|
Spare the rod spoil the Chinese. Strict Parenting: Light Attackers Yes
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
Gervasius posted:FGFA is PAK-FA with some indian avionics and a WSO seat. Probably just as clusterfuck as actual PAK-FA project is. e: just saw your edit - disregard. Yeah, I went and double-checked myself because it's too easy to get these acronyms mixed up, and I still managed to make a mess of it. The indigenous stealth project is the AMCA, MRCA is the program that ended with the Rafale procurement, and FGFA is the Sukhoi PAK-FA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Strict Parenting with Light Attack. The proper way to shut down an air base!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Strict Parenting with Light Attackers
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Throwing in a vote for Operation Thor's Hammer. I like Surprise Motherfuckers, but I'm concerned about requiring the slower planes to keep up with the Phantoms and Gripens and I'd prefer a simultaneous strike whenever possible here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Everyone is concerned about density of aircraft over the target area. I am too. Defining launch time is OK for one aircraft launch, but presents problems with our tiny little shithole of an airport. If Mission Start is 6:00, then all wings aren't launched until 6:06. This creates a big big big problem if our F-4E's launch and just boogie right into heavy SAM cover. So instead I'll be defining this (or trying to) as time at target. I need to test it some more, but here's the basic gist of it.  We will define what plane arrives to launch first followed by the next, and the next, etc. We might have to make a "form up" area just over the airfield and then every wing launches while in the air. See shithole airfield reference. In our above example some SEAD Gripens would arrive to the launch ring at 6:28:43. The SK 60B's would arrive for a rocket run Timing further Quick Turnarounds is going to be interesting, but I'm sure we can work with it. Will it work? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Let's Play: Oh, so this is why the USN had such a fun time figuring out how to launch coordinated strikes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Let's Play: Oh, so this is why the USN had such a fun time figuring out how to launch coordinated strikes. Seriously, this is just with a handful of aircraft. Can you imagine coordinating multiple carriers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Jumping on the Strict Parenting, Light Attackers bandwagon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Jumping on the Strict Parenting, Light Attackers bandwagon. Same here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Seriously, this is just with a handful of aircraft. Can you imagine coordinating multiple carriers? Well if we can make the budget stretch...
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Jumping on the Strict Parenting, Light Attackers bandwagon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Throwing my hat in the ring for going to Hollywood. Always wanted to see our warcrimes/heroics on display down in Tinsel Town... Sub-vote: Runways are the devil and must be purged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Voting Strict Parenting with light attack still wish our F-4's had napalm for this attack
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Agreed. 1. Based on Quinntan's feedback I did hastily convert one Gripen to CAP, so that gives us 12 Meteors, 4 AMRAAMS, and a buttload of heaters (14 IRIS-Ts, 4 Aphids, and 4 Sidewinders). I figure that the BVR missiles only have to last until we've bumrushed the airfield, and then any hostile fighters that take off will already by in range of short-range missiles. But it is a pretty tough call to take more Gripens off of bombing duty to put them on CAP. Those Su-25s are pretty vulnerable when making their attack run, which is why I went for extra bombs. 2. Rockeyes launched by Hawks need a very permissive environment. They have to be launched literally right on top of their target, maximum 1000 feet altitude, and 1 nmi range. Those Mavericks are the good ones -- 8 nmi range -- so the Su-25s will be safer if those Hawks launch the Mavericks at the AAA rather than trying to decoy fire. 3. I don't know how to do that easily. The way only way I really know how to do it is very micromanagement heavy: tell the plane to hold fire, then manually fly it to within a kilometer, and then manually tell it to fire on the target. I don't even know how much that would help. The rockets already worked okay versus soft targets. Launching them at max range versus occupied tarmac spaces also has a very good chance of killing at least one of the planes parked there. 4. I'll address this with my commentary to Yooper's TOT app. Yooper posted:Everyone is concerned about density of aircraft over the target area. I am too. Defining launch time is OK for one aircraft launch, but presents problems with our tiny little shithole of an airport. If Mission Start is 6:00, then all wings aren't launched until 6:06. This creates a big big big problem if our F-4E's launch and just boogie right into heavy SAM cover. I think it can work well, especially if combined with staging areas. I didn't really fully think through allowing fighters to hang around and wait for the right time. Yonphula aiport and IP Montana are both great muster points. IP Montana is hidden from Lhasa by the mountain range, so it's a good place to stage the light attackers from. Luckily, even with all our planes, we only have 3 different cruising speeds to help with. That should make scheduling a little easier. The SK 60s are the slowest at 340 knots. Then the Su-25s are slightly faster at 370 knots. The Hawks, Gripens, and Phantoms all cruise at 480 knots. I'll edit the all three plans to take into account better staging and mustering, and add an estimated master timeline to each plan. I'll also move the first High CAP flight to Lakhimpur, which should help ease the strain on Yonphula a little.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
A note on planning. Yongphula Airfield can handle the SU-25's, SK60B's and the pair of Hawks. Everything else has to go through North Lakhimpur.  Take that how you will, but our days of curry and warm beer are about over. Once this is clear we'll move back to Frankfurt, work some procurement angles, and see where our next missions may take us. Lot's of very interesting opportunities. Yooper fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Jack, what did you do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
HereticMIND posted:Jack, what did you do? Jack wasn't the one who sank two nominally civilian freighters and a Chinese frigate, you know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:Jack wasn't the one who sank two nominally civilian freighters and a Chinese frigate, you know. Yeah, I think this one is on us 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:Jack wasn't the one who sank two nominally civilian freighters and a Chinese frigate, you know. ...oh. So what happens after we
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
HereticMIND posted:...oh. Correct. We go into procurement mode first. Then we'll select a new vacation spot. After that it'll be a faction decision followed by choice of technical expert.  I've been testing the scenario and lemme tell ya, if we get it right, it'll go so loving awesome. But if the plan doesn't go well, then we're hosed. I finally think I've got it balanced about right. We'll start off the mission with a Special Action event. I've got a Lua script that will simulate our ground mercs in action. If it goes well they'll knock out the Chinese Radar. If it doesn't then we better hope our path takes us through radar blind zones. Also, I'm not going to do any manual release. There's already a lot going on and I don't want the crux of a mission requiring me to mash CTL-F1 at the precise moment and designate it all correctly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:Jack wasn't the one who sank two nominally civilian freighters and a Chinese frigate, you know. Those probably won't be the last nominally civilian ships we sink. Unless we don't make it out of India, that is. I, for one, think things are going swimmingly and I am optimistic that after we flee India our new heightened profile will attract just the kind of work this outfit was made for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Cathode Raymond posted:Those probably won't be the last nominally civilian ships we sink. Unless we don't make it out of India, that is. I'm kind of surprised you guys just didn't have me sink every cargo ship. The only thing that probably prevented it was the astronomical price of those RB15's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Pfft, some GBU-12s would more than show those fishing trawlers who's boss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Yooper posted:A note on planning. Yongphula Airfield can handle the SU-25's, SK60B's and the pair of Hawks. Everything else has to go through North Lakhimpur. Aww, man. Funnily enough, they should be able to handle the runway fine. As far as CMANO's concerned, they need the shortest runways out of all of our not-UAV planes. to simulate being able to land on random Swedish highways. I guess there just isn't enough parking space on the tippy top of that mountain there. Luckily our Gripens do have the range to make it from Lakhimpur to Lhasa. quote:Also, I'm not going to do any manual release. There's already a lot going on and I don't want the crux of a mission requiring me to mash CTL-F1 at the precise moment and designate it all correctly. Ahh. Okay. I'll definitely keep that in mind for future missions. This mission is just so tight that I really want to default to full sperg microautism for the best chance of success.  You'll just be using pre-planned strike lists and WRA settings, right? Do you need me to rework anything for this mission to make it easier to plan? Also: Can we make pilots fly through a few specific mountain passes and valleys? Even if they fly low to the ground, the radar can still spot them if they crest a peak rather than fly through the valley. Plus, when's the next chance for our pilots to say "It's just like Beggar's Canyon back home"? Psawhn fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
I have little doubt that everything will go wrong, but c'est la vien when you're a merc in an outfit where jet pilits are the most disposable of resources.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
When we're done with india we need to get some flankers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
I have to say I'm also feeling Strict Parenting With Light Attack
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:When we're done with india we need to get some flankers. I don't think we need Flankers. Maybe three more Gripens? I'd rather us bulk up the number of Phantoms we have to be honest and sell off the Frogfoots, Sk60s and Hawk 209s. None of them have IFR and the Frogfoot has already shown that it is short-legged, requiring us to use this shithole airfield. If there was funding left after the Gripens and Phantoms, I would advocate us acquiring the Ivanov's Fenders as SEAD aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:When we're done with india we need to get some We can avoid a lot of domestic heat if we're always operating out of Switzerland even for a client in Argentina.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
We could also do with being a lot more deliberate with what we shoot at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I don't think we need Flankers. Maybe three more Gripens? I'd rather us bulk up the number of Phantoms we have to be honest and sell off the Frogfoots, Sk60s and Hawk 209s. None of them have IFR and the Frogfoot has already shown that it is short-legged, requiring us to use this shithole airfield. Always bet on sexy Gripens. Phantoms are fun too. How to Rafales stack up against our Grips? As a European, I'm a canards all day guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
I'm throwing my vote in for Strict Parenting, and I'm bandwagoning for Light Attackers Yes. I feel like trying to take out the extra runway infrastructure is best done with the level of micromanagement I'd really want to do... but as long as Yooper's not going down the infinite rabbit hole of full sperg, I trust the AI to manage the runway strike better than the shuffling priority of targets. Also, our Gripens do have the range to make it from Lakhimpur to Lhasa and back without tanking as long as they travel at normal cruise altitudes. So, I guess I'll move the Gripens back to Lakhimpur and remove the micromanagement of their altitude. I don't understand the default WRA for Mavericks. It says "Use target's missile defense value" which is 4 for the HQ-7s. Which makes sense, as it has four vehicles and so needs 4 successful ATGM hits to completely destroy. Except the Gripens will launch 1 Maverick, wait until it hits, launch another Maverick, wait until it hits, launch a third Maverick, wait until it hits, and then launch FOUR Mavericks at it. And I'm like, "FFFFFFF! Either keep plinking at it with one missile at a time, or launch all four at once, but don't do both and waste missiles, you dummies!" It's things like these that make me want to go to 100% whenever I'm running CMANO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Rafale's are pretty much better than Gripens in every way except for running costs but not enormously so. I think our priority should definitely be to get more Gripen and heavy bomb trucks like 25's or Phantoms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Always bet on sexy Gripens. Phantoms are fun too. How to Rafales stack up against our Grips? As a European, I'm a canards all day guy. 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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
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. We should buy 20 asap
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
I think we should get away from split buys if at all possible, pick an aircraft for a given role and run with it. As it stands we kinda have the Phantoms and Frogfoots overlapping in role, but with wildly different operational capabilities so running them as part of the same strike package is incredibly unwieldy. That said... We should totally find a way to get hold of some F-111s 
Vando fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
I've tweaked both missions a little bit, hopefully to make it easier for Yooper when setting up the mission. I've also moved the Gripens back to Lakhimpur because I guess Yonphula was getting a little too crowded. In CMANO, our Gripens have a very short take-off/landing distance: Only 490 m! That's the same distance as tiny little planes like a Cessna 172 or An-2! This actually has an effect in the game: They can use shorter runways, and they can take off from runways at higher damage level than other planes. (I tested this out. A 4000 m runway at 60% damage cannot service most planes, but Gripens can use it just fine!). I like our tiny little fighter planes!  The more I work on this mission the more salty I am that we don't have more Phantoms. I'm probably going to vote whichever plan gives us the most. Did you know that the 2000 pound bombs can splat an entire platoon of vehicles, while 500 pound LGBs will only plink at them one at a time? Now I do! A Gripen with 4x Mavericks or 4xGBU-49s can only take out one platoon of HQ-7s, and that's if every weapon hits and isn't shot down by their point defense! 
Psawhn fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
Tythas posted:We should buy 20 asap We could do that, but it would be expensive and, more importantly, boring. I do like how we're going at the moment, just using whatever old poo poo that's still kinda good. So next up we should buy Columbia'sKfir C.10s and Poland's Su-22M4s and whatever bonkers '50s and '60s tech with modern stuff we can drag up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
Psawhn posted:(I tested this out. A 4000 m runway at 60% damage cannot service most planes, but Gripens can use it just fine!) 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 11:20
|
|
