|
You want the B-1R (which never left the concept phase). I think it's mostly that A: losing one of those would be stupidly expensive given how lethal modern air combat is, and B: how many hostile aircraft are you likely to encounter in one battle in reality? There was a test flight of a Superhornet armed with 14(!) AMRAAMs, which probably gave it an effective flight range of about two feet. The idea was that a Raptor would spot for it while remaining invisible because it wouldn't need to open its missile bays that way. Again, never used in reality. And there's the 747-CMCA. That one's in CMANO and it is very, very exciting. Again, never left the drawing board because nobody wanted to deal with "how do we tell which 747s are full of cruise missiles?".
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
What? How would the Raptor spot without turning on its radar and becoming super visible to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Don't ask me, I'm not the USAF/USN. Maybe there was some crazy way to use the IRST sensors to do it? Or maybe there was supposed to be an AWACS involved too? I'm having trouble finding a source on the 14-missile load now that you ask (I last saw this a number of years ago), though I can find a bunch of photos with 10 (exhibit A) which is still pretty silly. Maybe I just ran into someone's fever dream as opposed to a real thing, but theoretically it could get that many if you swapped the wingtip Sidewinders for AMRAAMs and put one additional on each outermost pylon. Assuming those mounts are valid for that purpose and the wing doesn't break in half from the weight, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
747 full of cruise missiles dot gif
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
I have a better idea!  
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Don't ask me, I'm not the USAF/USN. Maybe there was some crazy way to use the IRST sensors to do it? Or maybe there was supposed to be an AWACS involved too? I'm having trouble finding a source on the 14-missile load now that you ask (I last saw this a number of years ago), though I can find a bunch of photos with 10 (exhibit A) which is still pretty silly. Maybe I just ran into someone's fever dream as opposed to a real thing, but theoretically it could get that many if you swapped the wingtip Sidewinders for AMRAAMs and put one additional on each outermost pylon. Assuming those mounts are valid for that purpose and the wing doesn't break in half from the weight, anyway. Regarding the Tu-22 mystery, it's possible that this isn't actually the strategic bomber escalation it looks like and that someone has gotten hold of some Tu-22 Blinder jammer variants. Obviously we can't rely on that but it makes more sense than Kitchen spam we'd be hard pressed to stop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Saros posted:What? How would the Raptor spot without turning on its radar and becoming super visible to everyone. The F-35 has the pretty impressive EODAS IR and TV tracking system on it, so it has a passive search capability. The F-22 doesn't have an IRST (infrared search and track) system. Most modern 4.5th (Super Hornet, Gripen NG) and 5th generation fighters (F-22, F-35) have AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars with an LPI (low probability of intercept) capability. Basically, the radar is able to change things like the intensity, duration, and frequency of its radar pulse very quickly. So a radar warning receiver will still detect the emission from the AESA radar, it just won't go "aha! Look, a radar!" and will just ignore it as electromagnetic white noise. This is useful for us, since our Gripen's have AESA radars. And as a bonus, the radar is mounted on a mechanical arm, so it's able to move the entire antenna nearly 90 degrees to either side. So we have a fighter that can scan a huge amount of sky without being detected. ...which is why it might be worth staging a Gripen or two airborne during daylight hours as a flying radar station. The ground radars might, not catch enemy strikers ingressing at 300 feet, whereas a Gripen at 30,000 feet can look down and see them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Question from the peanut gallery, why is it that no one has tried using a big strategic bomber with bays full of Meteors as an air superiority craft? Trying to refit a bomber into a missile truck would be very expensive and complicated. Also a case of putting all your eggs into the same basket, and the basket is going to be more vulnerable than a fighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Heavy bombers are extremely expensive aircraft. 1 B-52 cost more to maintain per flight hour than an F-22A. In return you get a very slow and unwieldy aircraft with zero survivability. The fact is that a fleet of highly manouverable aircraft with a reasonable amount of missiles is much more effective and has much better redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Putting the shoe on the other foot, what kind of attack profile do you think the attackers are going to fly? And where are they likely to come from? At his point, I think the most likely strike is going to start with a coordinated time-on-target strike by Klub-K cruise missiles launched off a container ship and AS-4 Kitchens launched off the "Tu-22s" (Tu-22 or Tu-22M). Since both missiles come in anti-shipping and land attack flavors, I'd expect them to go for the Dutch, the Ground Master, and our SAMs. If they have Kitchens with inertial navigation, they could also go after our runways to try and stop us scrambling fighters. Then send a wave of Fulcrums in at low level, with the Flankers on CAP. The first ones try and cluster-bomb our short-range SAMs and AAA, while the rest carry iron bombs (and maybe penetrator rockets) and go after our runways and other facilities. Follow this up with a carpet bomber Tu-22 or Tu-22M, assuming they have one left. Or, if they're feeling sadistic and lucky, try and drop some ~7,000lb FAB-3000s to try and kill the bunkers). Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Question from the peanut gallery, why is it that no one has tried using a big strategic bomber with bays full of Meteors as an air superiority craft? Geez, I remember a quest thread on /tg/ where we had this exact. same. discussion. Y'know way back in WW2 they had a similar idea, pack a B-17 full of as many .50cals as will fit and enough ammo for it all. It wound up having something stupid like twice as many guns as normal. It turns out that it's not too much more effective than just packing another B-17 or two into the formation, and that it also falls out of formation on the way back. See, the bombers would fly to the target heavy with bombs, then drop them and be nice and light on the way back. But the gunship would still be heavy on the way back, what with all the ammo it was carrying, so it'd be slower and eventually start lagging behind. And outside of the formation's interlocking .50cal killzones it's just a very prickly target. So they dropped the concept and just made more bombers instead. This thing, the YB-40  Bacarruda posted:Putting the shoe on the other foot, what kind of attack profile do you think the attackers are going to fly? And where are they likely to come from? For one, we want to blind those dastardly Goons before we do anything else. That means some kind of anti-radiation missile, but the missile has to get past the Pantsir and the plane itself has to get past the Sky Bow. For two, well, standard SEAD. Standoff anti-radiation missiles like Alarms or whatever the Soviets use is your go-to solution. For three, bunker busters will be a must. Something that can penetrate concrete bunkers, and something that can penetrate into the mountain itself. Do the attackers have anything that can field bunker-buster bombs? For four, runway bombs are a bit of a specialist thing aren't they? Cluster bombs would also do it but then you're warcriming civilians and hooboy have we really pissed off someone that much? Problems one and two can be addressed by a cruise missile strike on RADAR and air defense installations. Either on its own or timed to coincide with an air strike. Now that I say it, cruise missiles timed to coincide with SEAD strike is probably the best bet, it achieves maximum saturation and the planes will mop up whatever the missiles don't hit. I'm assuming here we've got cruise missiles in bulk, because the bombers can mount a loving lot of them. There's also those cruise missile variants with anti-radiation capabilities, those are a good candidate for the initial radar/sead strike. Solutions three and four is then a short range strike by CAS aircraft carrying specialized bomb loads. One flight on anti-runway duty with the runway bombs, one flight on the aircraft shelters with guided bunker busters, one flight on the Hayard-Gunnes Mountain Lair itself again with bunker busters. If we can't penetrate the mountain then we can at least bring down the entrance and trap them inside. If we don't have fancy schmancy bunker busters and PGMs then, fuckit, just blind them with cruise missiles and bomb everything. Pretty sure frogfoots can mount FAE bombs of some kind, they used them in the Soviet-Afghan war. Wait a minute, fuel-air explosives are extremely effective against caves. Oh, poo poo. Radio Free Kobold fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Question from the peanut gallery, why is it that no one has tried using a big strategic bomber with bays full of Meteors as an air superiority craft? I believe this is called the Missileer concept, and its gone through several iterations since the sixties. The fundamental problem seems to be that you have to reliably destroy every threat before they get into range to fire at you, because the missileer does not have the kinematic performance to dodge a missile. In the current version of the concept, the missileer is a fairly large but very stealthy plane with lots of missiles and AWACS support. This would be pretty devastating to non-stealth aircraft lacking the capabilities to detect it. As far as I'm aware, there's no radar set in the world right now that can catch an F35 or F22 at ~70nmi out, which is the range of the AIM-120D, the current best American BVR missile, so it might actually work. But on the other hand, how a fight between two stealth aircraft would play out is an unknown, and it's very well possible that a much smaller, cheaper, faster and more manoeuvrable stealth fighter could close in undetected, fire a heater. Which the missileer would then have to eat because it can't hope to dodge it, but the fighter would stand a chance of dodging any return fire from the missileer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
When we are talking about Club-K, are we talking about these floating war crime missile launchers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
There were some worries about $peer_threat being able to just facetank the two F-22s they'd be faced with's entire loadout and then punking the AWACS and tanker etc. behind those. I guess it sorta depends on how likely you consider this problem to be to come up and on the economics of the missile truck program vs. getting more F-?? airframes or whatever the alternative would be, and obviously the whole thing would have to somehow be somewhat survivable. Full disclosure: I do not know the first thing about missiles or aeroplanes irl.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Could you do something like putting a few small missiles on a supersonic cruise missile and use that to get around the range problem?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
For anti-runway work, they'll almost certainly deploy BetAB cluster bombs. Those are 500kg weapons and almost every reasonably modern Sovbloc aircraft can deploy them. Nasty things, but they require you to get real close. (Mind, they might also have guided gliding RBK containers.) For bunker-busting, our shallower surface stuff might get KAB-500'd or Kedged. Both of those are weapons we use fairly regularly, in the thousand-pound class, insufficient to reach our heavier bunkers. For those, the main Russian tool is the KAB-1500, a nasty 1500kg/3300lb class weapon. The good news is that it's relatively short-ranged, and only the Flankers and potentially the Backfires/Blinders can carry them. Not even the advanced MiG-29K can carry those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:Could you do something like putting a few small missiles on a supersonic cruise missile and use that to get around the range problem? Not a bad idea, but that runs into a lot of problems. First you run into the same problem as a rocket going into space, adding more mass causes your fuel and power requirements to go up by several factors. Most cruise missiles today are subsonic so they can get more fuel efficiency, supersonics can of a similar size, but tend to pack a smaller warhead (anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 the payload of a comparable subsonic missile). Size wise a conventional missile is on average half the size of a cruise missile, so you'd then have to engineer a larger missiles to fit the smaller missiles inside (since mounting them outside would play havoc with aerodynamics and cause the mothership missile to go slower). By engineering a larger missile you;d then need bigger engines and more fuel, which in turn will require more mass and engineering. The end result would basically be engineering a ballistic missile. Next you have the problem of most SAMs needing their own independent radar to function. Modern Surface-to-Air missiles largely depend on a powerful ground radar sending telemetry and firing data to the missiles to help them track in on the target. The problem is once you start getting further and further out, the wave propagation of the radar takes longer and longer to return and the further our the target the more distorted the image becomes. Bigger radars can fine tune images and detect stuff far out, but are themselves more vulnerable to being targeted by HARMS and other radar seeking weapons. You could try to use independent heat seekers or self guided radar missiles, but those will still need to have their mothership missile vector them close enough to take effect. Even a supersonic cruise missile will take time to get to range and will be super visible, and even crappy modern jets can move fast. If you detected one or one of their radars, you could likley scramble with enough time to ensure enough separation to make sure the big missile's little missiles won't kill you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
the answer is drones stuffed full of missles
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:the answer is drones stuffed full of missles Pretty much. For all those who still dream of being 'Top Gun', know that the next evolution will have that 'title' being given to 'nerds-like-us' sitting in refrigerated trailers, joystick in one hand, Cheetos in the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
On the one hand, I want to think like we would if we were faced with a target like us, but it seems like they're going to have to get fairly close to the base to drop anything on us aside from whatever they're packing in terms of cruise missiles. That being the case, I think we'd want to have a few different tripwire lines of fighters out on patrol aggressively far from the base, with more flights ready to go once we detect them. I am also going to point out that looking at a map, there is an entirely serviceable landing beach about a 2-3 hour walk from our evil villain lair. I wouldn't think we're dealing with a full Normandy scenario but thinking like *us*, I'd definitely put a few Zodiacs full of maniacs ashore to hike over and start trouble, even if it's just tying down our defenses forces and making our lives difficult. In fact, looking at a few topo maps of the region, there's some fairly nice hills close to the beach that would provide a lovely camping spot for some MANPADS wanting to ruin our lives. If nothing else we'd want to secure those. We also should consider that if they're not using our style of equipment, they may not want to park at 30,000 feet and hurl missiles at all and sundry. If they need to get close, they probably want to fly nap of the earth as long as possible, then pop up for the attack run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
CourValant posted:Pretty much. Join me, brothers and sisters, in the drone corps. The future is yours!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:the answer is drones stuffed full of missles Like a supersonic Turducken of Death
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Join me, brothers and sisters, in the drone corps. The future is yours! I will join you if I get my A-10. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:Could you do something like putting a few small missiles on a supersonic cruise missile and use that to get around the range problem? There's a similar idea already in testing. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14161/darpas-flying-missile-rail-seems-to-be-more-about-manufacturing-than-combat https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a28100/darpa-factory-in-a-can-drones/ Dr. Kyle Farnsworth posted:On the one hand, I want to think like we would if we were faced with a target like us, but it seems like they're going to have to get fairly close to the base to drop anything on us aside from whatever they're packing in terms of cruise missiles. That being the case, I think we'd want to have a few different tripwire lines of fighters out on patrol aggressively far from the base, with more flights ready to go once we detect them. This may be resurrecting the CAP vs. interceptors debate we had a while back, but in light of what we know, things have changed a little. Given that we know an attack is just hours or days away, I think we can put up a two-ship CAP during daylight hours. The best candidates for the job are the 8 Gripen NG. They have long-range radars with a look-down, shoot-down capability for engaging low-flying bandits. Two of them carry a murderous load of 12 Meteors (or we could cut it down to 8, if we wanted to give them more time on station), which wold blunt the hell out of an incoming strike. Given their shorter range and propensity for breaking in-flight, the 3DP Akefs and the Bisons should stay on ground alert. Same with the Kfirs. But I wouldn't put up more than two fighters. We'd need to constantly be sortieing a ton of aircraft. It's a hassle for Yooper and we just don't have the planes to do it. Plus, if we're constantly flying the 3DP planes, we're asking for mechanical self-attrition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
Only discovered this thread yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Only discovered this thread yesterday. Got it. You are #64 in the current pilot line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
  Details are sparse. Someone came in while Jack was at the hotel pool bar and drug him out inside of a bag of dirty towels. By the time Chana and Lucy caught up to the truck they took heavy fire from a very determined attacker. Lucy took a shot to the left shoulder but the small caliber round bounced off the bone and exited through her neck. Oksana was left behind and demo'd the teams room before sending us the quickest form of communication she knew. A telegram. Once Chana had Lucy stabilized she sent me the data they had.  It's a Russian Federation, or was a Russian Federation bomber, that has the logos painted over and a crew of "volunteers" on board. Judging by the ground support assets this was one of two. They were seen to depart to the southwest towards the Adriatic. YUGO has been quiet in all of this and there's no way ROMARM can operate in that neck of the woods without support. You can't just land a TU-22 next to a Cessna and go out for a cocktail. (Or can you?) We still have no contact with Aiko and Yolanda. At last report they are in Trieste to track down a lead.  A goat farmer named Milosh was settling down for his 8am vodka when he saw an odd looking crate. Being an enterprising Milosh he thought it would make a nice place to sit, but, this being the Balkans, he threw rocks at it first to make sure it wouldn't explode. It didn't explode. But it did break open and he found a dozen mortar rounds. Since that discovery our teams have been sweeping the area and have tracked down four more sites near road intersections. Someone is seeding the area with ammo. The SA-22's have been relocated but Glynnenstein is rather unhappy as he had a brisk trade in kebabs, coolant, and roast goat. Far fewer customers at high altitudes. Our patrols are still up. Whatever is going to go down is coming, and soon. Yooper fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
I'm worried about the mortars. We may need to send our militia, and/or our Reapers, out to find whoever's been planting the mortar caches. Also, because the Kitchens are so big, each bomber can only carry a few of them. I think three is the max. Two bombers means six missiles, which I'm actually feeling okay about. The Su-27s and MiG-29 variants might be more of a risk (that, and whatever unit of motor-rifles that try to take our base.) EDIT: actually Radio Free Kobold pointed out these are Kh-32s, not Kh-22s, so they're very different from the stock AS-4 Kitchen. Too fast for most of our weapons to shoot down, but only two per bomber. bibliosabreur fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Mar 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
bibliosabreur posted:The Backfires are...surprisingly little of a threat. I mean yes, big fast supersonic scary bombers, but CMANO has their bombloads at either ridiculous numbers of dumb bombs, or...AS-4 Kitchens. That's it. No other PGMs, no other cruise missiles, just big nasty modernized AS-4 Kitchen Ds. (Granted, the Kitchens have a lot of range, but they're high-fliers that are easy to detect and relatively easy to shoot down, and each Backfire can only carry a few of them.) No poo poo? I've been quietly worrying about those bombers. They'll fit eight Kh-15 missiles in the internal bay and that's cause for alarm, but if it's just the Kh-22-only loadout then that's much less of an  . Mind you, the Kitchens still do have an anti-radiation variant, but I'm not sure if that's the Kitchen D. Probably not, the Kitchen D sounds modern which would make them the long range high-altitude supersonic variant. I'll let another website do the talking.quote:The Kh-32 missile has been designed to take out radar stations, warships (actually aircraft carrier battle groups), bridges, military bases and power stations fitted with an inertial navigation system (INS) and a radio-radar seeker. The guidance system is hard to jam because it does not depend upon the GPS/GLONASS system. Eventually the missile may be armed with a nuclear warhead. The Kh-32 cannot be taken down by either air defenses and/or aircraft interceptors because it flies at an altitude of 40 kilometers and a speed in excess of 5,000 kilometers per hour. Deagel.com Two Backfires means six of these. Assuming the missiles are as fuckoff-uninterceptable as they are designed to be, that means we can kiss six of our static installations goodbye. That's, what. One Skybow site, two Pantsir sites, one radar site, and one I-Hawk site, then one more missiles for something else. Two missiles on the Sky Bow if you're going for the actual launchers rather than its radar set, which would use up all six quite nicely. We'd have somewhere between 10m and 60s warning for all this, depending on radar detection. That's some Battle of Britain "Drop whatever the gently caress you're doing and scramble now" poo poo. That means our expected threat profile is: Pre-prepared: Air strikes holding just outside radar range 1: Standoff cruise missile strike with the Kitchens to knock out air defense and ground radar 2: Air strikes move on the base 3: Ground teams commence mortar and infantry attacks to disrupt aircraft scrambling to respond 4: If all goes well, air strike faces only token resistance from what planes are either already up or manage to scramble in time. 5: Escort fighters handle the Goons, strikers bomb the base Radio Free Kobold fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:No poo poo? I've been quietly worrying about those bombers. They'll fit eight Kh-15 missiles in the internal bay and that's cause for alarm, but if it's just the Kh-22-only loadout then that's much less of an Correction, after having browsed Baloogan and CMANO-DB. For one, we're only looking at four missiles, and they can't target mobiles. The target set is listed as buildings, runways, and ships. So, they'll be used either to tear up our airfield or to hammer the Dutch. However, Baloogan is worryingly quiet about the maximum cruise altitude of the missiles. Worse yet, 2900 knots is outside the engagement envelope of our Sparrow-Ms, Sky Bows, and even our Meteors, which is capital-letters Not Good. Basically, these vampires--to steal a phrase from the Discord channel--are coming to bite. This doesn't mean that we're helpless, though. The fact that there are only four vampires limits the worst that can happen. They can only be targeted on structures, hard or soft, runways, and ships; meaning our ADA net is probably safe. They have a 10% CEP, meaning that against a static target they're only about as accurate as a JSOW (only with a single massive warhead instead of a ton of cluster munitions). And their active radar seekers aren't that clever... This means that the asset probably most at risk from the Kh-32s are our Dutch comrades. We ought to get the butterboxes out of harbor as soon as we can; there isn't much they can do against a 2900-knot high-diving missile. (Seriously, that's some DF-21D bullshit right there.) For further comedy, though, the most our enemies will see of our ships is blips on a radar screen, meaning that they might be foolable... So, I'm thinking of buying a rustbucket barge or two and decking them out with high-reflectivity corners. This way, any missiles aimed at our harbor will see a bote and beeline for it... bibliosabreur fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
That's some ghetto-rear end decoys, I love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
If the enemy is planting mortar caches for them to use in their planned attack ahead of time, maybe we could use that against them? We could either setup an ambush at the cache sites or we could bury some anti-personnel mines in and around the cache to blow them up when they come to attack. At the risk of committing warcrimes, of course. This, however, is assuming that it's our enemies planting the mortars and that they intend to use them as intended instead of as an improvised roadside bomb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
I'm going to have to diversify with the decline in goat revenue; maybe sell talk time to the locals on our comms from this advantageous height. For security I'll only allow access to the well and truly drunk so no spies get into the queue. That'll also help with the coolant sales. Probably ought to prepare to use this pantisr again. Good time to practice targeting on civilian traffic just to polish the skills, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
If we sent the destroyers away would they still be likely targets?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Destroyers they are not. However unless they want to dedicate their super-missiles to targeting the Frigates they are probably going to be ok. Each has a CIWS and 16 sea sparrows so can defend themselves and we are probably going to need them for short range defense and they could also be useful as backup air search if we lose our radar sites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
Would it be possible if we find other caches around to booby trap them wtih demo charges? Could be simple, just put in a tripwire wtih some explosives. Remove the mortar rounds, put some booby traps in the containers. Could do a random roll and if it goes off the teams (if there is any) take a random amount of damage/casualties? Also we could put trackers/sensors around the caches we find (as appropraite) so we can quick target them if the sensors are tripped with short range assets or patrols. But with the Backfires.. well,, who wants to get some heavy bomber kills?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Are there any airborne radar pickets we can buy that are cheaper and smaller than a full airliner conversion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
That's basically what the Saab is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Saros posted:Destroyers they are not. However unless they want to dedicate their super-missiles to targeting the Frigates they are probably going to be ok. Each has a CIWS and 16 sea sparrows so can defend themselves and we are probably going to need them for short range defense and they could also be useful as backup air search if we lose our radar sites. Unless the game code's been overhauled recently, our Dutch friends are probably not going to be okay. Kitchen Ds aren't the AS-4s of yore (which the Dutch can defend against); these are Kh-32s, which cruise at 2900 knots. For reference, the maximum target speed that a Sea Sparrow can engage is 1950 knots. (This is also the top engagement speed of our Sparrows, Amraamskis, and Meteors.) Basically, we have no ability to shoot down the vampires, so we'll need to get creative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Given the rather expensive nature of our frigates and their main purpose being ASW, might it be a good idea to have them go to port? The Tokyo Bay Fortress can give us radar from a long ways away and no sense risking them being in a fire zone. They're expensive, we get nothing from having them be in theatre so it might be worth it to have them disengage until the threat is over rather than risk them taking some missiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 04:51
|
|