms are flight-worthy each mission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
I guess I'm just confused by the meaning of "from then on" but that does seem like a reasonable explanation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I guess I'm just confused by the meaning of "from then on" but that does seem like a reasonable explanation. "From then on" would mean that if the Phantoms get off the ground for their first sortie of the day, and then come back and re-arm and sortie again in the same mission, they don't reroll for failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Yooper posted:If it's in the loadout we have access to it. Except for ridiculous crazy items like a nuclear target drone or something. Does this even legally count as an airport? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FNRoInsMqo
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Our planes only have to take off from it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Does this even legally count as an airport? It does in India! It has pavement and everything, what more could you ask for? In all seriousness, I've been on (civilian, single-engine) planes that have landed at shittier airstrips than that. just without the risk of going off a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:"From then on" would mean that if the Phantoms get off the ground for their first sortie of the day, and then come back and re-arm and sortie again in the same mission, they don't reroll for failure. Correct. I decided it would be "un-fun" to plan a mission and then realize at the last minute that half your strike force is down because of a bad random number streak. It's more fun to shake your first when some crazy buy goes south. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:If I was better with math and maps I would love to do a mini version of the Ploesti raid, with flights of 2-3 bombers coming in from different directions within a minute of each other. If I recall my Harpoon days correctly, the ultimate goal of a Soviet commander was to overwhelm a USN CVBG's defenses by striking it with Backfire-launch cruise missiles, Kirov-launched cruise missiles, Oscar-and-Sierra-SSGN-launched cruise missiles, and possibly also SSN-launched (wakehoming) torpedoes, all from multiple directions and multiple different points-of-origin, into a single unified Time-On-Target.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
NOTE: In order to hit the airfield in good order, we're going to need to pull off a very delicate refueling maneuver. With the Lhasa base 400km away and our fighters carrying loads that limit them to 440-500km range, we need to refuel the fighters on the way TO and FROM Lhasa. But in order for the strike to work, they have to take gas, wait for their flightmates to refuel and then all go in together. If we send them in one-by-one - all our fighters will die. ***************************************  Operation THOR'S HAMMER Here is the target:   Here's the target's facilities:  Here is the plan:  We've learned a couple of things. One, we don't have the firepower to destroy two runways/taxiways. Two, we can complete the mission by taking out Chinese aircraft and support facilities. This plan has four priorities: 1) Destroying the Chinese support facilities, 2) Destroying their aircraft on the ground, 3) Damaging the runways, 4) Clear out TLA forces so Indian Volunteers can rapidly take Lhasa. To accomplish this, here is my plan: In the main show, SEAD birds kick in the door with Mavericks and Mjolner Missiles and kill the Chinese SAMs and AAA. Two, the heavy strikers hit the runway, grounded Chinese aircraft, and facilities. CAP Gripens are overhead with Meteors ready to deal with the J-20s if they make an appearance. The tanker and the Eyrie play their normal supporting roles. The SK 60s and the Frogfoots cannot be sent of the main strike mission. For several reasons. 1) Range - the SK 60s have a ~500km range with rockets. The Su25s have a ~750km range. Lhasa is an 800km round trip. Even if we use the forward in Bhutan, we are asking to get them sniped while they're on the ground there. 2) Speed -- they are too slow to keep up with our force. The max speed of a Frogfoot is the same as the Cruising speed of our Phantoms. Our fighters can get in an out of the target quickly. Bringing Frogfoots means we either slow everyone down or we leave the Frogfoots playing catch-up. So, we create a sideshow for our light strike aircraft. We go after the TLA forces blocking the route to Lhasa. This accomplishes three things: 1) potentially distracts Chinese forces, 2) lets TLA forces get to Lhasa and possibly shut down the runway, 3) let's us make some money with aircraft that'd otherwise be sitting idle. In case poo poo hits the fan, we evac all non-essential personnel from Hired Goons HQ before the mission starts. As soon as the strikers are back at base, we use Quick Turnaround and we get them airborne with long-range air-to-air loadouts and have the orbit over our base, ready to intercept any incoming Chinese aircraft. ***************************************************** Yooper, here is the plan in a more detailed form. (NOTE: "5.1 and 5.2," etc. denotes events that should be happening relatively simultaneously) 1. Support Element (AEW&C and the KC-135 tanker) take off from Hired Goons HQ. 2.1. Tanker heads to Gas Station and orbits there. 2.2. AEW&C heads to AEW&C Point and orbits there. 3. SEAD Package (two Gripens), Strike Package (two Gripens, two Phantom IIs), CAP (three Gripens) launch. 4. Diversion Package (two Hawk 209s, two SU-25s, six SK 60s) launch. 5.1. SEAD and strikers head to the target -- before they cross the border, they go to the Gas Station and refuel. Only once everyone has refuelled do they continue on. 5.2. CAP Heads to CAP Two and orbits there -- if they see any J-16s, they are to immediately engage and destroy them. 5.3. Diversion package heads to TLA targets. 6. SEAD and Strikers drop to low-level, using terrain to mask their approach to the target. 7.1 SEAD Flight pops up for their attack run. They fire the Mjolners and then the Mavericks -- they focus on Chinese SAMs, AAA, and MANPADs, in that order. They do NOT overly Lhasa. Once run is complete, they RTB. 7.2 CAP Gripens hold at CAP 2 point and orbit there to cover the escape of the strikers. 8. Strikers hit targets. They fly at low-level until popping up for the attack run. The Phantoms focus on hitting the underground fuel tanks with 2000lb Paveways. The Gripens focus on hitting the above-ground tanks, and the parked aircraft. Once run is complete, they RTB. 9. Diversionary strikers hit targets. 10.1 SEAD and Strikers cross the border and link up with the tanker at the Gas Station. 10.2. CAP Gripens fall back to CAP 1 point and orbit there. 11. Diversionary strikers land and use Quick Turnaround to re-fuel, re-arm and launch for their second sortie. 12. Strikers and SEAD package land. Use Quick Turnaround to re-fuel and re-arm them with Meteor missiles. Have them join the CAP birds whent hey re-launch. 13. Diversionary Package land. Quick Turnaround to re-fuel and re-arm them with air-to-air loadouts and then have them head to a safer airbase. 14. Load up the transport (and if we need more space, the tanker) with any remaining people and kit and have them head for a safer airbase. 17. All aircraft land at our new airbase. ****************************************************************** AIRCRAFT CAP Aircraft and Loadout Three JAS 39 Gripens, each with: - Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles -Four Meteor air-to-air missiles -Drop tanks Mission Primary: Engage air targets to protect the strikers at all costs. SEAD Aircraft and Loadout Two JAS 39 Gripens, each with: -Two BK 90 Mjolner Mk 2 anti-armor cluster-dispensing missiles -Two RB 75 Maverick EO missiles -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: ID and destroy enemy radars, SAMs, and AAA Heavy Striker - Griffon Flight Aircraft and Loadout Two JAS 39 Gripens, each with: -Two BK 90 Mjolner Mk 2 cluster-dispensing missiles -Two RB 75 Maverick EO missiles -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: Destroy enemy aircraft on the ground Secondary: Destroy enemy support facilities -- focus on the fuel Heavy Striker - Phantom Flight Aircraft and Loadout Two F-4E Phantom IIs, each with Two GBU-12 2000lb laser-guided bombs -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AMRAAMS Mission Primary: Destroy underground fuel tanks Secondary: Destroy the runway Tertiary: Destroy enemy support facilities -- prioritize fuel Quaternary: Destroy parked enemy aircraft Diversion Aircraft and Loadout Six SK 60s, each with: -135 mm rockets (Yooper, can we get them to shoot these off when they are 1km away?) Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strikes as possible Two Su-25s, each with: -Eight RBK-250 PTAB cluster bombs -Two Aphid air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strikes as possible Two Hawk 209s, each with: OPTION 1: -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AIM-9Ls Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strikes as possible "Big Pig" Aircraft KC-135 Tanker Mission Primary: Orbit at the "Gas Station" -- refuel outgoing and incoming aircraft. Secondary: Dash north to rescue any aircraft critically low on fuel. "Eyeball" Aircraft One Saab S100B AEW&C Mission Primary: Orbit at the "AEW&C Point" -- Locate air targets and vector CAP onto targets. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
I don't think you've accounted for us being able to run out of that airfield in Bhutan. We could stick the Su-25s there for the Lhasa strike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I don't think you've accounted for us being able to run out of that airfield in Bhutan. We could stick the Su-25s there for the Lhasa strike. Nah, he mentions that but is afraid of them getting bombed while on the ground if they're up there. I am mildly concerned about a flank from the north/northeast into our tanker which would be an absolute disaster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:EDIT: checking the database, each bit of Tarmac has 300 Damage Points. That's 2 and a half Paveways apiece. Trying to blow up so many parking spaces that they can't find anywhere to place their J-20s is as much of a non-starter as trying to crater their runway too heavily to operate. Luckily, however, any damage to a facility that's hosting an aircraft has a chance to damage that aircraft -- whether it's an aircraft carrier's deck elevator or a hangar or a tarmac parking space. Yes, we should seriously consider telling our pilots to gun-strafe any J-20s they see on the ground.   I'll go over your plan for more feedback soon. But I have to point out first that our UAVs don''t even have the altitude to make it over the Himalayas. They're limited to 10,000 ft. Also, WoG says we don't have to face J-20s. A high altitude CAP would be worthless versus them, anyway. But we're probably going to see J-16s, and maybe some J-7s and J-8s, so our ROE should focus more on them. (The Su-25s basing out of Bhutan is already being discussed.) Psawhn fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I don't think you've accounted for us being able to run out of that airfield in Bhutan. We could stick the Su-25s there for the Lhasa strike. I have. It does (somewhat) solve the range issue that I mentioned in my post, althoug Psawhn posted:I'll go over your plan for more feedback soon. But I have to point out first that our UAVs don''t even have the altitude to make it over the Himalayas. They're limited to 10,000 ft. Good catch -- I'll delete them in the final draft of the plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
I think we still need to send the Frogfoots too Lhasa from Bhutan. If they get sniped on the ground  we are about to hit a huge payday. I think the Indians will have air defenses at the Bhutan airfield too cover our planes and it's worth getting the firepower the SU-25s have available in the fight to rack up our bonus cash and insure we destroy the airfield.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Good catch -- I'll delete them in the final draft of the plan. I discovered it by testing it out... then wondering why it was flying at negative 5,000 feet. Oh, also: we don't have any Mjolnir missiles. They're all glide bombs, which means we can't launch them to max range while we're on the deck. Edit: Yooper, our airbase at Lakhimpur has changed, and now it's nearly at capacity with only our Gripens, our Tanker, and our AWACS. The Frogfoots and Phantoms and SK 60s have to be based out of Bhutan. Is this a new logistical limit for this scenario? Or can we base more aircraft out of Lakhimpur if we wanted to? Edit #2: Yeah, checking the airport again... it's only supposed to be 1,266 m long, but you have it as 4,000 m long. Phantoms shouldn't be allowed to land at this airfield. Su-25s should have no problem. (Nor should our Gripens!) Edit #3: Now, that's an idea... we don't actually need tanker support this mission. Phantoms have the range to base from Lakhimpur, and we can base Gripens and Su-25s from Bhutan. I think I've got the core of an idea here. Psawhn fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Whats the capacity of Lakhimpur and Yongphulla Airport?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
That underground fuel tank is actually really tough. 4 GBU-24s (2000 lbs) is barely enough to guarantee a kill. It doesn't actually blow up immediately, but it burns down after only a couple minutes. Only 3 successful hits might kill it... depending on how good their fire brigade is. The specific ammo shelter in the scenario doesn't seem to be hardened. It can be taken out with only two 500 lb bombs. But if the Chinese smarten up and bury it too, we'll have to use the Su-25s to bring in a couple heavy weapons just for it. Bacarruda posted:Whats the capacity of Lakhimpur and Yongphulla Airport? At the moment, Lakhimpur has 7 large open parking spots. Each one can hold 1 very large (KC-145), 1 large (S 100B, Phantom II), 2 medium (Gripen, Frogfoot), or 4 small (SK 60B). Yongphulla has two very large open parking spots. We can squeeze in a surprisingly large number of planes -- 6 mediums per, or more than as many small planes as we have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:That underground fuel tank is actually really tough. 4 GBU-24s (2000 lbs) is barely enough to guarantee a kill. It doesn't actually blow up immediately, but it burns down after only a couple minutes. Only 3 successful hits might kill it... depending on how good their fire brigade is. The Chinese need four things to launch a strike on us. We should focus our efforts on destroying one of these things. 1. Fuel 2. Ammo 3. Runways 4. Aircraft From what people have said, the runway will be the hardest thing to kill, fuel the second, ammo the third, and aircraft the fourth. But ammo is also the easiest thing to harden, disperse, or hide -- so I'm unsure if we should make that the lynchpin of our attack. If we can't nail their aircraft on the ground, then I think we should focus on taking our their fuel. Cluster bombs will do a number on the above-ground tanks and we can have the Paveways pop the underground one. Psawhn posted:At the moment, Lakhimpur has 7 large open parking spots. Each one can hold 1 very large (KC-145), 1 large (S 100B, Phantom II), 2 medium (Gripen, Frogfoot), or 4 small (SK 60B). So something like this? Lakhimpur: KC-135, S100B AEW&C, 2x Phantom IIs, Yongphulla: 7x Gripen, 2x Frogfoots, 2x Hawks, and 4x SK60s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
I think we can count on the ineptitude of a Chinese Fire Drill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:The Chinese need four things to launch a strike on us. We should focus our efforts on destroying one of these things. Yeah, that's about the right order. The above-ground tanks are easy to hit, even a single 500 pound bomb will make the whole thing light up. I'm mulling over sticking Vikhrs on the Su-25s and letting them send one missile at each parking spot before de-assing the area. The results would probably be hilarious. quote:So something like this? Zaodai posted:I think we can count on the ineptitude of a Chinese Fire Drill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
It's a shame we can't put some napalm on our phantoms and just light the airbase on fire it would make things so much easier
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Bacarruda's plan looks sound. However I would priorities destroying aircraft over destroying the runway. Taking a runway out is in this case harder than the planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:I think we can count on the ineptitude of a Chinese Fire Drill. It might be worth having one of the light strikers fire off some ordnance in the general area to kill or chase off any firefighters. Yeah, it's a lovely thing to do. But if it stops the Chinese from getting gas for jets that can drop Durandals on our asses... Psawhn posted:Yeah, that's about the right order. The above-ground tanks are easy to hit, even a single 500 pound bomb will make the whole thing light up. At this point, it seems like the biggest issue we need to hammer out is loadouts and targets. Looking at the Bhutan airport and how little ordnance 4 Gripens and 2 Phantoms can carry...it looks like we're going to need the Frogfoots, Hawks, and the SK 60s. I think we should focus on the avgas stores as our main target, with the parked aircraft as our secondary target. Strike Phantoms: -Paveways --> underground gas tank Strike Gripens: -Mjolner Mk 2s--> parking spaces OR runways -Mavericks --> above-ground gas tanks Hawks: -Rockeye cluster bombs --> parking spaces SK 60s: -Rockets --> parking spaces I'm less sure about what to do with the Frogfoots. I'd either give them those ant-runways bombs, cluster bombs, or anti-tank missiles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Such a pity nobody wanted my planes, we have recently discovered a bunch of new toys in storage that would be very handy for this sort of mission!  Oh well!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Should've bought the Ukranian stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Wouldn't have had it for this mission anyways. What we should have done is buy more Phantoms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Wouldn't have had it for this mission anyways. Yeah that too
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:It might be worth having one of the light strikers fire off some ordnance in the general area to kill or chase off any firefighters. I don't know why, but cluster bombs don't seem to do much to the exposed fuel tank farm. Nor do cluster bombs do anything to aircraft that are parked right in the open, even though it should cause lots of mayhem  . (Baloogaaaaan! ) We don't really need the Su-25s and Hawks to kill all the mission-vital targets: - 2x 500 lb LGBs will destroy the ammo shelter, and 1x 500 lb LGB will very heavily damage it and probably set an uncontrollable fire. One 500 lb bomb will light the tank farm up in a giant pretty fireball. I think we can have one Gripen send 2 GBU-49s at the 750k Fuel Tank Farm and Ammo Shelter each -- the redundancy in case one bomb ends up being a dud. We should go with the GBU-49 over the cheaper GBU-12s because they have GPS and inertial guidance, so the Gripen can launch them and immediately boogie. - Both Phantoms dropping their 2000 lb GBU-24s will probably destroy the underground fuel shelter. If one malfunctions, 3x 500 lb bombs will probably (4x will definitely) finish it off. This means that we can barely eek out a marginal victory -- hitting the ammo stores and degrading the fuel stores -- with just 1 Gripen. We can achieve a minor mission success -- destroying all ammo and fuel stores -- with just 2 Gripens and 2 Phantoms and a small bit of luck. With a lot of luck the second Gripen doesn't need to follow up on the underground fuel tank, and can drop bombs on planes instead. If we want to be absolutely sure of mission success in case TWO GBU-24s malfunction, we'd either bring along a third Gripen with LGBs, or the Su-25s. For the Su-25s we'd want to equip it with the Kh-29L. (We're stuck with the laser-guided variant because the EO version can't seem to lock on to what we're aiming at). We can give them orders to hold back in reserve unless either two GBU-24s are duds, or it looks like the AA around the airbase is light enough. Then they can pop over the mountain ridge, launch their missiles and guide them to their targets, and then book it back over the mountains. The Su-25s also have access to the KAB-1500L-F laser guided bombs, which are gently caress-off huge, but those are really hard to use in this mission. They have a minimum 10,000 feet AGL launch altitude, the Su-25 has a maximum altitude of 23,000 feet, and the Lhasa airport valley is at minimum about 11,700 feet -- the Su-25 only just barely has enough altitude to launch the bomb only after it's cleared the mountains! I wouldn't recommend bringing along the Hawks or SK 60s, even if it would allow for Maximum Murder Mayhem. The valley isn't quite as tight as last mission, so there's a greater chance of MANPADS shooting them up. The Su-25s are pushing it, but they have stand-off weapons and countermeasures, and so are slightly more likely to be able to dodge a missile. On a different note: there is a tradeoff for SEAD flight flying on the deck versus up high. For one, those Mjolnirs are glide bombs, not missiles, so they need to be released high up for maximum range. (They can't be dropped at all under 2000 ft AGL.) Also, aircraft that are high up have lots of potential energy to use to try to dodge missiles from a SAM -- witness how, in the last mission, Ventura and Unicorn were dodging missiles like they were in the matrix. Obviously the tradeoff is that if planes fly low, they hide from Radar. It's possible to pop over a mountain and surprise the SAM site, letting the planes flatten them with Mavericks before they can get their act together. But if they do get launched on, they're less able to dodge the missile. I'm waiting on the Indians to give us their intel on expected Radar and SAM coverage to make a specific recommendation. Against less capable SAM systems I'd stick the SEAD flights up high for maximum glide bomb range and kinematics. Psawhn fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Sorry if this is pedantic (it's a tiny thing after all), but it's Mikl with an L, not Miki with an I 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:I don't know why, but cluster bombs don't seem to do much to the exposed fuel tank farm. Nor do cluster bombs do anything to aircraft that are parked right in the open, even though it should cause lots of mayhem Well, that is...odd. Is there any difference between anti-personnel and anti-armor cluster munitions? How well do the cluster weapons like the Mjolner do against SAMs, AA guns, and MANPAD teams? Would we be better-off giving the SEAD birds all Mavericks or GBU-49s? Psawhn posted:We don't really need the Su-25s and Hawks to kill all the mission-vital targets: That's good information to have. Agree completely on the GBU-49 selection, although if we're going up against tough air defenses, it might be worth considering the EO Mavericks for some extra stand-off capability. Psawhn posted:If we want to be absolutely sure of mission success in case TWO GBU-24s malfunction, we'd either bring along a third Gripen with LGBs, or the Su-25s. For the Su-25s we'd want to equip it with the Kh-29L. (We're stuck with the laser-guided variant because the EO version can't seem to lock on to what we're aiming at). We can give them orders to hold back in reserve unless either two GBU-24s are duds, or it looks like the AA around the airbase is light enough. Then they can pop over the mountain ridge, launch their missiles and guide them to their targets, and then book it back over the mountains. I'm skeptical about sending the Su-25s. It doesn't seem like we need them. But if we do send them, we should send in the Hawks and the SK 60s as well. Flood the airfield with aircraft -- dump everything we've got in one pass and then get out of there. More light aircraft creates a lot more risk. But the chance of killing Chinese aircraft on the ground makes it tempting. And it'd give a record number of goons the chance to fly. I'd say we leave it up to the Hired Goons to vote. Psawhn posted:On a different note: there is a tradeoff for SEAD flight flying on the deck versus up high. For one, those Mjolnirs are glide bombs, not missiles, so they need to be released high up for maximum range. (They can't be dropped at all under 2000 ft AGL.) Also, aircraft that are high up have lots of potential energy to use to try to dodge missiles from a SAM -- witness how, in the last mission, Ventura and Unicorn were dodging missiles like they were in the matrix. Can we pull off a high-speed, low-level infiltration, then make an aggressive pull-up to make a pop-up attack and get up to weapons release altitude?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Airfields will be at full capacity with runways and facilities able to hold the necessary aircraft. North Lakhimpur especially, I must've missed a facility or two when I built that base. I don't believe I can modify weapons release ranges on our SK60B's. If I'm wrong, someone please point it out. Both our Phantoms and SU-25's can carry anti-runway cluster bombs. I launched the drones and they flew the entire way, though I didn't notice if they went to negative altitude. Sure, we want Lhasa Gonggar to look like that.  But this might be good enough. I'd like your guys thoughts on how much info to give you. I don't want to give too much narrative away but I don't want you guys making the wrong decision because either the game mechanic is groggish or because we don't know penetration statistic on some obscure weapons system. On one hand I could say "Runway X needs 3 bombs to kill it," but I'm kind of building the missions for you then. But on the other if a facility is either really hard to kill (underground gas tanks) you'd probably know this as professional ex-military pilots. One hint I'll give in this area, runways are hard to destroy, almost impossible, but they're quite easy to disable. I'm not afraid of sharing this info as our PMC would know how fragile a runway is. We just need to knock Lhasa out long enough for the Volunteers to roll up and we're good. No need to make it look like the top photo above. Mikl posted:Sorry if this is pedantic (it's a tiny thing after all), but it's Mikl with an L, not Miki with an I Noted and revised! Please let me know if I've missed a name or screwed that list up. Yooper fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
I wonder if there would be a point in having the Sk60s and Hawks used on a diversionary strike against the TLA, to try and pull the J-16s out of position a little bit before we strike. I am not saying we sacrifice them, because tbh i'd rather we sold them all once we leave, but if we can drag them a little off, it'd increase the window for our attack and could put them at a disadvantage compared to our Gripens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Our Su25s can mount the Vikhrs racks, right? I do like the idea of getting every single plane in the air, so if we can safely neutralize the SAMs (a giant if) it'd certainly be exciting to have those come in after the bombs and just tell them to blow up anything that looks interesting. Sending the light aircraft at the TLA position as a diversion sounds like a great idea regardless; worst case, we help get the volunteers there faster. Imagine the damage we could do had we bought eight phantoms 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Our Su25s can mount the Vikhrs racks, right? I do like the idea of getting every single plane in the air, so if we can safely neutralize the SAMs (a giant if) it'd certainly be exciting to have those come in after the bombs and just tell them to blow up anything that looks interesting. Sending the light aircraft at the TLA position as a diversion sounds like a great idea regardless; worst case, we help get the volunteers there faster. This is our flavor of SU-25 : http://cmano-db.com/aircraft/2513/
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
I hate how the DB doesn't tell you the quantity carried by the platform
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I hate how the DB doesn't tell you the quantity carried by the platform mine does https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/DataAircraft?ID=2513
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Use the baloogan campaign wiki instead, it's got the loadouts listed. https://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/Main_Page E: beaten by the man himself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Throw everything that flies at the airport, just to be sure and for giggles
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Can we use the anti-runway munitions on the Frogfoots or was that a no-go for some reason? I feel like we should use it if we can, dedicated anti-runway stuff would be so much more effective on the pavement it'd be stupid not to take it if available.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:46
|
|
