An unmaned aircraft would be good. How about a smaller airfield that launches small robots like that?
I would like the ability to use the nanofighter if you capture an Air Force command center, so maybe not a Gen point. I suggest the Gen points should only be for support, like A-10s, carpet bombers, etc. Also, make that support more powerful.
Air Units
Started by link.the.first, Jul 10 2005 05:36 PM
880 replies to this topic
#61
link.the.first
-
- Project Team
-
- 3,577 posts
Supreme commander
- Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
- Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
- You want a piece of me boy?
Posted 25 July 2005 - 10:54 PM
#62
Ace22
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,773 posts
Commander of all that is toast
- Location:Acea, Acean Universe
- Projects:War Games, War Games mod
- War Games Recruitment officer
Posted 26 July 2005 - 12:06 AM
O.K. no Gen point.
#63
Guest_7th_Panzer_*
Guest_7th_Panzer_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 July 2005 - 03:25 AM
I may be inclined to disagree about the dogfighting problem, Ace22. On a one on one basis, a fighter at least as modern as the F-15C would be adequate to shoot down one of these unmanned planes, provided the pilot has two things: 1) knowledge about the presence of these unmanned planes (and enough bravado to go airborne with prowling F-22s about); 2) detailed knowledge about attack patterns programmed into the unmanned plane.
As for the former, any enemy general with half a brain would assume if the opponent has it, its going to be used. Therefore, he has to make a decision: Is it worth the risk of an aircraft and its highly trained, expensive pilot (it should be noted at the end of World War II, the German Luftwaffe had a lot of aircraft, including the Me262, the first jet fighter, and versions of the Me109 and Me190 that were superior to even the P-51 Mustang...they did not have trained pilots though...same situation with Japan) to hunt for a nearly invisible aircraft? Economically, let's say a MiG-29 costs $50 million, including pilot training and missiles. The unmanned aircraft has a cost of $10 million, with vastly superior capabilities, such as better missiles, stealth, incredible agility, active camoflauge, et cetera. So the enemy, at best, risks $50 million to cost the enemy $10 million.
Economics in this case is crucial. Ten million dollars, for a weapons system (especially one as potent as this), is quite a bargain. The USAF is not going to be stupid and just have one. There may be three. Or five. Or a dozen. Or perhaps two hundred in the theatre (at the same cost as a single B-2) in the air at the same time. A lone MiG-29 takes off, in hopes of scoring a kill.
I say it is alone because the war has not been going all too well for the enemy's air force, with most of the planes and pilots destroyed in the initial cruise missile attacks. Those that made it airborne were pounced on by F-22As, and blown out of the sky. Their air defense network has holes in it, some of which are hundreds of miles across. American strike aircraft pour through each of them almost on an hourly basis, pounding the rest into submission. Hardly a day passes until the enemy has NO surface to air missiles operational (some were fired, most destroyed on the ground). UCAVs were the primary culprit of these SEAD (essentially anti- anti-aircraft missile) missions and performed admirably. The army on the ground has been suffering even moreso, their tanks held up on roads miles behind the front, being chewed to pieces by A-10s. Their artillery are being jumped on the moment they open fire (artillery shells are visible on radar) by those damned UCAVs. Collapse is imminent. The UCAVs must be destroyed, if any resistance is to be organized.
So, we have our MiG-29 taking off from a previously unknown airstrip (likely the enemy has scattered their planes at the start of the crisis). Suddenly, every single American radar in the theatre detects this. F-22As are not in the area, as they are escorting a F-117/B-2A raid or protecting the theatre AWACS.
Not only are the Americans now aware of an imminent air battle (if you could call it that), but they are also now acutely aware of a new enemy airstrip. Unfortunately, Lady Luck smiles upon our MiG. It manages to find a stealthed, camoflauged unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), en route to a mission laden with munitions destined to blow the hell out of an artillery unit. Lady Luck continues to smile upon our MiG, who somehow manages a missile lock at 20 miles (!!! remember, this UCAV is more stealthy than an F-22), and even manages to fire two missiles at it! The first one missiles, but the second one strikes home, a fireball in the horizon proof of the MiG's kill.
Good for him. However, the Americans have more than one UCAV in the area, as UCAVs escort other UCAVs. Suddenly, the MiG pilot suddenly hears the warning of an inbound missile: Range, 1 mile. He had time to blink, not much else.
After the MiG is destoyed, the other UCAVs in the area that the MiG pilot had no idea were even there bombs the hell out of the airfield, destroying two more MiGs and killing eight pilots, in addition to the gasoline and munitions. Quite a crippling blow for a single unmanned airplane. A trade I'd take any day
As for the former, any enemy general with half a brain would assume if the opponent has it, its going to be used. Therefore, he has to make a decision: Is it worth the risk of an aircraft and its highly trained, expensive pilot (it should be noted at the end of World War II, the German Luftwaffe had a lot of aircraft, including the Me262, the first jet fighter, and versions of the Me109 and Me190 that were superior to even the P-51 Mustang...they did not have trained pilots though...same situation with Japan) to hunt for a nearly invisible aircraft? Economically, let's say a MiG-29 costs $50 million, including pilot training and missiles. The unmanned aircraft has a cost of $10 million, with vastly superior capabilities, such as better missiles, stealth, incredible agility, active camoflauge, et cetera. So the enemy, at best, risks $50 million to cost the enemy $10 million.
Economics in this case is crucial. Ten million dollars, for a weapons system (especially one as potent as this), is quite a bargain. The USAF is not going to be stupid and just have one. There may be three. Or five. Or a dozen. Or perhaps two hundred in the theatre (at the same cost as a single B-2) in the air at the same time. A lone MiG-29 takes off, in hopes of scoring a kill.
I say it is alone because the war has not been going all too well for the enemy's air force, with most of the planes and pilots destroyed in the initial cruise missile attacks. Those that made it airborne were pounced on by F-22As, and blown out of the sky. Their air defense network has holes in it, some of which are hundreds of miles across. American strike aircraft pour through each of them almost on an hourly basis, pounding the rest into submission. Hardly a day passes until the enemy has NO surface to air missiles operational (some were fired, most destroyed on the ground). UCAVs were the primary culprit of these SEAD (essentially anti- anti-aircraft missile) missions and performed admirably. The army on the ground has been suffering even moreso, their tanks held up on roads miles behind the front, being chewed to pieces by A-10s. Their artillery are being jumped on the moment they open fire (artillery shells are visible on radar) by those damned UCAVs. Collapse is imminent. The UCAVs must be destroyed, if any resistance is to be organized.
So, we have our MiG-29 taking off from a previously unknown airstrip (likely the enemy has scattered their planes at the start of the crisis). Suddenly, every single American radar in the theatre detects this. F-22As are not in the area, as they are escorting a F-117/B-2A raid or protecting the theatre AWACS.
Not only are the Americans now aware of an imminent air battle (if you could call it that), but they are also now acutely aware of a new enemy airstrip. Unfortunately, Lady Luck smiles upon our MiG. It manages to find a stealthed, camoflauged unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), en route to a mission laden with munitions destined to blow the hell out of an artillery unit. Lady Luck continues to smile upon our MiG, who somehow manages a missile lock at 20 miles (!!! remember, this UCAV is more stealthy than an F-22), and even manages to fire two missiles at it! The first one missiles, but the second one strikes home, a fireball in the horizon proof of the MiG's kill.
Good for him. However, the Americans have more than one UCAV in the area, as UCAVs escort other UCAVs. Suddenly, the MiG pilot suddenly hears the warning of an inbound missile: Range, 1 mile. He had time to blink, not much else.
After the MiG is destoyed, the other UCAVs in the area that the MiG pilot had no idea were even there bombs the hell out of the airfield, destroying two more MiGs and killing eight pilots, in addition to the gasoline and munitions. Quite a crippling blow for a single unmanned airplane. A trade I'd take any day
#64
link.the.first
-
- Project Team
-
- 3,577 posts
Supreme commander
- Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
- Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
- You want a piece of me boy?
Posted 26 July 2005 - 12:45 PM
Nice story.
Anyway, I agree. Even if the UCAVs are completely automated, they can still shoot down MiGs. How about a tomahawk launcher at your base that a UCAV can point out a target for anywhere on the map? That's how they're experimenting with them right now: A large group of unmaned fighters, each with a different sensor system to make them all smaller.
A group of UAVs fly along when one of them goes missing. One uses radar to locate the crash site and estimate where it was when shot down, another uses thermal imaging to find the still-hot trail from the missile, another, with a standard camera, finds a SAM site following the heat path, the radar plane confirmes it, and the last plane relays the location of the SAM site to a destroyer who fires a missile and destroys the SAM site.
You wouldn't have to have this many planes for one team in Generals, but you get the general idea. Also, these planes are probably cheaper than the missile used to take out the SAM site. I think they come in at around $2,000 a plane.
Here's my final idea: A new airfield that can be carried into the open by a truck and unpacked. It has a small launch stand and the capacity for eight UAVs/UCAVs. The UAV can pinpoint a target for your tomahawk launcher, and the UCAV is usually one-time use but it carries two missiles. After all, you know a plane is cheap and disposable to the USAF if it is unmaned and costs less then the missile called in to destroy its target. You can quickly set a lot of UCAVs to guard an area, and they don't take space in the airfield. Instead, there is sort of an 'express runway' where they land, someone replaces the rockets and refuels it, and they take off again immediately.
Anyway, I agree. Even if the UCAVs are completely automated, they can still shoot down MiGs. How about a tomahawk launcher at your base that a UCAV can point out a target for anywhere on the map? That's how they're experimenting with them right now: A large group of unmaned fighters, each with a different sensor system to make them all smaller.
A group of UAVs fly along when one of them goes missing. One uses radar to locate the crash site and estimate where it was when shot down, another uses thermal imaging to find the still-hot trail from the missile, another, with a standard camera, finds a SAM site following the heat path, the radar plane confirmes it, and the last plane relays the location of the SAM site to a destroyer who fires a missile and destroys the SAM site.
You wouldn't have to have this many planes for one team in Generals, but you get the general idea. Also, these planes are probably cheaper than the missile used to take out the SAM site. I think they come in at around $2,000 a plane.
Here's my final idea: A new airfield that can be carried into the open by a truck and unpacked. It has a small launch stand and the capacity for eight UAVs/UCAVs. The UAV can pinpoint a target for your tomahawk launcher, and the UCAV is usually one-time use but it carries two missiles. After all, you know a plane is cheap and disposable to the USAF if it is unmaned and costs less then the missile called in to destroy its target. You can quickly set a lot of UCAVs to guard an area, and they don't take space in the airfield. Instead, there is sort of an 'express runway' where they land, someone replaces the rockets and refuels it, and they take off again immediately.
#65
Ace22
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,773 posts
Commander of all that is toast
- Location:Acea, Acean Universe
- Projects:War Games, War Games mod
- War Games Recruitment officer
Posted 26 July 2005 - 03:28 PM
O.K. We I like the Idea of the UCAV.
How about we use those combat engineers to make a small airfield for 8 UCAVs they would just have to flatten out the area and built small hangers
What would be the weapons loadout?
How about we use those combat engineers to make a small airfield for 8 UCAVs they would just have to flatten out the area and built small hangers
What would be the weapons loadout?
#66
link.the.first
-
- Project Team
-
- 3,577 posts
Supreme commander
- Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
- Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
- You want a piece of me boy?
Posted 26 July 2005 - 06:00 PM
Cool, engineers. They could also set up the roadblock over at Crazy Ideas or a small gunner site. Maybe even a mini factory that can build Sentry drones or similar units.
The UCAVs are pretty small, so maybe 2 missiles for ground or air. Also, the UAV Launch Site(temporary name?) could build small drones like Battle Drones, only they have an arm that reaches down and clears mines. Remove that ability from the USA Dozer because the USA doesn't put people on that job any more, and make the drone able to do it quickly.
That ability could be on a general service drone. Build one and it flies around, repairing vehicles and buildings, dropping mini medkits to soldiers, and clearing mines.
The UCAVs are pretty small, so maybe 2 missiles for ground or air. Also, the UAV Launch Site(temporary name?) could build small drones like Battle Drones, only they have an arm that reaches down and clears mines. Remove that ability from the USA Dozer because the USA doesn't put people on that job any more, and make the drone able to do it quickly.
That ability could be on a general service drone. Build one and it flies around, repairing vehicles and buildings, dropping mini medkits to soldiers, and clearing mines.
#67
Guest_7th_Panzer_*
Guest_7th_Panzer_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 July 2005 - 01:39 AM
The UCAV, the X-45 I think, would have a weapons capacity at least equal to the F-22A, albiet a single, wider, longer weapons bay. JDAMs and JAASMs are completely viable weapons for these in ground-attack mode, as are AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs for air combat mode.
#68
Ace22
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,773 posts
Commander of all that is toast
- Location:Acea, Acean Universe
- Projects:War Games, War Games mod
- War Games Recruitment officer
Posted 27 July 2005 - 03:56 AM
I don't think the weapons bay is that large. Maybe four AMRAAMs and 8 small bombs.
#69
Guest_7th_Panzer_*
Guest_7th_Panzer_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 July 2005 - 05:47 AM
The UCAV is 10 feet shorter than the F-22.
Believe it or not, the majority of the space and mass of an aircraft is for keeping the pilot alive. At least 12 feet of the F-22A's length is cockpit and life support.
Also, the F-22A uses two aircraft engines for propulsion; the X-45 uses a single engine. The F-22A also has to have larger, more powerful engines to sustain a higher speed (in excess of mach 2) for all its heavier weight.
My reasoning for saying the weapons carrying capability of the UCAV is at least equal to the F-22 is in the faith that more space can be devoted to ordinance. I am also assuming it can carry weapons underneath its wings on pylons, as can the F-22.
The UCAV could be armed as follows:
Air to Air Combat
2x AIM-120 AMRAAM
4x AIM-9X Sidewinder
1x HARM (High speed anti-radiation missile)
Strike
2x JDAM
4x Small diameter bomb
Air Defense Suppression
2x JAASM (stand-off missile)
2x HARM
Close Air Support
8x Hellfire missiles
- OR -
4x Hellfire missiles
2x 19-round Hydra-70 rocket pods
(note - configuration identical to AH-64)
2x GAU-12 5 barrel rotary cannon, same as to be used in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Believe it or not, the majority of the space and mass of an aircraft is for keeping the pilot alive. At least 12 feet of the F-22A's length is cockpit and life support.
Also, the F-22A uses two aircraft engines for propulsion; the X-45 uses a single engine. The F-22A also has to have larger, more powerful engines to sustain a higher speed (in excess of mach 2) for all its heavier weight.
My reasoning for saying the weapons carrying capability of the UCAV is at least equal to the F-22 is in the faith that more space can be devoted to ordinance. I am also assuming it can carry weapons underneath its wings on pylons, as can the F-22.
The UCAV could be armed as follows:
Air to Air Combat
2x AIM-120 AMRAAM
4x AIM-9X Sidewinder
1x HARM (High speed anti-radiation missile)
Strike
2x JDAM
4x Small diameter bomb
Air Defense Suppression
2x JAASM (stand-off missile)
2x HARM
Close Air Support
8x Hellfire missiles
- OR -
4x Hellfire missiles
2x 19-round Hydra-70 rocket pods
(note - configuration identical to AH-64)
2x GAU-12 5 barrel rotary cannon, same as to be used in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
#70
link.the.first
-
- Project Team
-
- 3,577 posts
Supreme commander
- Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
- Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
- You want a piece of me boy?
Posted 27 July 2005 - 02:48 PM
I don't think a plane that big is expendable. I was thinking of something around 10 feet long with an old prop engine and only two missiles attatched to the wings.
Maybe there could be 2 types of UCAVs: the small one here and your big one. The small one would cost 200 because it is very unlikely to return. The big one sounds like it would cost the same as a Raptor with that weapons loadout.
Also, I agree with Ace: the plane couldn't hold that much. If it is 12 feet shorter than the F-22, it also has a smaller body and wings, meaning the weapons bay is a lot smaller. Also, if the wings are smaller, it can't carry as many weapons under them. Give the Raptor a much better weapons load and give four multi-purpose mockets to the big UCAV.
Maybe there could be 2 types of UCAVs: the small one here and your big one. The small one would cost 200 because it is very unlikely to return. The big one sounds like it would cost the same as a Raptor with that weapons loadout.
Also, I agree with Ace: the plane couldn't hold that much. If it is 12 feet shorter than the F-22, it also has a smaller body and wings, meaning the weapons bay is a lot smaller. Also, if the wings are smaller, it can't carry as many weapons under them. Give the Raptor a much better weapons load and give four multi-purpose mockets to the big UCAV.
#71
Guest_Guest_Ace22_*_*
Guest_Guest_Ace22_*_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 July 2005 - 12:42 AM
HARMs are Anti-radar missiles, not anti-air.
#72
Guest_7th_PAnzer_*
Guest_7th_PAnzer_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 July 2005 - 01:38 AM
I know the HARM is not an anti-aircraft missile, but it would be effective against an AWACS, hmm?
#73
Ace22
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,773 posts
Commander of all that is toast
- Location:Acea, Acean Universe
- Projects:War Games, War Games mod
- War Games Recruitment officer
Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:55 AM
not really. It's not meant to maneuver. Sure, it could hit it, but I'd rather see one take down an overlord tank with the fragmentation warhead. 
#74
Karlos Vandango
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,139 posts
I Post Every Second Of My Life
- Location:Cheltenham , England , Europe , The Earth
- Projects:Beta Tester Project Raptor
- The Posting Maniac
Posted 28 July 2005 - 03:28 PM
The Gla could have a scuide plane
like japan did in ww2
and who agrees with me that the spy drone is as big as a ranger in generals cause it real life it anit it should be made a little bigger
like japan did in ww2
and who agrees with me that the spy drone is as big as a ranger in generals cause it real life it anit it should be made a little bigger
Edited by Karl Townsend, 28 July 2005 - 03:29 PM.
#75
Guest_7th_Panzer_*
Guest_7th_Panzer_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 July 2005 - 04:37 PM
The HARM missile flies at about Mach 5, at least, I think. At best, an AWACS plane would travel at 500 knots, probably closer to 300 to 350 knots thanks to that obscene radar dome.
The HARM's warhead splinters into thousands of white-hot filaments, which are designed to tear through radar vans and dishes. I've read that a HARM sank a destroyer, and that they have researched and decided that a HARM would be a good counter for an AWACs thanks to its long-range and the AWACS incredible radar. When the harm predetonates on the plane, thousands of bits of shrapnel will, at best, render the radar useless. At worst, the AWACS will disintegrate.
The HARM's warhead splinters into thousands of white-hot filaments, which are designed to tear through radar vans and dishes. I've read that a HARM sank a destroyer, and that they have researched and decided that a HARM would be a good counter for an AWACs thanks to its long-range and the AWACS incredible radar. When the harm predetonates on the plane, thousands of bits of shrapnel will, at best, render the radar useless. At worst, the AWACS will disintegrate.
#76
link.the.first
-
- Project Team
-
- 3,577 posts
Supreme commander
- Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
- Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
- You want a piece of me boy?
Posted 28 July 2005 - 05:15 PM
Just use Slammers to kill planes and JDAMs for bombs. You don't even have to name the air-ground missiles.
#77
Karlos Vandango
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,139 posts
I Post Every Second Of My Life
- Location:Cheltenham , England , Europe , The Earth
- Projects:Beta Tester Project Raptor
- The Posting Maniac
Posted 01 August 2005 - 11:04 AM
i was wacthing this program on discorvy wings last night and
this one is about helicoptor ejector seats
in generals u have an elite commace
gets destoyed and then he ejects
some times the poilets goes thu the blades of the helicopter
if that was real life thne the piolet would of been chopped faster then u could say
an i chop chesse faster then a whrily
and who reackons ea (Electronic Arts) has gotten sloppy with there games over the last years (red arlert 2 was designed by westwood not ea) if ur gonna say about that 1
this one is about helicoptor ejector seats
in generals u have an elite commace
gets destoyed and then he ejects
some times the poilets goes thu the blades of the helicopter
if that was real life thne the piolet would of been chopped faster then u could say
an i chop chesse faster then a whrily
and who reackons ea (Electronic Arts) has gotten sloppy with there games over the last years (red arlert 2 was designed by westwood not ea) if ur gonna say about that 1
#78
Skillers
-
- New Members
-
- 9 posts
Posted 01 August 2005 - 12:40 PM
The idea of a GLA suicide plane is good. Make it like a simple plane packed with explosives - like the bomb truck, just with wings and propellors.
As for America - UAVs are good - they have been invented and they are very good for attacking with. Also, the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) would be good. They have recently been commisioned by the USAF. The can travel supersonic (similar speeds to Raptor), have vertical take off (new airfield for reloading - i.e like helicopter bays) and are cheaper than the Raptor. They are called Joint Strike Fighters because they can have 3 roles - fighters, bombers and recon (not sure bout the last one). They would make a very good addition to the USAF. They are also known as the F-35, now. JSF webpage
As for America - UAVs are good - they have been invented and they are very good for attacking with. Also, the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) would be good. They have recently been commisioned by the USAF. The can travel supersonic (similar speeds to Raptor), have vertical take off (new airfield for reloading - i.e like helicopter bays) and are cheaper than the Raptor. They are called Joint Strike Fighters because they can have 3 roles - fighters, bombers and recon (not sure bout the last one). They would make a very good addition to the USAF. They are also known as the F-35, now. JSF webpage
#79
link.the.first
-
- Project Team
-
- 3,577 posts
Supreme commander
- Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
- Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
- You want a piece of me boy?
Posted 01 August 2005 - 02:00 PM
A non-VTOL JSF was in the game. It seemed useless next to the F-23, so it got removed. I would like to see it back with more missiles and a different airfield. Give every plane a Vulcan gun, and give the JSF the best version for close support. Also, upgradeable/start stealth.
#80
Bob
-
- Project Team
-
- 1,252 posts
Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
- Location:The country music capital - Nashville TN, U.S.A.
- Projects:Project Raptor, ZH Maps
- "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
Posted 01 August 2005 - 04:52 PM
A different airfield specifically for the JSF would be an interesting idea. The airfield could be 1/3 the size of a standard airfield. Able to fit into tight spaces. How many times have we been on a nice map that didn't have enough base build space left over for another airfield. Weve all been there. This would solve that little problem.
- Bob
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
