|
I dunno bossman, the Albanian language versions of Safety Dance and Dancing With Tears In My Eyes have kinda grown on me.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:59 |
|
|
Yooper posted:A daring and dashing plan should be awesome, even if a few heros go down in flames. I'm choosing to interpret this as Yooper saying he wants to see BRRRRRRRRT.  Hexenritter posted:I dunno bossman, the Albanian language versions of Safety Dance and Dancing With Tears In My Eyes have kinda grown on me. LoSA has Albanian 80's "Love Shack" on repeat at the I-HAWK 'Command Post'. Because he wants a B-52 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
One of the biggest parts of the problem is that when things start going bad, they tend to cascade. This is combined with CMANO's RNG, causing a death spiral clusterfucks. There's also the airframe cost factor. We use the USAF no-loss model because we essentially HAVE to, as serious attrition among our high-end assets will send us into bankruptcy in short order. Modern jet are so expensive that loosing even a handful will send us strait into the red, but you need them to actually compete against peer opponents. If you using relics from the 70's, all you can do against 5th gens is to serve as target practice, and even 4th gens will walk all over you. The performance gap is that big.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
I honestly kinda wish the reliability penalties for 3DP had been reversed, so that older stuff was more reliable (simple metallurgy, nobody has fo reverse engineer crazy cockpit computer software, original blueprints found in some grandpa’s attic). That would encourage buying swathes of cheap junk that wouldn’t hurt as much to lose instead of buying whatever model Flanker or F-16 was released on [cutoff minus one day]. As it is we have to play super cautious because losing our high-end assets is really, really bad. Hell, look at how messy the Bering got after the Reaper was shot down. This is also why I tend to never vote for buying really fancy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
http://cmano-db.com/aircraft/1621/ It is adorable!!! Look at it with its' little to no technological capability and the massive potential bomb load variety, oh it is trying so hard to get attention. I want a whole squadron of them!! I'll call them Kitten Squadron and paint Anime girls on them and send them off to bomb things with their adorableness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I honestly kinda wish the reliability penalties for 3DP had been reversed, so that older stuff was more reliable (simple metallurgy, nobody has fo reverse engineer crazy cockpit computer software, original blueprints found in some grandpa’s attic). That would encourage buying swathes of cheap junk that wouldn’t hurt as much to lose instead of buying whatever model Flanker or F-16 was released on [cutoff minus one day]. As it is we have to play super cautious because losing our high-end assets is really, really bad. Hell, look at how messy the Bering got after the Reaper was shot down. If you can find me stats that back this up I'll explore it. On one hand I can understand the older reliability, but on the other we are much better at making (certain kinds of) complex stuff today than we were in 1965.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I honestly kinda wish the reliability penalties for 3DP had been reversed, so that older stuff was more reliable (simple metallurgy, nobody has fo reverse engineer crazy cockpit computer software, original blueprints found in some grandpa’s attic). That would encourage buying swathes of cheap junk that wouldn’t hurt as much to lose instead of buying whatever model Flanker or F-16 was released on [cutoff minus one day]. As it is we have to play super cautious because losing our high-end assets is really, really bad. Hell, look at how messy the Bering got after the Reaper was shot down. Again, the problem is the performance difference. Older planes get slaughtered whenever they go up against more advanced systems, be they other planes or SAMs. Considering how happy Russia is to export it's early to mid 90s era kit, you have a recipe for a blood bath. If we go all in with soviet junk, we're more likely to get outright obliterated without accomplishing anything. The only real tactic is the jet equivalent of the human wave, and hope that the enemy runs out of ammunition before you do air-frames. Then there's the fact that most of the old crap is also short ranged and/or inaccurate, meaning we have to get withing relative knife fighting range to actually do something, and we need more of it to get through. It would be every bit as expensive as running modern jets. omegasgundam fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Here's a weird suggestion that might get a low complexity or be worth distributing the cost to other groups: 1976 RAF Buccaneer S.2B AS.37 Martel are 30nm ARMs and it can carry 4x. AJ.168 Martel are 16nm missiles with a 150kg SAP warhead and an EO seeker, similar to the early Maverick at almost 3x the range but slower, and it can carry 3x. Later version gets Sea Eagles and Paveways but I don't think those are necessary. 1983 South African Buccaneer S.50 AS.30 are bullpups (command guidance) with twice the boom, 2x on loadouts. Raptor 1 are 30nm 1000lb glide bombs, 2x also. Both versions of the Buccaneer also have probe refueling and fantastic range. They aren't the kind of plane that we should tool ourselves, but definitely the kind of weird crap that I'd love to see flying around and maybe buy two or four on a lark.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Yooper posted:If you can find me stats that back this up I'll explore it. On one hand I can understand the older reliability, but on the other we are much better at making (certain kinds of) complex stuff today than we were in 1965. I do not have stats for this and I suspect if I did that they'd agree with your assessment (though this does leave out the issue of software for the jets that start having computers). I am speaking strictly from a gameplay perspective of the "meta"game for procurement--there is basically no reason to ever buy the older stuff because it's more likely to fall out of the sky on top of having less capable hardware, fewer weapon options, little to no PGMs, etc. They're cheaper, but not cheaper enough to be worth considering unless they provide some one-off oddball capability (F-14A). It would be easy to handwave this away narratively, should one be inclined: just say the 3D printing process is more capable of working with older planes' engines, or that its tolerances are slightly too loose for super-modern hardware, etc. It's just that from an artificial mechanic it doesn't make me feel like I'm making any tradeoffs when I choose to buy a circa 1989 Hornet; it's just "yep, that was a good choice we made there". This is of course just my opinion and I think historically I tend to be on the minority of any such things around here. omegasgundam posted:Again, the problem is the performance difference. Older planes get slaughtered whenever they go up against more advanced systems, be they other planes or SAMs. Considering how happy Russia is to export it's early to mid 90s era kit, you have a recipe for a blood bath. If we go all in with soviet junk, we're more likely to get outright obliterated without accomplishing anything. The only real tactic is the jet equivalent of the human wave, and hope that the enemy runs out of ammunition before you do air-frames. Then there's the fact that most of the old crap is also short ranged and/or inaccurate, meaning we have to get withing relative knife fighting range to actually do something, and we need more of it to get through. It would be every bit as expensive as running modern jets. ASFs absolutely need to be modern or they will get pasted, agreed; (non-SAHR) BVR + in-flight refueling is basically mandatory. SEAD missions almost as much so (unless our OECM game is really on point). But for blowing up piles of mud that problem was pretty well solved in Vietnam unless we absolutely need to get our CEPs down to sub-1m (or we wind up actually having to fight in Vietnam). I'm not asking for Super Sabres because yeah at some point things actually do become near-useless, but Thuds or even hell Skyraiders and the like should still work reasonably well for what we need assuming our CAP and SEAD flights do their job. Dear god this post has too many acronyms in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Dear god this post has too many acronyms in it. We're playing a grognard-ish wargame, of course we're gonna have acronyms everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Yooper posted:If you can find me stats that back this up I'll explore it. On one hand I can understand the older reliability, but on the other we are much better at making (certain kinds of) complex stuff today than we were in 1965. Uh, how deep into the rabbit hole do you want to go? Here is some "light reading" on the subject: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=70883 http://www.sre.org/pubs/Mil-Hdbk-217F.pdf http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/workgroups/Documents/Paperless%20Supply%20Chain/Basics-AC-MR.pdf http://yarchive.net/mil/fa18_vs_a6.html https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2013/P7515.pdf <- If any of you read one thing on this subject I recommend this one. tl;dr which is still pretty long: It depends. Wear on components, which causes breakdowns, is mostly a function of cycles used, or in the case of aircraft, flight hours. You've modeled this somewhat in that our 3dp planes get worse the more missions we fly with them. In addition, parts availability is an issue with older planes which we don't have to deal with thanks to the parts being 3d printed. A lot of the problems keeping old planes around disappear when the old planes aren't actually old but brand spanking new. On the other hand, not only are we better at making things, we're FAR better at designing things to be easier to maintain. Refer to the email about the F/A-18 versus the A-6, and the 1988 study in the next link. The Hornet needs less than half the man-hours in maintenance that the Intruder does. Our Gripens are in this category too. The problem is there is a lot of variance here. That last source quotes a study by the CIA that shows that the R-11 engine on the MiG-21 had about 10% of the parts of an American engine of comparable vintage, required 8% the man-hours to maintain, could be built using conventional materials rather than special ones, stressed its parts to half the US levels, but needed to be overhauled three times as often. So you can see why the MiG-21 might be a joy to 3dp while an American equivalent would not be. The short of it is this field is too complex to simplify to the year, one way or the other. Either way is basically handwaving, which is not a bad thing, because otherwise you would need a reliability engineer to keep things straight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Grapeshot leaves the commons, shaking his head. "I don't have the heart to tell Yooper that it isn't broken. We can change the channels just fine. He just thinks it's the same channel because they're all playing the same music."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
Personally as much as I love helicopters, and crazy Russian poo poo like the HIND, I don't think we should get helicopters because they really need to be down crazy low and masked by terrain from things that want to kill them. After watching the helicopter assault on St. Lawrence I think that it would drop a huge workload on your shoulders to keep them alive and in proper terrain cover while simultaneously managing everything else in the air. I think it would quickly go full grognard to effectively utilize them which doesn't really fit with running half drunken ops. I vote against using helicopters. Quinntan posted:Proposal Keep On Keeping On 8x Bison: $60m 2x Flogger: $40m 2x A-6E Intruder: ?? I would propose going with this rather than 4 Floggers. It just has so many amazing capabilities to offer us, like throwing AGM-88 HARM (70nm range!) at missile batteries we would otherwise struggle with, AGM-78D Walleye (50nm range), Harpoons, air dropped torpedo mines, a mini air tanker kit, and NAPALM! It even has decoy missiles we could potentially use to ferret out the really high end SAM batteries. koolkevz666 posted:http://cmano-db.com/aircraft/1621/ That thing can poo poo out a cloud of 1600 PTABs! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB_(bomb) That would pretty well ruin the day of any vehicle caught under that drop. Lee Outrageous fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Lee Outrageous posted:Personally as much as I love helicopters, and crazy Russian poo poo like the HIND, I don't think we should get helicopters because they really need to be down crazy low and masked by terrain from things that want to kill them. After watching the helicopter assault on St. Lawrence I think that it would drop a huge workload on your shoulders to keep them alive and in proper terrain cover while simultaneously managing everything else in the air. I think it would quickly go full grognard to effectively utilize them which doesn't really fit with running half drunken ops. I vote against using helicopters. Just to be clear, when you say "half-drunk ops" do you mean that they were planned by people who were half-drunk or the pilots were half-drunk? Because both make too much sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
You're forgetting a half-drunk ops director. Combine all three and you have your answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
I had Yooper in mind, but all three fits just as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
The real trick to it is that you actually multiply the sobriety. So .5*.5*.5=.125, or 87.5% drunk ops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
"pick that goddamn Jäger up pilot. You aren't leaving the ground until you can't walk a straight line."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The real trick to it is that you actually multiply the sobriety. The logic in that statement is impeccable. As an engineer I salute your mathematical gymnastics and will drink to that!  Another round of voting! 35 Goons used their god given right to shitpost. Bravo!  The first round had a tie between BDA and Airlift with the Zeppelin drifting into the horizon.  Yes, technically I could have shitcanned the bridge strike, but I have a new script and I'm going to test it!  There it is! An Airlift folks! While I get that prepped I'm also going to do a summary of our 3D Print Situation. We've had a lot of good ideas tossed out and it's evolving into a pretty interesting, challenging, and hopefully rewarding system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
power crystals posted:ASFs absolutely need to be modern or they will get pasted, agreed; (non-SAHR) BVR + in-flight refueling is basically mandatory. SEAD missions almost as much so (unless our OECM game is really on point). But for blowing up piles of mud that problem was pretty well solved in Vietnam unless we absolutely need to get our CEPs down to sub-1m (or we wind up actually having to fight in Vietnam). I'm not asking for Super Sabres because yeah at some point things actually do become near-useless, but Thuds or even hell Skyraiders and the like should still work reasonably well for what we need assuming our CAP and SEAD flights do their job. Yes, platform doesn't really matter in sanitized airspace, but that puts additional demand on our SEAD teams. The proliferation of good MANPADs makes traditional low level CAS problematic, and causes operations to drag out due to the inaccuracy of unguided munitions at altitude. Smart bombs solve that, but they also serve as a general hard counter to anything that can't shoot back. As a side question, does anybody now why so many early smart bomb loadouts only carry 2? It's always confused the gently caress out of me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
The DT5 Meet-Greet-Brunch has been cancelled. Someone tell the folks in Food Service, I don't have the heart to break it to the chef. I'll let the texts speak for themselves.  Near as I can gather Jack was actually the responsible adult in this situation. So Oks was hungry and put her credit card into an Apple iPhone vending machine. She pushed a button, any button, and it gave her a phone. So she demanded to speak to someone in the machine. Oks believed that Tim Cook was actually inside the machine and had personally taken her money. So Aiko tried to explain, and hacked the machine but instead all of the credit card machines in Zagreb went down. Yolanda decided to shoot out the lock, but it didn't work. Finally Chana tipped it over. Once the police arrived Jack and Lucy convinced the others to go peacefully. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4NI_BPTYR8 They'll still be on for the next mission.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
omegasgundam posted:Yes, platform doesn't really matter in sanitized airspace, but that puts additional demand on our SEAD teams. The proliferation of good MANPADs makes traditional low level CAS problematic, and causes operations to drag out due to the inaccuracy of unguided munitions at altitude. Smart bombs solve that, but they also serve as a general hard counter to anything that can't shoot back. Well, yeah, I'm not saying it'd be a flawless and 100% safe plan. omegasgundam posted:As a side question, does anybody now why so many early smart bomb loadouts only carry 2? It's always confused the gently caress out of me. It's probably something to with which pylons are wired to operate them. Any given hardpoint on a plane is limited in what can go there by a combination of aerodynamics, weight, and if the circuitry exists to actually fire whatever you stuck there. Anything with a seeker needs to be fed targeting data and usually has a bunch of secondary data to pass back and forth--even IR missiles need to have their seeker turned on/off and return their signal strength feedback, but they can also get crazier with anything from just un-caging the seeker up to LOAL nonsense. I'm going to assume that for the early stuff they didn't bother running the signals out to all the various hardpoints, and didn't yet have the multiple carry racks handy yet either. Or it could be as simple as they never certified the other pylons to use that weapon. Someone in this thread better have a link to stores-separation-failures.flv because I seem to have lost it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Well gently caress, *puts away autograph book*
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Early precision bombs were a revelation because they meant a strike operation could reliably hit its target. The sort of ops we're running now just weren't in the cards back then. The motor pool would've probably copped a whole squadron of intruders, the air base would have eaten a flight carrying runway cratering bombs or similar, and the rioters would have had a much more interesting time of it. The sort of missions that originally got PGMs were things like a single well defended bridge so they didn't have to go back the next day for another try, and for that and given the relatively low numbers of the things only a few pylons were needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
power crystals posted:It's probably something to with which pylons are wired to operate them. Any given hardpoint on a plane is limited in what can go there by a combination of aerodynamics, weight, and if the circuitry exists to actually fire whatever you stuck there. Anything with a seeker needs to be fed targeting data and usually has a bunch of secondary data to pass back and forth--even IR missiles need to have their seeker turned on/off and return their signal strength feedback, but they can also get crazier with anything from just un-caging the seeker up to LOAL nonsense. I'm going to assume that for the early stuff they didn't bother running the signals out to all the various hardpoints, and didn't yet have the multiple carry racks handy yet either. The first would explain things. It's the sort of thing that gets fixed in a major upgrade program, not as a casual fix at a unit depot. I remember it being a problem on the Hornets back in 91, resulting is some weird configurations. It would also explain why the bombers got full smart bomb payloads earlier, the bomb bays were already wired.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Oks did nothing wrong, Tim Cook did in fact steal her money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Or it could be as simple as they never certified the other pylons to use that weapon. Someone in this thread better have a link to stores-separation-failures.flv because I seem to have lost it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTnmZ_HPAs
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Yooper posted:The logic in that statement is impeccable. As an engineer I salute your mathematical gymnastics and will drink to that! So we had a crazy idea in chat just now. What if this airlift op was...wait for it...at night? A night op would be an interesting new challenge for HG, and has a high likelihood of planes blundering into knife fights in the dark, to sate that goon lust for carnage. I reckon it could be good fun. E: There's also the high chance of Sofia looking like Baghdad in 1991. Cinematic as hell! Realbarrow fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
At night.... in a rainstorm
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Pretty sure there's another version with more, but here. It's surprisingly hard to make things fall off an aircraft. Yeah that's it, thanks! The next time one of you out there wants to know why plane X can't mount weapon Y, just think of this video. e: also, for anyone not already aware of it, this is why the Superhornet (F-18E and F) has abysmal operating range. Due to some aerodynamics wizardry, the only way to get weapons to clear the plane properly was to cant the pylons outward slightly, which adds a horrific amount of drag. The original Hornet didn't have this problem for reasons I am wildly underqualified to understand, but the Super is basically dragging its own rear end around everywhere it goes. power crystals fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Hexenritter posted:At night.... in a rainstorm So we're buying Intruders and Prowlers then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
omegasgundam posted:One of the biggest parts of the problem is that when things start going bad, they tend to cascade. This is combined with CMANO's RNG, causing a death spiral clusterfucks. We really haven't be following a no-loss model. We've had several really, really bloody missions (the Canada Express shootout, the Mistsuhashi slapflight, poking the Bear). And even our more mundane missions have cost us 1-3 planes a mission. It feels like we're doing well because we tend to trade 2-1 or 3-1 in the air. But our loss rate has been pretty brutal. With the exception of that one Gripen, 100% of the combat aircraft we flew in Tibet have been shot down or sold. In the past, Yooper was really generous with destructobux and procurement, so these losses were sorta-sustainable. But with the payouts getting lower (and quite frankly, more realistic, which is a nice touch!) we can't afford to get unlucky any more. For example, we lost $46 million in planes last mission and only earned $48 million. We lost a huge chunk of change to one leaker. It could have been way worse. We really can't afford to get lucky or make mistakes anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:We really haven't be following a no-loss model. We've had several really, really bloody missions (the Canada Express shootout, the Mistsuhashi slapflight, poking the Bear). And even our more mundane missions have cost us 1-3 planes a mission. On the one hand, I see what you mean with regards to losing aircraft. On the other, given that all of our plans have to go through at least three different filters between ops and execution (the goons and their voting; Yooper's implementation; CMANO's RNG and "interpretation"), I don't see any way to further mitigate our losses short of having a hypothetical player that isn't Yooper very precisely micromanage every op. Not that Yooper isn't a very good player and very good GM, but the hypothetical player probably wouldn't drink on mission.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Yeah that's it, thanks! The next time one of you out there wants to know why plane X can't mount weapon Y, just think of this video. All in the name of sneaking something past Congress. omegasgundam fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Nov 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Yeah that's it, thanks! The next time one of you out there wants to know why plane X can't mount weapon Y, just think of this video. It's not aerodynamic wizardry, it's budgetary wizardry. The whole idea behind the Super Hornet was that it's based on the legacy bug (ha ha ha no really), and thus wouldn't cost all that much to develop. When the stores separation issues started to pop up, this left the Navy with an expensive problem to fix. However, given that US Navy procurement had been a complete disaster, the A-12 in particular was such a disaster zone that litigation over its cancellation that it only got settled in 2014 despite the program being cancelled in 1991, the Navy thought they'd never get the money for redesigning the wing to solve the stores separation issues. So, they simply shrugged and decided to leave it be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Hexenritter posted:At night.... in a rainstorm Thunderstorm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Thunderstorm. "Rain fell over Timisoara like something out of the Old Testament. Lightning cracked the sky like so many eggshells. That goddamn Albanian cover of Take On Me was playing in the background as I stared at the radar screen through bleary, smoke-reddened eyes. It had been quiet. Too quiet."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
On the plus side given the course of recent fighting I'd bet that a lot of merc outfits are letting their low end freak flag fly so stacked high end opposition doesn't have to be a given.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
I'd also guess that if things go too far in one direction Yooper would tweak thigs - either we get higher payouts or opposition would be lowered. Or missions would be lower key so we can build up a buffer again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:59 |
|
|
wedgekree posted:I'd also guess that if things go too far in one direction Yooper would tweak thigs - either we get higher payouts or opposition would be lowered. Or missions would be lower key so we can build up a buffer again. Or have us do multiple smaller operation over a given time frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 06:30
|
|