|
I'd like to put my name in as a Saab 105 driver. Callsign FUNGUS I suppose this also counts as a vote for Klaus and Peterson.
|
# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 16:18 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 11:30 |
|
Yooper posted:Unfortunately the Durandals didn't clear German customs and have disappeared into some quasi EU/NATO blackhole of authorizations Probably a good thing. Durandal delivery is one step above a suicide mission.
|
# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 01:16 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:What's the cost division on a single Gripen dropping a laser-guided bomb versus a few Sk 60s flying in with rocket pods? A Paveway is $46,000, but a pair of SK60s is $2.4m, and we'll probably lose them both sending them after a defended bridge with dumb rockets. That doesn't even factor in the very low likelihood of the rockets even doing significant damage to the bridge. Hit it with a paveway and be done with it.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 20:44 |
|
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. It would be extremely embarrassing to fail to destroy the bridge because of a weapon failure or miss, and have the followup strike have to fly into now-alert territory to drop the bridge. The trailing Gripens will help with sensor coverage as well, if we choose to not fly our AEW assets.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 23:53 |
|
Another vote for Plan Barracuda
|
# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 16:48 |
|
I love that the first proposal for ships is to buy a loving amphib group.
|
# ¿ Apr 15, 2017 02:19 |
|
Awesome job, Yooper. In terms of mission planning, we showed our bare rear end to the enemy three times: Once when our CAP got irrationally thirsty (this one will get rectified, I know,) once on egress, and the last time when the the AEW bird was last one in the air. We really need to be screening/delousing our egressing strike aircraft and supporting our support assets at all times. Getting shot in the rear end is embarrassing. And expensive.
|
# ¿ Apr 15, 2017 08:34 |
|
Tankerchat: I'm reasonably sure that the Greek F-4Es that we have, and are looking at getting more of, are ex-USAF airframes, and use boom and socket refueling. In addition, KC-135s can refuel each other, meaning that we can achieve truly long-legged missions with multiple-stage tanking. It also allows us to plug airframes into our operation that ONLY use boom and socket, such as everything the USAF has ever purchased. (F-16s, F-4s, F-15s, F-111s, etc.) Another KC-135 is the right tanker choice, especially as we move into the realm of having more than just two tankers.
|
# ¿ Apr 16, 2017 19:17 |
|
I don't understand the infatuation with Tornados, given the price we're looking at. They're good airplanes, but not worth what they're currently being asked for. $120m for a quartet of obsolete strike bombers is quite a lot, particularly given the gaping holes in our capabilities that we need to fill. (Having more than a single AEW and EW airframe, for instance.)
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 00:09 |
|
Quinntan posted:Besides, there are only 94 viper zeroes... 89. The 2011 earthquake/tsunami submerged thirteen of them, and they wrote five off completely.
|
# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 18:39 |
|
A point of contention for one of the proposals upthread: home-on-jam is a thing. If you're turning your jammers on, you might as well fire up the radars as well. Any emissions at all will let even a poorly-equipped enemy know where you are. Might as well not be blindfolded when we turn our flashlights on in the dark room. A note to Saros' plan: Single-ship flights are a capital-B Bad idea. Combat aircraft fly in pairs at a minimum, for a reason. If you can't cover all your desired objectives with two-ships, then you need to reevaluate the value of each objective. If I'm reading it correctly, you're proposing to pair a Gripen and a Phantom for each flight, which means that the Gripen isn't going to be as free to maneuver, since he can't abandon his wingman. Essentially, you're watering-down the effectiveness of our best fighters, and trying to spread them too thin. It would be much more effective to assign pairs of AAW Phantoms to the low-intensity objectives, while reserving pairs of Gripens for objectives where we expect high-intensity resistance. Again, if we have too many targets for the assets we possess, we should reevaluate our priorities, and not just try to smear our forces too thin over everything.
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 19:08 |
|
Good to see that our Tornados held up the finest traditions of the type by becoming smoking holes in the ground.
|
# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 12:47 |
|
Quinntan posted:Off hand, I know there's a display team in Florida that operates them called (unsurprisingly) the Starfighters. Most of theirs are former Italian ones, though there's a couple Canadair ones with them too. Fun fact: They're half-way to being a mercenary operation already. They do significant amounts of high-altitude testing just off the east coast of Florida. It's pretty common to see them on radar up at 60,000 feet flying huge lazy circles, carrying air sample rigs and such. They actually do more testing and research flying than they do airshow displays. My vote for most plausible near-future merc-air group would be Draken International. They're the worlds largest non-state operator of tactical military jets. What I'm saying is that I want us to bomb Lakeland.
|
# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 14:53 |
|
It's worth noting that if we're looking for more boom than a Mk82 can provide, but we want to carry more individual munitions than we would be able to with Mk84s, there exists the Mk83, a 1000lb iron bomb that is fully compatible with JDAM and laser GBU bomb kits.
|
# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 00:46 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 11:30 |
|
Is this going to be available on YouTube later
|
# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 13:53 |