A few thoughts for the mission discussion on 16th Jan

[Mr_Sukebe]

Chaps,

I was thinking about the challenge of how to take forward the current Armageddon missions.
Here’s a few thoughts that might prove useful to consider for this evening’s discussion:

Objective
To provide a framework for suitable rules and guidance around restrictions, objectives and how to measure the effectiveness of a team post the scenario.
These include:
1. To provide a suitable battleground for as many of our pilots as possible. So for example, creating a target that takes an hour to fly to in an A10 wouldn’t be too clever
2. Facilitates EASY to use methods to judge the effectiveness of each team. We could have some very complex methods to define what can be used and what each are worth in estimated $ value, but as already discussed, we want to fly, not create an accounting piece of software
3. To ensure that all pilots understand their core mission objectives prior to take off
4. To keep things simple and allow us to have fun

Questions that I believe we need to consider, along with a starting “point of view”
1. Weapon restrictions. My personal view is we either allow everything
a. (Option A), (e.g. including Aim120c, Aim9x, GBUs, mavericks), or
b. (Option B) we restrict to say cold war (early 80s), which would eliminate the Aim9x, Aim120, the equivalent Soviet missiles, all guided bombs and missiles. The Walleye was available prior to that, but for ease, would be safer to remove that too
2. Theatres.
I think that Normandy should be excluded as it doesn’t have sufficient suitable airfields. Otherwise, I believe that any of the Cauc, Gulf or Nevada could be used
3. Ranges.
I’d like to agree that the defined “base” (or target depending upon your point of view), is no more than 100 miles away from the nearest enemy base
4. Once a pilot has been shot down, can he jump into another aircraft?
My view is yes, as otherwise we’re likely to have a pilot that makes a mess of his initial take off simply walk
5. Numbers per side. Do we wish to restrict the numbers such that both sides have the same number of pilots (or as close a possible)?
On Tues 14th Jan, the blue side I believe started with 11 pilots and the red with 10. If that changes to the point that it appears that the reds have say 15 to 10. How to balance?
My view is that the easy way is for pilots who are comfortable playing different aircraft to highlight that, such that instead of flying an F14 for the Reds, that they could jump into a Blue flight flying an F18. I get the impression that some pilots very much wish to stay with only their primary aircraft, and I fully understand that. There are others probably happy to volunteer as required
6. Cold or hot starts.
I can’t help but think that we ALL practice cold starts and should by now be fully capable of conducting that. My preference in a defined mission are hot starts, such that if say an F14 pilot is shot down and wishes to re-join, that he doesn’t have another 10 min start up to go through

Mission Guidelines:
• Whilst creating the mission from scratch, ensure that one coalition has all countries, and the other has the USAF Aggressors (thus allowing them to fly anything). That allows future flexibility in the choice of assets
• Coalition commanders agree starting points of one or more airbases, not more than 100 miles away
• Each commander decides on a location for a single “base”. That must also be within 100 miles of the nearest enemy airbase. Clearly it can be at a friendly airbase if you so wish
• At each base, the local commander places 10 “target vehicles” of the same type. I’m thinking of say an M113, set to no return fire, no movement. All 10 must be within a square area, not large than ½ mile per side, in the open (i.e. not hidden in trees, behind buildings etc).
• Each base can have a CWS type of air defence (i.e. shilka, avenger) and a single SAM weapon. Both sides get exactly the same type of air defence weapons, e.g. Shilka and SA6.
• The commander can chose where to place both his aircraft and air defence weapons
• At the end of the mission, a count is taken of both ground and aircraft lost from the scoring page. Each aircraft or “ground target” killed is worth 1 point. Whoever inflicts the greatest damage wins
• Would seem to be prudent for each commander to have published at least a “high level plan” a minimum of 2 days prior to the mission, to include:
o Aircraft/weaponry available/restrictions/recommendations
o Target location and waypoint details
o Mission frequencies, for flights, AWACs, tankers, bases, carriers
o Rough order of battle, to be confirmed during the pre-flight briefing

As stated, these are just a few thoughts, very much my "point of view" of how things "could" be done. Hopefully they might prove useful for tonight.

I'm conscious that the discussion is planned for a fairly small group. If you wish to extend that and include others (potentially including myself), please do advise.

[Flyco]

I would have thought the best way to even the whole thing up is for both sides to have ground target to take-out. At present, Red force simply hover over the known target, and wait.

That is the format for the classic 'Capture the Flag' game.

[Mr_Sukebe]

Any news on the outcome from the meeting of last night?

[john (scooby)]

Any news on the outcome from the meeting of last night?

Basically its a full blown war and we can both attack each other, next 1 will be any weapons you like and well adjust that balance if its carnage

[Mr_Sukebe]

Oooh, that's interesting.