|
Jimmy4400nav posted:I also have an analysis on planes we might want to try and acquire based on this mission, note they are more low key, but I feel are just as, if not more critical to our long term success as a PMC In terms of tankers, your analysis is pretty much dead on. We're going to need at least one more tanker. I would be inclined towards the KC-135 out of all of those options. Right now, all of our aircraft bar our KC-135 use probe and drogue refuelling, but if we want to go for more US aircraft or if we're going to drag one refueller using another like we did when we attacked the freighters and the PLAN then we will need a boom refueller, and our options there are converting an old 707 like Omega Air did, KC-135, KC-767 or A330 MRTT (lol we ain't getting these, nobody who has these will want to dispose of them). Of the two realistic options, we'd be better off with using the same type we already have. Maritime patrol... first off, gently caress the Nimrod. The ones that we'd be theoretically able to acquire are the MR.2s, and those have a fatal flaw with the aerial refuelling system they jury-rigged for the Falklands. Fuel would leak and accumulate in the bomb bay, and in 2006 a spark set off fuel that had pooled in that bomb bay in a Nimrod in Afghanistan. Even without the potential fire hazards, they're old and they're ragged. Much of the same can be said for the Breguet Atlantiques, they're so old they predate the Dassault merger. They're just clapped out. I'd be inclined towards either the P-3 or the C-295. P-3s are plentiful, there would be a lot of ex-USN aircraft available. C-295s would have similarities to the C-235 we already operate. Transports. I'd avoid the C-160s because they're not all that common, and really in a world that has the C-130, why go for Transalls? If we wanted something to fill the niche between the C-130 and the C-235, then there are these things, the BAe 146-300 QC currently in service with the RAF. I like these things, they were originally designed to fly into smaller airports that larger airliners couldn't go into such as London City Airport so they have inherent STOL capabilities. They're quite rugged too. I'd avoid the An-12 just because they are so short legged compared to even the oldest C-130Es in the boneyard. Quinntan fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Apr 9, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Voting NO to the museum trash we should hit up the french and see if we can get some Dassault Rafales  Edit: changed URL and added picture Tythas fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:Can we do missions preemptively, or are we limited to the scenarios you outline, Yooper? A strike on the airfield at Lhasa ASAP might keep the Chinese at bay long enough for the Indians and Tibetans to win the ground war. And at that point I figure we'll have completed our contract and can get out. For this run we'll stick to outlined scenarios but in the future I don't see why we can't get creative. If Phi's crew can knock out a certain radar dish outside of Lhasa things would get much easier for a strike... Psawhn posted:- Yooper is a pretty talented Radar analyst! I had been heavily advocating for sending Gripens with lots of fuel, minimal weight, and FLIR pods to positively ID the Chinese freighters, but you managed to get the right freighters just by their Radar track!. (This could have been borderline cheating, with Yooper remembering what the mission looked like when he created it! In this case we had two tracks headed to Sittwe and that was it. And there's the brevity factor. At first I wanted to drop a realistic number of ships in the Bay of Bengal. But once I did some research I saw that everyone is either headed to Chittagong or Calcutta. A ship headed to Sittwe is going to stand out. Glad the audio sounded good, that's my biggest concern for production. Also, had we gotten close to the freighters it is likely we would have discovered they had crew with modern MANPADs on deck... apseudonym posted:Also could you upload the missions after the fact? It would be fun to play around with them. I plan on it! Right now they are a hacked together mess and need some polish. But once we're between theaters I will definitely finish it up. Z the IVth posted:Yooper, on a forum filled with excellent (some may stretch the definition) LPs, I think you've really hit it out of the park with yours. Did you actually put down Glad you're enjoying it! And yes, I put down some  to get random strangers to sound like they're paying a pack of internet psychopaths to make bad choices. It's cool. I have committed myself to taking every $5 audio clip I get regardless how stilted, lovely, and horrible it is. As long as the audio is clear. You've got Maverick. It's my understanding that CMANO does do damage modelling, but it's being expanded upon for aircraft in the future. Ships can totally take a ton of damage, fight fires, lose systems, and still limp home. Most aircraft are just strong enough to survive operations and don't eat small missiles well. I'm really really looking forward to the aircraft damage model. I'd love to see poo poo limp home with no tailfins or cockpit glass or cupholders. Not sure on ejecting. Don't think so.  Oh dear, I've got an urgent call coming from General Krishna. Stay tuned Hired Goons!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Maritime patrol... first off, gently caress the Nimrod. The ones that we'd be theoretically able to acquire are the MR.2s, and those have a fatal flaw with the aerial refuelling system they jury-rigged for the Falklands. Fuel would leak and accumulate in the bomb bay, and in 2006 a spark set off fuel that had pooled in that bomb bay in a Nimrod in Afghanistan. Even without the potential fire hazards, they're old and they're ragged. Nimrod chat: the airframe itself could be considered Not That Bad, the main failing was in the identification of possible failure modes and lack of remedial work to make the aircraft safe. Still, it's all a bit out of scope for the game and they'd do the job we'd need them to do so if we get a shot at acquiring them, I'd say go for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
A lot of the systems on board date back to the '70s too. There are newer and more advanced aircraft out there too, the P-3 was built all the way up to 1990 and has received systems upgrades since.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ88RDV6Fg General Krishna made this pretty simple to me. The J-20 is an existential threat to the Indian Air Force. Long after we've been paid and left the Indians still have to deal with this bastard. And that's exactly what they plan on doing. We upped the ante in this theater and now the Chinese brought in the big guns. Intel says that the Chinese are planning a strike on Hired Goons HQ. Specifically noted was a shipment of Type 200A Anti Runway Bombs. If we're hit with these we've got a big problem. The Indians are going to deploy their most cutting edge Air Squadron to lure out the J-20's and try out a piece of old technology. They've known this threat was coming for years and have a few tricks up there sleeves. Our job is to destroy the Lhasa Airfield. We have a narrow window to get in while the J-20's are engaged with the Indians. Once the J-20's have swept the airspace (if they sweep it([i[they will[/i])) then the bombers will launch. General Krishna also said this is our last mission. Tensions in the area are getting too high. If we can knock out the Lhasa Airfield then the volunteers can move in without Chinese CSA. If we can't then the Indians aren't going to take it up a notch to defeat the J-20's. I'll tally up the crap plane vote in a few hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Yeah, I was wondering if the game makes getting shot down a literal death sentence (what is this, Rise of Flight LP?). Maybe we should diceroll them whike we wait for CMANO to implement that (and ground combat). Ground combat would be sweet, it somewhat dilutes the feeling of urgency when those Chinese Type-59 IIs (on book called them the worst thing ever inflicted on an army) are willing to sit in one spot for 6 hours until we fly back to bomb them. Anyone want to simulate that battle in winSPMBT? I'll vote NO on the Pact stuff, they seem real shoddy. I volunteer to fly any death trap I voted for, so I'm gonna be in one of those suicide phantoms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
I'm okay with the idea of a diceroll for seeing if pilots eject or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Tythas posted:Voting NO to the museum trash we should hit up the french and see if we can get some Dassault Rafales The Rafaels are good planes and if we can some that'd be peachy (especially since the Indians theoretically have a pipeline to them). Barring those the Mirage 2000 would be a good pick too. The Indians and Greeks both have them along with a number of other air forces and they have a number of good ground/air attack variants that have just recently gone through quality of life and operational upgrades. If we see some of these snagging a few might be good, it'd help round,out the Gripens if we can"t get more of those. Also holy snap, looks like Tibet is heating up! For destroying the airfield should we alpha strike with all our light attack planes and then follow up with Phantoms pasting the thing with heavy ordinance while the Gripens overwatch?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Count me in as another dice roll guy. As for the museum planes, no thanks!Yooper posted:
There's something ironic about the Chinese planning to use their equivalent to the Durandal on us just after we lamented the loss of our own Durandals... We're going to need to be really on top of things this time around if we don't want to eat a lot of losses. I wonder if it'd be possible to bounce the bombers as they launch? Of course, that's highly optimistic (for one thing it relies on no-one receiving a SAM or MANPADS up the tailpipe, and I doubt the J-20s will take long to get within firing range once they hear us tearing into their bombers), but it does remove the immediate danger to us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:I also have an analysis on planes we might want to try and acquire based on this mission, note they are more low key, but I feel are just as, if not more critical to our long term success as a PMC Your post got me thinking about our long-term procurement plans. What kind of force do we want to create? And what moves should we make to get there? I think we'd be best-served by a high-low mix of multi-role combat aircraft. Buying nothing but high-end fighters will leave us too short-handed to do much. And only having crappy airplanes will kill us all. So let's have enough modern fighters to clear a path for less-capable aircraft.  Our high-end force is modern strike fighters. Used for: 1) Air Superiority, 2) Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), 3) high-risk Strike missions, 4) Recon Now, we have seven JAS 39 Gripen Cs. Buying more strike fighters should be our top priority. We need at least 3-5 more if we want to take on tougher missions. Our most-realistic options are more Gripens, F-16Cs, Hornets, Super Hornets (F/A-18s have some awesome standoff strike capabilities), and maybe the FA-50s (upgraded to carry AMRAAMs). We should look into setting up a front company to buy some more.  Our low-end force are fighter-bombers, light strike aircraft and CAS aircraft for 1) Strike, 2) CAS, and 3) basic Air-to--air. Now, we have two F-4Es. These guys are the heavy-hitters with their AMRAAMs and heavy air-to-ground loadout. There's also the two Su-25 Frogfoots and two Hawk 209s which are ok CAS and light strike aircraft, but will die rapidly against serious SAMs or AAA. Buying these is a secondary priority, but an easier need to fill. I'd recommend we buy up at least 3-5 more Phantom IIs. Turkish and Israeli Phantom IIs are the best buys, since they carry the best standoff strike weapons. The Israeli Kurnass has the Delilah cruise missile (277km range) and the Popeye bomb (74km range). Turkish Terminators have the Popeye and the SOM A cruise missile (240km range). If those can't be purchased, then we should invest in light strikers that carry precision weapons. No more farting around with dumb rockets. Consider the A-7 Corsair II, Jaguar, AMX and Hawk 209.  For our support aircraft, I think we need to focus on multi-role support aircraft that can do many different jobs. These are expensive aircraft to own and buy and we need to stretch our money as far as it will got. For SEAD and Electronic Warfare, we should try and get some EA-6B Prowlers. They have great jamming pods and can carry AGM-88 HARMs. We should add one more tanker-transport. The KC-135 is the best option -- as a bonus, they have a cargo deck for transport work. If that can't be arranged, let's buy a KC-130. It can do transport work into smaller fields the KC-135 can''t reach and it can help out as a tanker. Or, better yet, we try to make it into a KC-130J Harvest Hawk with bonus Hellfire and Griffin missiles. I don't think we need a dedicated maritime patrol force. However, it might be worth buying some S-3 Vikings . They can be bought for a song from the US government. They can do ground and sea strikes, and they carry a very nice selection of Mavericks, bombs, depth charges, torpedoes, and Harpoon missiles. They can also be buddy tankers! **For those interested in the P-3, it has some features we may find useful. The updated US P-3s (http://cmano-db.com/aircraft/3334/) can carry JDAMs and the 277km-range AGM-84K SLAMER-ATA. That could make it a pretty useful aircraft for killing SAM batteries. It also has a radar with a 370 km range and ELINT gear with a 926 km range. So it could help act as an a sort of AWACs-lite. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Dear god no. That would just get the Sk60s pasted. I wouldn't use them at all. Now, I'm saying this without the knowledge of just what exactly the topography around Lhasa is like, but the way to go is probably fast and low level with a single Gripen and a Mjolnir. Launch it, get the hell away and have the cluster munitions destroy the vulnerable radar. After that four Grips as CAP because there will be something big and advanced like a few J-16s airborne while the rest of what we have that aren't Sk60s go in with bombs. We only bought two Phantoms which sucks. We could have loaded them with 2000lb LGBs and really gone to town on the actual runway. Oh well, we'll have to make do. Equip the Frogfoots with as many laser-guided missiles as we can to pick off individual facilities like fuel stores, the control tower and so on. What other pylons can't take missiles will be loaded with dumb bombs and hit hangars. Final two Grips are equipped with anti-personnel Mjolnirs to damage whatever else might be out in the open, light support vehicles with fuel bowsers and the like. Still not happy with this plan, but fuckit. It's what we have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
We have to throw every plane we can get flying at the strike. If we lose a plane or two, it's still a more preferable alternative than getting stomped on the runway/hangars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Our prime target at Lhasa will be the runways, in all probability. If those are knocked out or at least severely damaged, we'll have achieved our goal (disabling Lhasa) and things like aircraft on the ground etc. will be irrelevant if they can't take off. That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage other targets, just that our main effort should be aimed at the runways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Later model Mirage 2000s seem good and there were a whole bunch produced so getting them should not be impossible and they're Eurotrash as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Get the SKs airborne, but they aren't worth sticking around to protect on a strike mission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
The Sk60s are utterly useless for this, we can't use them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Yep, they add literally no value to the strike because they can't hit what we need hit, and they're slow enough that we'd be sticking around specifically to protect them, which is not happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:The Sk60s are utterly useless for this, we can't use them. Load them up with rockets and crash them into the airbase? Worked for the IJN!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Except you have to protect them, if only for morale and esprit du corps reasons. If we make it clear to pilots that, you know what, we're not going to defend you because you're too slow, then who is going to actually fly that way instead of just buffering off? Besides, we still have slower aircraft to escort in this strike, the Hawk 209s and the Frogfoots aren't going to be able to haul rear end in the same way as the Phantoms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
If only we'd bought all the phantoms  So what loadouts can our new planes actually use? And at what stage of planning do we know how many phantoms are down?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
8 Phantoms at 100% availability could poo poo out 12 GBUs of whatever size per plane and it would be awesome. Hell, we could give napalm to some of them, the airframes would probably fly faster with the knowledge that they're going to fry Charlie again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
power crystals posted:If only we'd bought all the phantoms F-4Es Hawk 209s Frogfoots Frogfoots have anti-runway cluster munitions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Yooper posted:[b]Glad you're enjoying it! And yes, I put down some How can I get in on this racket?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Yooper, again - sorry for the complexity of this plan 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. Is this feasible to do? ---  Operation THOR'S HAMMER Here is the target:  Here is the plan:  First, SEAD birds kick in the door with Mjolner standoff cluster missiles and rain death on the Chinese SAMs and AAA. Then, heavy strikers hit the runway, grounded Chinese aircraft, and facilities. All the while, CAP Gripens are overhead ready to deal with the J-20s if they make an appearance. As a bonus, we send the slow CAS aircraft to hit TLA targets in the east to help the Indians Volunteers, distract the Chinese, and earn extra money. They can't keep up with the faster fighters and don't have the range, so sending them against Lhasa is a suicide mission. The tanker and the Eyrie play their normal supporting roles. 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 Mjolnerr Mk 1 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: OPTION 1: -Two BK 90 Mjolner Mk 2 cluster-dispensing missiles -Two RB 75 Maverick EO missiles -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles OPTION 2: -Four GBU-49 GPS-guided 500lb bombs *NOTE: Use the GPS mode on these, if possible) -Two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles Mission Primary: Destroy enemy aircraft Secondary: Destroy the runway Tertiary: Destroy enemy support facilities Heavy Striker - Phantom Flight Aircraft and Loadout Two F-4E Phantom IIs, each with OPTION 1: -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AMRAAMS OPTION 2: -Twelve Mk82 500lb dumb bombs -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AMRAAMS OPTION 3: Two GBU-12 2000lb laser0guided bombs -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AMRAAMS OPTION 4: -DWS.39 AFDS (aka BK 90 Mjolner) cluster-dispensing missiles -Two AMRAAMS Mission Primary: Destroy enemy aircraft Secondary: Destroy the runway Tertiary: Destroy enemy support facilities 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 strike 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 strike as possible Two Hawk 209s, each with: OPTION 1: -Four Rockeye cluster bombs -Two AIM-9Ls OPTION 2: -Two Maverick IR missiles -Two AIM-9Ls Mission Primary: Conduct a diversionary attack on TLA ground forces NE of our base. Use Quick Turnaround to make as many strike 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. VVV sorry, accidentally deleted part of it Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Your plan looks solid for the most part, Bacarruda, but I have to ask - why do you have your strike packages prioritising the aircraft rather than the runway when disabling Lhasa is our main objective? Is it because it's arguably going to be easier to disable the aircraft than the runway? e: Beaten by the edit?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
I disagree with using the Su-25s on the diversionary strike. Instead, I would employ them on the airfield strike, attacking the runway itself with BetAB-500s, anti-runway cluster bombs. If we take out the runway itself, the J-20s will not be able to recover there, and depending on how much fuel they will have burned engaging the Su-30s, they may not be able to recover anywhere. Would it not be wiser to attack from the south? Looking at a topological map, it seems that there is a lot of favourable terrain that can be used to mask ourselves from the radar sites. Edit: beaten by the edit too Edit 2: just went and double checked whether Su-25s could inflight refuel. They can't. Edit 3: Are you sure we want to fly over Channan? I'd be very worried about someone there alerting the air base. Quinntan fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Sure, I'll get in a Soviet deathtrap! Voting yes on the museum buy, and I'll volunteer to fly one!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:I disagree with using the Su-25s on the diversionary strike. Instead, I would employ them on the airfield strike, attacking the runway itself with BetAB-500s, anti-runway cluster bombs. If we take out the runway itself, the J-20s will not be able to recover there, and depending on how much fuel they will have burned engaging the Su-30s, they may not be able to recover anywhere. The route we take depends on what weapons we use. The reason for the western approach is that I want to use cluster munitions -- one cluster bomb will blanket about a quarter of the field with bomblets. That'll utterly vaporize their aircraft and do a lot of damage to the runway. This approach will have our weapons will be hitting in a east --> west direction down the length of the field, which gives us better odd of hitting things than a south --> north approach. Do this right will take some micro, Yooper will need to set all the strike birds to terrain-hugging, with a pop up for weapons launch. The Su-25s are too slow to really keep up with the strike package. Firewalling their throttle, they make about 520 knots. Just at cruise speed, the Phnatoms do 506 knots and wil be going much fatser on their attack run and egress. That means we need to either A) slow the strike package to keep pace with the slow Frogfoots or B) have them leave the Frgofoots behind, which means our CAP Gripens are going to be burning gas trying to cover the Frogtfoot's slow egress. That exposes the Frogfoots and the Gripens to a retaliation from the J-20s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
I think we could get 4 SK-60s for the diversion and 4 more for the base strike itself. They could focus on destroying the control tower or fuel supplies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
power crystals posted:If only we'd bought all the phantoms But the phantoms have a very slight chance of malfunction that can easily be amortized by buying more airframes, so clearly we need to buy fewer and weigh ourselves down with fighter bait! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Triple A posted:I think we could get 4 SK-60s for the diversion and 4 more for the base strike itself. They could focus on destroying the control tower or fuel supplies. They don't have the range to carry rockets and make it Lhasa and back. If they carry the 30mm gunpods, they can make it. But they're too slow to get in and get out with the rest of the strikers. That means they will show up over Lhasa late and get hit by Chinese fighters as they try to get out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Note that in CMANO you need specialized weapons to destroy runways, due to how the penetration mechanics work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
pthighs posted:Note that in CMANO you need specialized weapons to destroy runways, due to how the penetration mechanics work. Can't the Mjolner Mk 2's kill runways? The Greek F-4E loadout in-game has them using the Mjolner's as anti-runway weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Apparently our Phantoms can carry a pair of Mjolnirs designed for anti-runway ops. We should have bought more of these. Another complication: Lhasa airport has two runways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Yes to Ukrainian planes I didn't sacrifice my liver for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:But the phantoms have a very slight chance of malfunction that can easily be amortized by buying more airframes, so clearly we need to buy fewer and weigh ourselves down with fighter bait! No see they're busted Vietnam-era planes that aren't of any value. Here's why we should buy some literal museum relics, Quinntan posted:Apparently our Phantoms can carry a pair of Mjolnirs designed for anti-runway ops. We should have bought more of these. See!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Buy the Ukrainian planes, seriously, what's the matter with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Man the CMANO Alpha Jet doesn't get Mavericks, Sidewinders or Matra Magic IIs that I've seen listed elsewhere, otherwise they might be a nice little in-between jet On the other hand, the AMX seems like a Gripen analogue with a diverse loadout, if we can't get another to replace our lost one
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
The AMX is not a Gripen, it's more akin to the Frogfoot out of all the aircraft we currently operate, being a specialised ground attack platform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:16
|
|