|
Yooper posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehaX4Z12HXo
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Bacarruda posted:
Minor error: 100 GBU-12 will cost $2,200,000 @$22,000 each
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Just piping in to say there may be another way to look at mixing NATO and Other planes: if you're not sure of who you might be pissing off in the future, it can be viewed as diversification.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Do we know how much AMRAAMs cost? Can we count on them being about like the Meteors or could they be much more expensive?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
The ASMs cost $1.5 million each vs $22k for GBU-12D/B.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Our GBU-12 Paveways may weigh 500 pounds, but they only have 192 pounds of explosives. The Rb 15s have a 441 pound warhead. For sure true about effectiveness, but how many GBU-12 can we take on a mission? We could drop 10 of them for 20% of the cost of the nice missile.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
I feel like my ships in CMANO sink without needing so many missiles, but that might be perspective bias, plus these are big boats. We might be able to do the job with a mix of munitions for cheaper? I mean, ultimately it is definitely worth $9 million worth of missiles or maybe even a lot more to make our planes safer down the road by sinking these ships. One way or another both ships need to go down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
I'm not sure how much we can count on having good modern aircraft available to purchase. With a bit of luck, this is a lot of on-paper capability for relatively low cost. I say YES to the museum pieces. The planes aren't great, but they significantly expand the ordinance and capabilities we have available compared to the SK-60Bs. They might not be fit for a fight with China's latest and greatest, but they can free up other assets in larger missions and can take care of lower tier targets.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the bulk of the planes won't be at this airport because of the Indian distraction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Yooper posted:
This is so great.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Does Command undervalue the Mavericks range? They should be in the area of 24km/12 miles. Depending on era of missile, CMANO gives max ranges of 3, 6, or 8 nm.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Except they aren't really cheap. They're a drag on our finances. They cost nothing to leave parked. We don't exactly have a vast fleet and just having a means to put eyes somewhere a lot faster than a UAV can move could turn out to be pretty valuable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:http://cmano-db.com/aircraft/1008/ It's not very modern, but it's versatile. Precision ground strike, SEAD, and AA.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
I think things like the museum pieces, Greek phatoms, and third-tier Mirage 2000s are what we are going to be working with for a while (and I think that's really interesting for an lp). If yooper plans to run this for a while, getting to actually good planes needs to be well down the road. I don't know if passing this up means we should expect him to say, okay here are much better planes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Important moving forward is going to make sure we have at least some strike aircraft with some DECM ability given that we can count on stiffer air defense environments. Dedicated SEAD/DEAD stuff too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Not flying planes, not buying planes, we love arguing about planes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
One of my favorite things about CMANO is that you can see all these different weapons systems in "action." In terms of maximizing our capability I think the versatility and modernity of the Grippens make a max buy of them the optimal choice, but I think that's actually a less interesting option. I don't think we're sabotaging ourselves by not being totally optimal, so IMO we should try to operate with the maximum diversity of units that is practically effective and not too much a pain in Yooper's rear end to inter-operate. I think the single most important capability void to address is EW/SEAD and, again, the Growler is by far the best option, but I'm put off by the cost. The Prowler is more complicated to mission plan because of its low speed and lack of self defense capability, but I think its performance in-role is sufficient for the sorts of threats we will face as long as there are supporting aircraft on SEAD missions, and given it's limitations there always will be. I was tempted by several of the plans that mix in interesting ex-Soviet options but my pick for the best compromise is Proposal: À la carte, though I'd be happier if we cut some Phantoms to make room for Mirages.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Angola working for Von Hoff Also, please assign glynnenstein to work in one of the SA-22 batteries if available.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Lubango It has the best facilities including what looks like a possibly runway grade taxiway. It is close to the coast which is good for transiting planes without diplomatic complications and is a potential source for missions. Also, it is close to the capital city, which might be important or it might be offset by being farther from missions to the east. glynnenstein fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
We are assuredly on the right side of history; no need to look under the tarps on those trucks at all. Assuredly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
My mind is saying Rohan, but my heart... well is actually saying Rohan as well. But the part of me that wants to see this LP get weird with it is saying we should sack up and Zack up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:We need to do everything in our power to convince a news site that this is a real conflict and write an article about it. I guarantee we can get a member of congress to comment on this tragic conflict and the plight of the Angolan people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
edit: I just totally missed a plan. Moving my whole post up further.
glynnenstein fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
I had a vote a few posts ago but I'm changing it having seen a plan I missed. We have to evaluate things clearly given our limited resources. Unless I've missed stuff, my takes is that: MLRS is a potentially existential threat to our operation. If we lose our airbase and resources there, we might be finished in this theater. The ground convoy is critical, but not existential. Our failure to repulse this attack would put us and our employer into a terrible position moving forward, but we would probably be able to continue to operate in the short term, at least. The aid convoy is a medium priority. The loss of the convoy would represent a terrible thing for a lot of people, and it's in our interest to at least be seen to be a part of making things better around here, but our operational capacity probably isn't affected by losses here. I am assuming we will take losses regardless of our approach. We should ensure that our existential and critical tasks can be accomplished with minimal losses and then devote surplus resources to the convoy, either using resources that cannot contribute to the other missions or as a secondary mission after we accomplish the others. I really liked the flexibility of Maximum Warcrimes, but Big Papa more directly conforms to the priorities, imo. My concern is that we have minimal flexibility regarding the convoy. My, uh... analysis (guess) is that the main threat to the mechanized strike, at least, will be IADS not airborne resources. I don't want to get into a loop of endless revisions, but I would argue that we should implement Operation Big Papa with the following changes: assign the prowler to the mechanized attack to help deal with the SAM resources we know are there and pull 2 Grippens off the mechanized attack and assign to the convoy, with the expectation that they will respond as needed to additional air threats.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Are there cluster offsets like there are carbon offsets? Can we spend an equivalent amount of money as we paid for our cluster bombs to have somebody with an air force promise not to drop that many cluster bombs?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
You guys realize that if we kill Rohan, we're just gonna get the terrible drawbacks of one of the other guys instead. There's no way to avoid the downside to any of our agents.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:Her downside is that she can potentially have zero upside at all. Also, it was explicitly stated that if we had taken Zack, there would be a mission where we could potentially help him with his mob issues and thus negate his downside. I'm sympathetic to the hard life she's lived and the terrible losses she's suffered! Anyone with Anyway, we should consider what it would say to our future potential agents if we start killing them. Perhaps, there is another way. Lets look into hiring PTSD Counselors for Rohan. Maybe a little psych intervention can improve our odds. Also, I am concerned our ground elements are in desperate need of psych services already.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY5ogQ-kZrY e: Calling dibs on a transfer to any waterside cello player commands that come up in the future. What is the insignia for the rank of First Chair?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dingo Never look under the tarps on the aid trucks. We are the good guys. Assuredly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
If we pass up the opportunity to wreck the diamonds now, are we stuck with -30% pay penalty for a while? We should consider that not blowing up the diamonds when we have the chance might mean reduced payout for longer than just this mission.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Having a bunch of great planes is overrated, and being great at everything is boring. We should take pleasure in these scrounged planes while we can, for surely we will look back with fondness on the simple days of one Prowler and a platoon of 2x4smen taking care of business. Now then, after this mission if half this poo poo dies the nostalgia will be a bit slim, so I like Bacarruda's plan at this point because it's conservative. We maintain stand-off range, attempt to acomplish a maximum effect, and don't have single-ship attack missions which is almost always a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
I like a bunch of these plans but I think Black Diamond is our best bet. This is a pretty varied environment with a small force attempting (too) many disparate missions considering our (lack of) reserve to respond dynamically; therefore, a conservative stand-off/hilarious cruise missile overkill plan is best.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Guys. Focus. Bote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Cathode Raymond posted:Deploy meteor gripens to shoot down their drone, then do exactly what they were trying to do with our own drone, then troll their subbreddit about it. These are the  we're looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Youtube didn't work for me. Twitch was choppy, long pause every 3 or 4 seconds.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:I was specifically voting for your 'work around it' CONOPS because the plans to try and go hard on the S-300 were not viable given the other threats. I'd still advocate working around it, but if the dedicated mission is to go after it, then let's do that. This was my thinking as well. I specifically liked that we set aside the SAM matter to deal with our direct mission objectives. Now with some money and a purchase opportunity we can address the issue with a directed, focused attack. Speaking of purchase opportunity (and setting aside our fantasy list of cool poo poo), imo our immediate operational needs gaps are: 1a) SEAD ships 1b) Additional Prowler/jammer(s) 3) More airframes covering existing capabilities After all that it would be rad to have an ELINT aircraft for passive surveillance, additional/better SAMs for our current and future airbases, and maybe a larger bomber or a boat to significantly expand our capability. Probably want ASuW/ASW assets before the boat, though. The Sandman posted:Unless Badger disagrees, our plane is now named either "Diamonds Aren't Forever" or "Diamond is Breakable". If it were me, I'd go "Diamond Dog" and paint the plane like Bowie. Possibly like those Polish Migs with his actual face on the tail instead of just a face-paint graphic. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
I'd like to see us implement Operation Grognard as well as summon a lot of luck.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Ooooooh. I hadn't noticed that our S100B has a good ELINT capability. We should keep in mind that we can leave its radar off and pick up emitters with pretty good precision from extreme range when advantageous to not broadcast the AEW location.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
Loel posted:You know me so well Kfir I think
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Setting aside the SEAD/DEAD and OECM needs, hell yeah I want to see some stupid goddamned Mig-21 and 27s. Also, we need some Mirages in here and the A-6 would be sweet for a lot of missions not involving IADS. I love our Phantoms but it's a little one-note and there's so many great, totally marginally outdated planes out there for us to operate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 01:56
|
|