|
They're perfectly acceptable bomb trucks to send to secondary objectives or places where poo poo might be risky and we don't want to throw one of our premier workhorses.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 07:31 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
I just wanna say that I am in favour of aircraft maybe not being available immediately after a mission. We have a lot of pilots so we need either a lot of losses or a lot of planes to get thrm all seats. I would prefer having a lot of planes. But then we need a lot of rotation, and yeah, maintenance (not that I want this to become Hangar Simulator 2017) is an important part in that. An abstract cooldown of x after y missions is good, a roll before planning if A or B not available due to mechanical failure - all good in my eyes The alternative seems to be a cap on our fleet, either due to losses or just because, and I am not behind that idea unless we have a stupid number of planes. Low cost options with low cost flight time and quick reuasbility is good, otherwise who wouldn't bring their A-game every time and leave nothing on the table? I don't care how arbitrary thpse figures are, I support the notion of them. The morning/afternoon/night mission cycles suggested earlier in the thread could be another way to achieve this, rather than an abstract "maintenance downtime". Whatever. I just want to see us having to make compromises in what we send up without calculating minutae.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 07:38 |
|
Kitfox88 posted:They're perfectly acceptable bomb trucks to send to secondary objectives or places where poo poo might be risky and we don't want to throw one of our premier workhorses. Wouldn't send them us against anything nastier than an SA-17 though. EDIT: Working on a fluff piece to explain how we move our fighters from theater to theater. If features Wacky Wally, "opportunistic acquisitions" from an ill prepared and overworked military scrapyard, and a bote that he REALLY needed to get rid of. "I'd say this was something that fell off the back of a truck, but let's be honest here. This literally the sort of thing that truck fall off of." omegasgundam fucked around with this message at 07:57 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 07:39 |
|
RandomPauI posted:Can we legalese a way to quit without taking penalties? This is a hypothetical question right now. E.g. if the bosses are too insufferable. Presumably our lawyers do have exit clauses in our contract. Right? Right? Although I'm guessing there will also be noncompete clauses, so we can't just turn around and fly for Iceberg or BSNC after we leave.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 08:05 |
|
thatbastardken posted:slightlymad, we need nose art. I suggest a bloody-mouthed koala in a straitjacket How's that, dropbear? A quick job but I am no artist.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 08:57 |
|
And here we have part 3. I may or may not add cannons at some point, put it's not really relevant to the LP. Guidance Abbreviations None: Unguided IR: Infrared Heat Seeker Laser: Laser designated Semi: Semi-active radar Radar: Internal Radar guided ARH: Anti-Radiation Homing TV: Camera remote controlled GPS: Global Positioning System INS: Internal Navigation System, works when the GPS is debris Comm: Command guidance, wire or radio Damage Abbreviations Frag: Fragmentation HE: High Explosive AP: Armor Piercing SAP: Semi-Armor Piercing HTP: Hard Target Penetrating SC: Shaped Charge Property Abbreviations HoJ: Home On Jamming BOL: Bearing Only Launch TF: Terrain Following SP: Search Pattern Pre-Set: Pre-Briefed target only Pop-Up: Terminal attack pattern is Pop-up Random: Terminal attack pattern is Random Re-Attack: Re-Attack capability Memory: ARH Target memory HOF: High Off Bore launching LOAL: Lock-On After Launch NATO SAMs MANPADS Section: 3 teams pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties FIM-92F Stinger RMP: 3 nm IR - 65% 1.05 15 kg Frag 5 2 - Starstreak II 4 nm IR - 75% 0.94 20 kg Frag 5 2 British RB 70 Bolide 8 nm S-L - 65% 0.38 15 kg Frag 5 2 Swedish Vehicle Platoon: 3 launchers pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties MIM-77G Chaparral 4.5 nm IR - 65% 4.38 87 kg Frag, 5 4 - RB 98 IRIS-T SLS 6 nm IR - 95% 3.99 87 kg Frag, 2 4 German Tamir [Iron Dome] 8 nm Radar - 95% 4.38 90 kg Frag, 2 20 HoJ, Israeli MIM-120B NASAMS: 16 nm Radar - 85% 2.7 154 kg Frag, 6 6 HoJ, Norwegian MIM-120C-7 NASAMS: 20 nm Radar - 95% 2.7 154 kg Frag, 6 6 HoJ, Norwegian Battery: 6 launchers pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties MIM-23E/P I-HAWK ELM: 22 nm Semi - 70% 19.6 635 kg Frag 3 3 - MIM-23K I-HAWK ELM: 22 nm Semi - 75% 19.6 635 kg Frag 3 3 - MIM-104F PAC-3 ERINT 40nm Radar - 95% 1 320 kg AP 2 8 HoJ MIM-104B Patriot 55nm Semi - 85% 31.8 900 kg Frag 2 4 - MIM-104D Patriot GEM 55nm Semi - 90% 29.4 900 kg Frag 2 4 - MIM-104E GEM+ 55nm Semi - 95% 29.4 900 kg Frag 2 4 - MIM-104F PAC-3 MSE 40nm Radar - 95% 1 320 kg AP 2 8 HoJ Oddball Unites: varies pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties Python 6 SPYDER-MR (2) 10 nm IR - 95% 3.99 105 kg Frag 2 8 HOB, Israeli Akash(4) 15 nm Semi - 70% 19.6 720 kg Frag 2 3 Indian, Complete poo poo Derby SPYDER-MR (2) 18 nm Radar - 95% 4.38 118 kg Frag 2 8 HoJ, Israeli Aster 30 SAAM-FR (4) 60 nm Radar - 95% 13.6 450 kg Frag 2 9 HoJ, LOAL, French USSR SAMs MANPADS Section: 3 teams pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-14 Gremlin 3 nm IR - 45% 0.38 11 kg Frag 5 2 - SA-16 Gimlet 3 nm IR - 50% 0.7 11 kg Frag 5 2 - SA-18 Grouse 3 nm IR - 50% 0.88 11 kg Frag 5 2 - Vehicle Platoon: 2 vehicles pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-13 Gopher 4 nm IR - 45% 1.75 42 kg Frag 5 8 - SA-19 Grisom 4 nm Semi - 70% 3.15 60 kg Frag 2 8 - SA-15a Gauntlet 9 nm Semi - 80% 5.25 167 kg Frag 2 8 - Buk Platoon: 3 vehicles pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-11 Gadfly 25 nm Semi - 75% 24.5 685 kg Frag 5 4 - S-300P- Battery: 6 launchers, choice pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-10a Grumble 40 nm Semi - 75% 45.5 1480 kg Frag 2 4 - SA-10b Grumble 50 nm Semi - 80% 45.5 1470 kg Frag 2 4 - S-300V Battery: 4 launchers, 2 of each pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-12a Gladiator 45 nm Semi - 80% 150 3490 kg Frag 2 4 - SA-12b Giant 60 nm Semi - 80% 150 5805 kg Frag 2 2 - MANPADS Section: 3 teams pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-24 Grouse 3 nm IR - 50% 0.88 12 kg Frag 5 2 - SA-25 Verba 3.5 nm IR - 50% 0.88 12 kg Frag 5 2 - Vehicle Platoon: 2 vehicles pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-13 Gopher 4 nm IR - 45% 1.75 42 kg Frag 5 8 - SA-15e Gauntlet 9 nm Semi - 80% 5.25 167 kg Frag 2 16 - SA-22 Greyhound 10 nm Semi - 70% 7 90 kg Frag 2 12 - Buk Platoon: 3 vehicles pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-17 Grizzly 40 nm Semi - 80% 24.5 720 kg Frag 3 8 - S-300PM-1 Battery: 6 launchers, choice pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-20a Gargoyle 80 nm Semi - 80% 52.5 1780 kg Frag 2 4 - SA-20b Gargoyle 110 nm Semi - 80% 52.5 1800 kg Frag 2 4 - S-300V4 Battery: 4 launchers, have both pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-23a Gladiator 80 nm Semi - 80% 150 3490 kg Frag 2 4 - SA-23b Giant 120 nm Semi - 80% 150 5805 kg Frag 2 2 - S-400 Battery: 8 launchers, choice. Also excuse me if I find the missile weights WAY too low. pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Weight Type RoF Shots Properties SA-21a Growler 135 nm Semi - 80% 123 1800 kg Frag 2 4 - SA-21b Growler 215 nm Radar - 80% 43 1800 kg Frag 2 4 HoJ Both of the 10 nm will have been in service for several years by the time of the LP. pre:Name Range Guide CEP PK Dam Type RoF Shots Properties HELLADS 10 kw 3nm Laser - 90% 2.4 Laser 7 100 - HELLADS 60 kw 4nm Laser - 90% 2.4 Laser 7 100 - LaWS 10 nm Laser - 90% 2.4 Laser 15 100 - Tamir [Iron Beam] 10 nm Laser - 90% 2.4 Laser 15 100 Israeli omegasgundam fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jun 11, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 11:02 |
|
omegasgundam posted:FREAKEN LASERS I would like to restate my declaration to vote for a laser bote.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 11:06 |
|
Groggy nard posted:I would like to restate my declaration to vote for a laser bote. Good luck with that. The Iron Beam is Israeli, and best of luck getting a set out of them. The LaWS is USN, and I think they would pay particularly close attention to ships that have it installed. The damage and refire rate are rather lovely against jets, but handle the anti-ordinance role just fine. I'd rather get another I-HAWK battery as well as an Iron Dome set before we do a lot of branching out.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 11:17 |
|
sparkmaster posted:So you're saying we should steal a cruise ship? This is a good idea, and I endorse. I'm saying we should buy Crete and then start up an airbase/tourist attraction. Imagine how much we could charge old American tourists for backseat rides in the Phantoms!
|
# ? May 28, 2017 13:01 |
|
I don't know why people think Crete is for sale. Didn't the Yugoslavians buy all of Greece's debt?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 13:33 |
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I don't know why people think Crete is for sale. Didn't the Yugoslavians buy all of Greece's debt? I think its more people doing thought experiments than anything else, kind of like how people kept going in abiut how we should invade Iceland.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 14:09 |
|
Any island purchase had better come with our own arms manufacturer so we don't need to worry about severing our own supply lines.omegasgundam posted:Operating costs have been removed. They didn't add anything to the LP, and were tedious and unfun. I'm not sure where you're getting this. We don't explicitly pre-purchase ammunition anymore (because yeah that sucked), but we still pay to replace it and I'm pretty sure we still pay for sending planes into the air even if they don't fire a shot. Unless you're counting things like pure maintenance, or other base-only operations expenditures, in which case as I understand it they never were a thing in the first place because while I'm sure some of this crowd would love to play Plane Mechanic 2023, it would detract from the point of the LP.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:24 |
|
Yeah I still think that our various planes cost X dollars for every hour we fly them to represent fuel and maintenance and everything in one easy to calculate package. Also, I don't get what the "opportunity cost" is of keeping the AMX's around. Again, it's not like we can only own 60 planes total or whatever so what does getting rid of them do? Add a pretty negligible few million to the bank account?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:32 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:Also, I don't get what the "opportunity cost" is of keeping the AMX's around. Again, it's not like we can only own 60 planes total or whatever so what does getting rid of them do? Add a pretty negligible few million to the bank account? Selling them and the Mirages would have added $46m to our current $36.2m. That means we could buy more of Wacky Willie's aircraft, perhaps a PS-1 to go along with the Shackleton people are after.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:39 |
|
Quinntan posted:Selling them and the Mirages would have added $46m to our current $36.2m. That means we could buy more of Wacky Willie's aircraft, perhaps a PS-1 to go along with the Shackleton people are after. I don't think anybody but me is demented enough to want a Shackleton.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:44 |
|
I'd like a second AEW bird, and even a lovely one is better than none. Same with the MPAs.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:04 |
|
I think in general we should not sell planes that are not severely limited in capability. Even then, I think we'll have a mission or two where stuff we collect can shine/burn before we move it on. Lets wait and see what the next procurement actually looks like before we decide we don't have enough money for it.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:16 |
|
glynnenstein posted:I think in general we should not sell planes that are not severely limited in capability. Even then, I think we'll have a mission or two where stuff we collect can shine/burn before we move it on. Lets wait and see what the next procurement actually looks like before we decide we don't have enough money for it. I'd argue the opposite. As the general quality of our fleet improves, the gap between the average quality and the more limited stuff becomes more apparent. In the ground attack role the gap between the AMX/Mirage F1 and our Tornadoes is pretty glaring in terms of payload, range of armaments, flight radius and countermeasures. This isn't aided by them being so limited in number, with only a pair of either of them. They both impose their own substantial additional complications to planning ops while adding little to no additional capabilities.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:26 |
|
omegasgundam posted:Good luck with that. The Iron Beam is Israeli, and best of luck getting a set out of them. The LaWS is USN, and I think they would pay particularly close attention to ships that have it installed. The damage and refire rate are rather lovely against jets, but handle the anti-ordinance role just fine. I'd rather get another I-HAWK battery as well as an Iron Dome set before we do a lot of branching out. This may all be true but listen to this laser bote
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:55 |
|
Quinntan posted:I'd argue the opposite. As the general quality of our fleet improves, the gap between the average quality and the more limited stuff becomes more apparent. In the ground attack role the gap between the AMX/Mirage F1 and our Tornadoes is pretty glaring in terms of payload, range of armaments, flight radius and countermeasures. This isn't aided by them being so limited in number, with only a pair of either of them. They both impose their own substantial additional complications to planning ops while adding little to no additional capabilities. Precisely. Given our current theater they seem even less useful and I would much rather have the reserve funds to take advantage of what may come.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 17:07 |
|
omegasgundam posted:Good luck with that. The Iron Beam is Israeli, and best of luck getting a set out of them. The LaWS is USN, and I think they would pay particularly close attention to ships that have it installed. The damage and refire rate are rather lovely against jets, but handle the anti-ordinance role just fine. I'd rather get another I-HAWK battery as well as an Iron Dome set before we do a lot of branching out. This is a step in the right direction, but ... SA-21. SS-26.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 17:14 |
|
omegasgundam posted:Good luck with that. The Iron Beam is Israeli, and best of luck getting a set out of them. The LaWS is USN, and I think they would pay particularly close attention to ships that have it installed. The damage and refire rate are rather lovely against jets, but handle the anti-ordinance role just fine. I'd rather get another I-HAWK battery as well as an Iron Dome set before we do a lot of branching out. The Israelis have always been happy to sell modern equipment to anyone who isn't involved in being a threat to the Jewish State of Israel. I don't see why they wouldn't sell
|
# ? May 28, 2017 17:23 |
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Precisely. Given our current theater they seem even less useful and I would much rather have the reserve funds to take advantage of what may come. Well, lets see a mission or two before we decide that. In any case, we will probably be able to sell planes at the same time as we are making purchase decisions anyway. No need to rush to turn planes to money before we can spend it.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 17:29 |
|
As a pilot who is yet to get a plane, I vote in favour of keeping everything. Otherwise we'll not have enough seats for all the pilots for ages!
|
# ? May 28, 2017 17:37 |
|
Yeah, it's just the optimization lobby trying to push their win further by eliminating sub-optimal planes we already bought step by step up in quality until we're all flying F-22s into space on Saturn rockets. Which would be awesome. But the purging is unnecessary. We can do that and still let the people who want to fly Migs, Super Tucanos and whatever that thing we didn't sell is, especially if they've already been voted in and brought onboard. It's just a few million. PS. Also, some day there's going to be a need for a whole load of cheap bomb trucks to stop some massive wave of primitive ground units (or commit war crimes on pedestrians) and we're going to find that the optimization lobby doesn't have an extra 20 dusty planes running around to drop cheap cluster munitions and strafe. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 18:25 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 17:40 |
|
Excuse me, but Saturns are Cold War relics, we want flashy modern Falcon 9s from our buddy Musk.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 17:45 |
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Excuse me, but Saturns are Cold War relics, we want flashy modern Falcon 9s from our buddy Musk. Oh right, they should be ready by now! Maybe he'll even have some massively improved budget version if he's managed to keep his... aggressive timeline. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 18:24 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 17:47 |
|
RA Rx posted:Yeah, it's just the optimization lobby trying to push it one step further by eliminating suboptimal planes step by step up until we're all flying F-22s and Saturn rockets. Not in the slightest. There aren't many aircraft suited for somewhere like the Bering Sea, but the F1 and AMX are really going to struggle. They can beat up on unescorted fishing boats, but it's unlikely we're going to get that opportunity in this theatre all that often. Besides, I'm all about maximising the bang for our bucks. I'm pretty ok with the Kfirs and Phantoms, maybe we look at upgrading the Phantoms to the Terminator spec if we get more A2A fighters, as it stands right now the Peace Icarus Phantoms are the weakest BVR A2A machines we have. As Terminators they'd lose their A2A armament but they'd get longer range glide bombs, ALCMs and more reliable Paveways. If the Moroccan upgrade for our F1s came along I'd say yes to that too. glynnenstein posted:Well, lets see a mission or two before we decide that. In any case, we will probably be able to sell planes at the same time as we are making purchase decisions anyway. No need to rush to turn planes to money before we can spend it. Don't think we've had an opportunity to sell aircraft mid-theatre before even when we've been able to buy stuff in.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 17:50 |
|
Quinntan posted:Don't think we've had an opportunity to sell aircraft mid-theatre before even when we've been able to buy stuff in. I don't actually think we have an opportunity right now, either. We just voted to not sell 3 days ago.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:04 |
|
Purge the optimizers and buy 20 billion Super Tukes, imo. Would be hilarious if nothing else. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 18:11 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 18:07 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:Purge the optimizers and buy 20 billion Super Tukes, imo. If we ever take over the world with Musk we should split the thread into warring factions. Which would be unwieldy and undoable, but a man can dream.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:12 |
|
RA Rx posted:Yeah, it's just the optimization lobby trying to push their win further by eliminating sub-optimal planes we already bought step by step up in quality until we're all flying F-22s into space on Saturn rockets. I mean
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:13 |
|
Loel posted:I mean I'm just saying, we can lob Reaper drones and Fairey Swordfishes after it, doesn't all have to be killbots. We can have all of the above! Edit: Word. Might need to get past the moon Nazis first though. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 18:15 |
|
I just want to end with orbital space death planes and also a secret base on mars
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:16 |
|
If we get to fight moon nazis this will be the best LP ever despite any misgivings or thread strife.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:22 |
I have returned and the mosquito's did not carry us away. I'll count votes later this afternoon and we'll get into mission planning. Also, the employer will be comically insufferable but not in a way that we'll want to gently caress off. Think Office Space more than Toyota.
|
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:22 |
|
Seriously how would we stat up moon nazis. I need this.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:24 |
|
Moon Nazis are surprisingly dull. There is some conspiracy claims that the Nazis jacked a few UFOs and used them to build a moon base. Thing is, these UFOs didn't have any weapons on them. So, for the last 70 years, the Nazis have dedicated themselves to trolling the free world by buzzing radar sites and abducting hapless rural folk. I couldn't find any claim they've taken military action or plan to in the future. Moon Nazis in game would be an anomalous radar contact that flew towards the north pole at mach ten for a few seconds before disappearing.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:28 |
|
Added Space posted:Moon Nazis are surprisingly dull. I think he means Iron Sky moon Nazis.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:29 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
Wouldn't theoretical moon Nazis be horribly outclassed by literally everything in the modern database?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 18:33 |