|
How far can each of our planes fly safely without drop tanks? With? Tibet is a big place, so I expect our fuel not to last very long. However, the flight heading south doesn't leave till the northbound flight has landed. And a Paveway is cheap enough we can send a Gripen over and drop two and expect to get a mission kill. So, we probably only need 5-6 aircraft max this mission. Refueling, AWACS, and 3-4 Gripens: Two for flight escort north and back, and 1-2 for dropping paveways on a bridge from a distance.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Alright, distance-wise it's a 180nm one-way trip to Nyingchi Airport from our base via Dibrugarh for escort, or 360nm round trip. This means our loadouts for escort are limited to 2 meteors, or 4 Iris-T, unless we want to spend more money and runaway time deploying our air tankers. Distance to the bridge from deployment is again about 180nm one-way, or 360nm round trip, so each Griben can only really carry one or two LGBs,although if they are modern enough it should be good enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
I assume so, but I don't know what it's endurance is like and whether it can make the round trip with the cargo planes fine. Launch order probably goes Escorts - AWACS - Bridge Strike? I'd like to get the bridge strike as near to the end of the contract if possible, since I somehow doubt the Chinese will take kindly to a ground strike on (what they claim) is there territory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Given the No-fly zone, and that the only Chinese planes in-theatre are J-8I's (1969 planes last upgraded in 1981), I think air-to-air threats are not the main worry in this mission. I'd be more concerned with possible TLA SAMs/units from deep incursions over the no-fly zone. Do we want any of our escorting Gripens to carry ground-attack ordinance instead?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:We aren't made of money, and do you doubt the ability of our pilots? I disagree with this plan and recommend a doctrine of limited force. A single Gripen should be enough to take out the bridge, and two should be enough to cover the cargo planes. We are being paid 6 million for this, and have 100 million. Each flight hour is 0.18% of our takings for the mission. Given that, the extra sensor range granted by the CWACS is worth the cost.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
While I agree the AWACS is probably unnecessary, the low cost of deploying it ($60,000 all told? ) compared to mission income is why I want to bring it along just in case. It also makes our outfit look more secure and professional: a few 20 year old fighters is one thing, but a AWACS is a sign of a better, more prepared outfit, which should go down well with the Indian Army/Air Force.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Stago Lego posted:While I don't disagree that the AWACS is a very good asset for this mission I'm worried that ussing it this mission might put it out of other missions due to "maintenance". Yooper, is this something we have to consider?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:My vote would be for two Gripens loaded AA to escort the freight dawgs, and two Gripens loaded with either a single paveway each, or two per, and a light AA load out. The A2G Gripens can provide depth of coverage for the escorts if needed, and can peel off and hit the bridge when able. We won't be able to fit both paveways and any AA armament on the Gripens while keeping them in the fuel budget for the strike/return trip, I don't think. Apart from that, I'd back this + AWACS.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Another escort will cost us 6K per hour: chump change in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
We are a High-end PMC. Means we can be the enemy in more modern day action games. Also Plan Barrucuda is good, just make sure our strike craft launch once we're doing the southbound escort, not the northbound, in case of potential retaliation. Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
I don't think we'd have the range on the Gripens to fly there and back with both Meteors and IRIS: I'd just upgrade to 2x Meteors loadout only: they are modern missiles, two should easily be enough to enforce the corden. EDIT: sounds like Jack has found us some militarised versions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk ? The Indians do make them under license, which helps. Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Looks like Jack was paying for the entire bars drinks last night. For a line on cheap jets though, that's a price worth paying. Also yea, great job with the LP production values so far.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Why are people insistant on buying a frigate? I'm pretty sure that was just fluff line in the VA anyways! Ammo-wise, we probably want order in more Paveways (they are cheap and get the job done) and rockets (because they are so cheap having multiple flights of them is no burden but might be useful if we have two ground attack intensive missions at once.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:
You've messed up the costs on the Meteors and IRIS: 30 Meteors cost $52.5 million, not $5.25 million, and 50 IRIS missiles are $20 million, not $2. Strach them, they are good but too expensive to bulk-buy. Also, our starting ammunition is a full loadout, so the numbers on the second graph.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:So I have. I've fixed the numbers. We already have 24 in stock: The expense of buying even say 6 more, is heavy enough that I don't want to buy any more till we can tell they are needed or we have decided what if any extra jets we want to buy. We sink $20 million in extra A2A missiles, then end up picking some jets which can't even use the Meteor, or not being able to pick up the jet package we want. I don't want to spend more than a few million on extra munitions for now, until it's more clear if we'll need them and our other options for spending our remaining money. We should be stocking up on cheap A2G munitions though: It's cheap enough than ensuring we can go 2-3 missions of full CAS duty without resupply is a worthwhile investment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Again: I do not believe we need to buy 20 more Meteors, given their costs: We'd have to down or at least fire off on 10-15 J-11/Su-27 fighters of equivalents to just get through our stockpile. I'd carry 32: enough to send all 8 Gripens on a 2/2 loadout twice, which given our current position and logistics backing is more than enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Dr. Snark posted:That might be a better idea, yeah. I know that I for one look at that chart and I go "the gently caress is the difference between an IRIS-T and a Meteor? They both blow planes up, right?" IRIS-T: Blows up planes in a 30km radius of our plane Meteor: Blows up planes in a 125km radius of our plane. Understandably, distance is important in fighter combat, so the Meteor is much more expensive (Meteor is also really new, as in "Only went into use last year" new)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
I'm still against sinking so much of our spare cash into meteor missiles: We have 24 for now, and I don't think we need a 44 deep reserve, not as much as we need more good planes, which the 20 million would be better spent on. And I'm going to wait till Jack sobers up and gives us the full detail on what planes options we have before overly committing to one choice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Yooper posted:We cannot use other Indian airbases. And yes, we have a tanker. Can only the Gripens do underway refuelling, or out CAS planes do so aswell?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Note: Distance to the target frieghters is 1400 nm if we dont pass through Burmese airspace. Thats more than double even our lightest loads of Gripens. I'm not sure that we can even get a single plane down there with only one tanker, I'm not sure how underway refueling works.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
We probably can't even support 4 Gripens on piracy duty down south: It's 850nm from the indian border to the target area, so even with light loadouts (another reason to use the paveways instead of heavier ASMs) we'll need to do underway refuelling, and therefore be limited in the number of planes we can send. I'd only send two Gripens, with 2x IRIS(base) and 2x LGBs (paveways) each. Should be more than enough for international waters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
I'm inclined to send the Saab north to Tibet: Given our Sk60's have no inbuilt radar, they will need coordination and target-spotting help, and we knew the airspace is permissive enough for them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Another thing about the ASMs: they are heavy and expensive. Even if we can use them and sink two ships with two missiles, it's $3 million off our total income of $25 million.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Yes to the museum sale. It's a gamble, but a fun one! And if w'ere facing superior planes, our only hope is weight of numbers. And spreading out our flight wings so that our rader coverage is wide enough to hopefully hit it in the sides/rear
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Switching from Yes to No on museum buy I want to save our cash for when we're out of theatre.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Hey, some of us went against museum soviets because it didn't fit our aesthetic, not because it was bad value for money (it was good if you're just counting air frames, yea)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Kill too risky to, steal them: I'm just going to take our $150 million and run.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
Between strict parenting and suprise motherfuckers, it's a tough pick, but I'll go Strict Parenting with light attackers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
RTB unless there's an active air threat to fight: don't want to risk too many planes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Having flights stop for gas on there way to the strike zone could throw off the timetables and make this even harder for Yooper to organize. Don't bring the tanker
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Or we could.... not buy a ruiniously expensive boat and instead just take contracts with a good base?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Don't forget to pick up another tanker guys: we've seen already in long-range ops or ops where we have a large number of aircraft up one tanker isn't enough: I want to pick up a second now, and they are relatively cheap.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Vando posted:Ok, right, procurement. Voting for Plan Vando Also, voting for The Free State - Angola: Because we need to challenge ourselves.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:I hope it's not too late to submit a buy proposal. Nothing on offer really quite matched up exactly what I wanted. Switching to this from Vando's plan
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
"brb war room guys gotta get these humanitarian supplies inland" Well, at least we know we picked a good guy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Zack
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Strategy-wise, zi think we should focus on the free state and going around Luanda now. If Von Hoff is the only standing force surrounding Luanda, the dictator will either be couped or get a golden UN parachute, as his rule is collapsing. We need to decisively make sure Von Hoff is the only standing contender for Angola.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Also Comms tower next to bridge does not mean blowing up the entire bridge. Shadowban only hitting the comms link buildings is easier to repair but less aggressive.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Bering Strait, sell the SK60s
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Sell the Mirages/AMX Let's give Angola a hand shall we?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 14:42
|
|