Readying ASM and Bomb 6 hr?

[kilorocky]

I know someone, who's perfect to answer all these question. My grandpa served in China Air Force from 1931-1949, ended up as CO of Nanchang AB. His whole history is engineer readying and repairing AC, especially during China-Japan War and WWII.

But he passed away years ago, and everything that has to do with the air force history has been burned or destroyed when the communists took over. No photo, no memoir, only a letter of "confession". The only legacy is an ancient metal model of P-40.

I have bought a book on the AC readiness years ago, written by the PLAAF Academy or so and published by Chinese Defense Industry. There were quite a lot of function and formula describing this issue. However, I don't dare to present these pages.

[kilorocky]

Have you guys referred to this:

http://www.cna.org/research/1998/sor...arked-airwings

I guess it's quite convincing covering this issue

Sortie Generation Capacity of Embarked Airwings

Published Date: December 1, 1998

The Naval Strike and Warfare Center asked the Center for Naval Analyses to help evaluate and analyze carrier and air wing sortie-generation capacity. Specifically, we set out to determine the firepower capacity of an embarked air wing, the factors that constrain the sortie-generation capacity, and ways to enhance the fire power capacity. In this paper, we create a base case focusing on the three major requirements of the creation of sea-based air power: the aircraft must be mission capable, the aircrew must be able to fly the aircraft, and the flight deck crews must ready aircraft for flight, launch aircraft, and recover aircraft after the completion of their missions. Our estimates of the capacity of the airframes, the aircrew, and the carrier and air wing's ability to launch, recover, and ready aircraft for launch rely on the characteristics of the base case.

[mapuc]

I have a few very simple questions

Is Command:
1. A Computer Vs Computer game ?(you know a game where you the player are only watching as the Computer play against it self)

2. A Player Vs Computer game ?

3. A combination of both

Just simple yes or no will do.

Markus

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by kilorocky

Have you guys referred to this:

http://www.cna.org/research/1998/sor...arked-airwings

I guess it's quite convincing covering this issue

Sortie Generation Capacity of Embarked Airwings

Published Date: December 1, 1998

The Naval Strike and Warfare Center asked the Center for Naval Analyses to help evaluate and analyze carrier and air wing sortie-generation capacity. Specifically, we set out to determine the firepower capacity of an embarked air wing, the factors that constrain the sortie-generation capacity, and ways to enhance the fire power capacity. In this paper, we create a base case focusing on the three major requirements of the creation of sea-based air power: the aircraft must be mission capable, the aircrew must be able to fly the aircraft, and the flight deck crews must ready aircraft for flight, launch aircraft, and recover aircraft after the completion of their missions. Our estimates of the capacity of the airframes, the aircrew, and the carrier and air wing's ability to launch, recover, and ready aircraft for launch rely on the characteristics of the base case.

The PDF-fil is somehow broken, that's the message I get.

Markus

[kilorocky]

Originally Posted by mapuc

The PDF-fil is somehow broken, that's the message I get.

Markus

Hmmm
google “Sortie Generation Capacity of Embarked Airwings”
and you will get it right

[mapuc]

To kilorocky thank you will look into it later.

Some one said in this thread(Can't remember who) people forget that there ain't so many sortier(something like that)

When I read that I remember my dear Uncle, who died in the beginning of this century. He was a sailor and he was the first 4 days of the first iraqi war at some harbour in SA and he told me this
"There was fighter Jets taking off and landing ALL the time around the clock"

Made a search "Sortier during first Iraq war"

found this page

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...aq/nirq050.htm






Day 6: Monday, Jan. 21

• U.S. officials say despite more than 8,000 sorties in five days

Now how many aircraft-Fighters/bombers* did USA have in this first Iraqi war?

* F-4 F-14, F-15 F-17 F-18 a.s.o
Here is what it says on a wiki page
"The aerial strike force was made up of over 2,250 combat aircraft, which included 1,800 US aircraft,"

Found this from a wiki page

The coalition flew over 100,000 sorties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign

This answer was just to tell you that in case of a war the amount of sortier is WAY higher than in peacetime. And if there's would be time to let some of these 2250 plane be standing on the ground for 6-10 hours

This is my last post in this thread.

Markus

[FSKRipper]

Hey mapuc,

I think what most People mean is that under normal circumstances it will take at least a few hours to prepare a mission. To get into it I would recommend you the books "Flying the A-10 in the gulf war" or/and "Flying the Strike Eagle in the Gulf war" or from Mr. Rosenkranz "Vipers in the Storm". You will learn that even during Desert Storm a normal Mission took up to eight hours to prepare with several briefings, intelligence Meetings and so on.

But you are also right. In several cases (especially the A-10) there were planes on hot standby and were partly rearmed and refueled with engines running which was a matter of minutes up to an hour. These was made for 3 or 4 missions a day then the planes got cheked for a extended period.

So in my opinion emsoys Statement to create a workaround for a quick mission would be fine in my case.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by FSKRipper

Hey mapuc,

I think what most People mean is that under normal circumstances it will take at least a few hours to prepare a mission. To get into it I would recommend you the books "Flying the A-10 in the gulf war" or/and "Flying the Strike Eagle in the Gulf war" or from Mr. Rosenkranz "Vipers in the Storm". You will learn that even during Desert Storm a normal Mission took up to eight hours to prepare with several briefings, intelligence Meetings and so on.

But you are also right. In several cases (especially the A-10) there were planes on hot standby and were partly rearmed and refueled with engines running which was a matter of minutes up to an hour. These was made for 3 or 4 missions a day then the planes got cheked for a extended period.

So in my opinion emsoys Statement to create a workaround for a quick mission would be fine in my case.

Thank you for your reply

I have nowhere said it didn't take time to load, refuel a.s.o

It was this "huge time" to get a Fighter jet ready (loaded with bombs etc)

"a normal Mission took up to eight hours to prepare with several briefings, intelligence Meetings and so on. "

I asked a question before is Command a Computer Vs Computer generated game play? If yes then the sentence I copied from you is correct when used in the game.
But if the game is a Player Vs Computer generated game then it IS MY JOB to do these things. NOT THE GAME-The only thing the game have to do is to (re)load,(re)fuel)or (re)arm the plane and maybe do some repair(hope this event will come in a later issue of the game)

And that's one of the thing I'm hoping for - let us the player do the planning a.s.o

Markus

[FSKRipper]

Ok. I think I know now what you mean. If it is Player vs. Computer you want to make time consuming decisions like briefing yourself.

Maybe in the future this could be possible by adding code which in this case would decrease the efficiency of the flights (as it would be in real life).

I don'd know how much you are in simulations but if you already played Falcon BMS, you will understand that flying missions like "on call CAS" is much more dangerous and in most circumstances less efficient than a pre briefed attack.

Therefore it could maybe a possible solution to reduce prep times to maybe 30 minutes and adding a malus for the next Mission.

[emsoy]

Think the solution will probably be something like this...

The JAS 39 Gripen will have a 6 hr normal turnaround. But the scenario author can activate 'quick turnaround' in his scenario if it makes sense to do so. Some (but far from all!) loadouts in the platforms database will be 'quick turnaround' capable, typically simpler A/G loadouts on tactical jets. Bomber loadouts, cruise missile loadouts, etc will never be in this category.

Then, if the player decides to use 'quick turnaround', the plane can fly 4 sorties with 25 minute turnaround. But once the plane stands down it will be out of action for a prolonged period of time, probably 36-48 hours. The exact number of missions, the turnaround time and the penalties will be set for each loadout in the database. So no in-code 'one rule' implementation.

This should solve the problem I think?

[FSKRipper]

Sounds perfect for me

[kilorocky]

Originally Posted by emsoy

Think the solution will probably be something like this...

The JAS 39 Gripen will have a 6 hr normal turnaround. But the scenario author can activate 'quick turnaround' in his scenario if it makes sense to do so. Some (but far from all!) loadouts in the platforms database will be 'quick turnaround' capable, typically simpler A/G loadouts on tactical jets. Bomber loadouts, cruise missile loadouts, etc will never be in this category.

Then, if the player decides to use 'quick turnaround', the plane can fly 4 sorties with 25 minute turnaround. But once the plane stands down it will be out of action for a prolonged period of time, probably 36-48 hours. The exact number of missions, the turnaround time and the penalties will be set for each loadout in the database. So no in-code 'one rule' implementation.

This should solve the problem I think?

hmmm

howabout let the editor decide the ready time for specific units?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by emsoy

Think the solution will probably be something like this...

The JAS 39 Gripen will have a 6 hr normal turnaround. But the scenario author can activate 'quick turnaround' in his scenario if it makes sense to do so. Some (but far from all!) loadouts in the platforms database will be 'quick turnaround' capable, typically simpler A/G loadouts on tactical jets. Bomber loadouts, cruise missile loadouts, etc will never be in this category.

Then, if the player decides to use 'quick turnaround', the plane can fly 4 sorties with 25 minute turnaround. But once the plane stands down it will be out of action for a prolonged period of time, probably 36-48 hours. The exact number of missions, the turnaround time and the penalties will be set for each loadout in the database. So no in-code 'one rule' implementation.

This should solve the problem I think?

Edit
I have for months been searching the Internet for the same information I have in my head regarding loadout time a.s.o for JAS 39 and it is a lot shorter than a F-18 etc (please see a qoute from a wiki page in one of my first post)

Markus

[FSKRipper]

I think the idea from emsoy will work fine.

Sure you can get shorter replenish times. In a WW3 Scenario the most defending nations would be able to fly more sorties but at much higher costs. It would be a "all out scenario". I don't know how the exact plan for the Swedish Air Force was, but the German Air Force would have been regrouped in western europe instead of hopelessly fighting over german territory.

But in every conflict today, even minors against a superpower (USA vs. Iraq, Russia vs. Georgia e.g.) both sides will take their time to analyze the situation and not stupidly sacrifice their planes for massive attacks. They are simply too expensive

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by FSKRipper

I think the idea from emsoy will work fine.

Sure you can get shorter replenish times. In a WW3 Scenario the most defending nations would be able to fly more sorties but at much higher costs. It would be a "all out scenario". I don't know how the exact plan for the Swedish Air Force was, but the German Air Force would have been regrouped in western europe instead of hopelessly fighting over german territory.

But in every conflict today, even minors against a superpower (USA vs. Iraq, Russia vs. Georgia e.g.) both sides will take their time to analyze the situation and not stupidly sacrifice their planes for massive attacks. They are simply too expensive

English is not my native language and i don't know how I shall explain it

Planning, gathering information about the enemies postiion analyzing a.s.o a.s.o is MY JOB as the player it is NOT the games(Commands job) the ONLY thing the game shall do is
Load the plane with those weapon I have given the base order to do
and the amount of plane which shall have these type of weapon
AND do the repair/maintenance
That's all
and of course defend the base in case of an attack.

Please do not tell my it takes about 4½-5½ hour to JUST re(load)* and re(fuel) a fighter jet e.g F/A-18E(I'm talking about a plane that is fresh, no damage and with a fresh pilot)

* Air-to-ground and ASUW

The Combat turnaround air-to-air for JAS 39 is 10 Minuit

and the average time for maintenance per 100 hours of flight time is about 3 hours for JAS 39

I do like the idea emsoy mentioned.

Edit(again)
forgot something

when I read stuff like "both sides will take their time to analyze the situation" which is from your last post, then I get some kind of..well can't find the word... Most of you say, (not directly though) it's a player Vs computer game, but all these answer you are giving me indicate that it is computer Vs Computer game.

Markus