BlackFlag Internal Document #100423

Mission Briefing “Burnt Lion”
Source: French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Deployment: Vengeance Heavy Bulk Carrier
Pancake: Vengeance Heavy Bulk Carrier
Alternate: None
AAR: Etenard tanking squadron available on request
AWACS: Copernicus Flight (Embraer)
CSAR: Moroccan Navy

Contract Employer: Kingdom of Morocco

Objective: Protect the Vengeance from attack
Secondary Objective: None
Secondary Objective: None

bumping because page 2

wow is no one on to see this? seriously?

Come on OP keep posting.

Eh, I'd be careful about the Tomcat. It's nice, but I think the US is dead set on keeping parts out of Iran's (and anyone else's) hands - they're shredding old F-14s instead of selling them, I think. Parts will be hard to come by for maintenance. I think the MiG-29 would be better just for logistics.

The Mig 29 and the AV8. The tomcat is a big fat un-maneuverable missile boat and the Yak is even more limited than the harrier. See if he can get a sea harrier...best version available.

Background:
Excellent work on your initial opening strike against the Monrovian Air Defense network. Secondary target assessment has confirmed numerous stationary sites destroyed, along with a significant portion of mobile sites rendered inoperative. The raid on the harbour was mildly successful, however imagery has confirmed that the vessel is still operative, but without manoeuvring power. We will likely need to sink it in the future to ensure a clear path for the Moroccan strike force.

However, what concerns us most at the present time is the unexpected presence of a mercenary air wing apparently under Liberian contract. We've analyzed the radar tapes of the ambush, and have concluded that the aircraft departed from the Monrovian air field to intercept. Because the airfield is the site of UN operations as well, a strike against it has been denied. The use of advanced technology has been confirmed, including stocks of modern western hardware, as your last sortie proved. On the positive side, we have identified the mercenary company as AirScan, a PMC with strong US national links. While the US denies involvement in this conflict, the presence of AirScan seems to indicate otherwise. We are continuing our investigation of the details of the contract.
Because the balance of this operation hinges on securing air superiority over the skies of Monrovia, command has decided to pull AirScan out of hiding. Our original plan was to track their operational patterns and jump them when they didn't expect it, or simply deny them their airfield. Unfortunately they have varied their deployment and the airfield continues to be used by the UN. Since we are on a strict timetable, we have decided to try a more risky gambit, but one that has a high reward. We will use the Vengeance as bait, to draw them in, while your flight performs a combat air patrol guided by Copernicus. We have leaked the position of the Vengeance, as well as some operational time tables detailing a number of our flights and some false information. We have made it seem as if the Vengeance will be unprotected for a brief window, which is a target too big to ignore. Copernicus will direct you to intercept the strike packages, and it is vital that you succeed, since the Vengeance has limited defensive systems and no dedicated escort group.

HUMINT: None
ELINT: None
SATINT: None

Threat Assessment: Moderate. AirScan operates using near state of the art equipment, and has close ties with the US Department of Defense. Expect veteran and seasoned opponents operating in advanced airframes.

ROE: DO NOT FIRE on UN aircraft operating in Liberian airspace. All airborne unidentified targets within 150nm of the Carrier are to be considered hostile. Copernicus targets may be engaged without visual identification. Surface targets must be visually identified prior to engagement. Weapons release authorized if fired upon.

What sort of idiot writes these missions? Who wold ever expose a carrier?

>>11141837
As the brief says, it has been done to present a target they cannot ignore.

Given the mission, the F-14 doesn't look like a bad choice.

>>11141837
that's why it's called a "risky gambit."

>>11141897
"Risky Gambit" is Military Code for "You're fucked"

A Starship2000 with guns sticking out of the windows.

Tomcat will definitely be a money hog.

Part of me says go MiG-29 just to see the Fulcrum get some love for a change.

Now to read the briefing.

Air Scan vs Hell's Black Aces.

In terms of names, you've already won OP.

Yeah a tom might be useful in this case simply because of the amount of long range missiles it can carry. Of course the latest migs and sukhois can carry just as many, if not more, missiles. If Judge just wants to sit back and pop off missiles it should be a decent choice.

And tell scotch to forget the AV8B and go for an FA2 Sea Harrier. Much better at the AtA bit than the US version is.

Harrier might be a decent choice, but VTOL just make me nervous.

>>11141975
They can VIFF!

well, fuck me sideways, OP. It looks like you're gonna have to up your game, you last pure AtA mission didn't end well.

>>11141987

Viff in hell, Harrierfag.

>>11142032
Which one was that?

Ah hell, this is a risky mission. I don't like it.

Screw it up here and its ditching for the whole flight.

>>11141975
Yeah they're a bit more tricky to fly than normal aircraft but they certainly do have an advantage in close. And with that pulse doppler and the ability to carry AMRAAMs its a good choice for a mission like this.

>>11142053
They have surprise on their side!

>>11142053
We need some more Planes 'n Mercs book covers!

And Some Planes 'n Merchandise while we're at it.

Dibs on the Queen Vic playset.

>>11141772

What the hell? Did I miss the last mission debrief? Godddamit! And sup/tg/ was down! I will never read that thread!

Every time I start to have suicidal thoughts one of these threads come up. Thank you, OP

>>11142066

Maybe, but the Harrier is such a fiddly craft.

>>11142100
>>11142100
If only there was some place where all the debriefs were....
http://s1.zetaboards.com/PlanesAndMercs/single/?p=217973&t=3566729

>>11142032
that would be the "defend the airfield from an entire carrier strike group" mission. This time they'll hopefully have the advantage of surprise...plus they've gotten better since then. Just don't wimp out and buy cheap ass AtA.

>>11141987
dangerously close to YIFF, I don't like it.

>>11142126

As a wise man once said about missiles: "Argggh, the cheap ones are worthless!"

>>11142107
What do you mean by "fiddly"?

>>11142096
>Queen Vic playset

Complete with realistic battle damage and screaming innocent passenger sound effects!

>>11142120

This makes my life *so* much better. Now, I get two planethreads in one.

brb happy dance

>>11142134
Only Fags and the Royal Navy Fly harriers.

How fictional do you want it? The Scaled Composites ARES is a one of a kind prototype of an inexpensive ground attack plane. It's built around a gatling cannon, similar to the A-10.

Worst part about this briefing is that we can't even comment much on it besides aircraft recommendations. Initiative is purely in Airscan's court.

I'm going to assume they have more F-16s, but I wonder if they have other aircraft as well?

>>11141954

>big

AAAAARUGH SHUT UP

THE WINGS, DUDE. SWING WINGS. THE WINGS? THEY SWING.

When they swing FORWARD, the plane becomes surprisingly MANEUVERABLE. Whiners! Nay-sayers and whiners! Haet haet haet.

Holy shit, googled AirScan, not a made up company!

Tomcat and as many Phoenix missiles as you can load onto it. See if you can get one Iranian surplus.

In general, I'd say you should pick ammo capacity and electronic warfare capability over raw speed or agility.

If you want to go real crazy, though, see if you can get yourself a bomber and then load it up a la the B-1R concept.

>>11142177
I wrote Steve about that, waiting for his reply. I'm hoping we can buy some intel about what they have in inventory.

>>11142186
STEEEEEVE

>>11142186
True...but then Steve is known for his use of real people and organizations.

>>11142186
Welcome to Planes and Mercs, where there is always just enough of the real to balance the make believe. And sometimes the coincidences stack up pretty fast.

>>11142143

Just the way the jet nozzle system works makes me nervous. I dunno why. Its a purely amateur apprehension towards the aircraft.

>>11142212
I would give my left nut to be a part of this campaign.

>>11142177
I'd say they'll be flying F-15s, F-16s, maybe F-18s. F-35 and F-22 are right out; ties with the US or not, those birds aren't going to a PMC.

The electronics gear is going to be pretty damn good, though. You may want to look for missiles that are known for being particularly resistant to jamming.

>>11142228
You probably don't like helicopters either, am I right?

Crazy idea: tell the Russians what you're up against, ask if they have anything they'd like field-tested against America's best non-F22 gear?

>>11142182

I think Pops is referring to the aircraft's physical size, not its mobility.

I noticed Mickey flies his Tomcat solo, no backseater. While certain possible, I'm sure, this seems unwise to me.

>>11142261
Ooh fun idea! Make sure you tell them they'll get sensor logs and any unused equipment back asap.

>>11142241

Nah, Helicopters I'm fine with. I just don't like that RR Pegasus.

>>11142261
>Crazy idea
>Russians
I think you may be on to something here

Hmm...

Maybe you can get some Su-33s or naval MiGs, if not modified -35BMs

Hey anyone familiar with the air launched version of the Stinger that comes in four packs? I've read that they're usually only good against helicopters but the Germans have listed them as AtA options for their Alpha Jets. If they're any good one would think you could load up four of the four packs on a harrier and be an amazing close in fighter.

>>11142385
The problem is getting into range, the stinger is pretty shitty on a maneuvering target.

>>11142385
you mean this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-92_Stinger
Not a bad idea IMO, but if the fighting turns into a ball, it's tracking might mess up

>>11142422
Yeah i realize its not an amazing choice...i'm simply looking for a way to get as many AtA missiles up there as possible. Stat wise they're pretty decent in Air War.

Hey OP, ask Steve about the AIM92 stingers and see what his thoughts are on the subject.

>>11142437
>its
sorry, bad grammar

>>11142322
Yeah. I mean, they've got a good rep with them from the Georgia op, and a chance to poke America in the eye and get away with it is one of Putin's favorite things.

>>11142261
You talk to my brother Yuri, da? He give you good deal, top shelf stuff, best fighters in all of Polytrana Military District. Tell him Cousin Vachenko sent you.

>>11142450
>as many missiles as possible

Cheapass bomber, loaded up as a missile truck. Fire off the missiles fast, then either dump the bomber or RTB on land.

Does anyone know how good the carrier is at defense?

>>11142479
Problem is no bomber of the size you're suggesting could launch from the carrier OPs group is stationed on. That and it'd be a cobbled together jury rigged nightmare. That said i like the idea of a missile truck like that.

>>11142500

Not very. Its a converted Cargo ship.

wasn't judge flying a MIG back in the day anyway? As much as I'd love to see a 'cat get some action, I'd say the MIG would be the better bet- plus, you guys have pretty good relations with the Russians, might be easier to get hold of.

>>11142563
That being said, I seem to remember it being respectable anti-air wise.

>>11142515
Well, to be honest the point is that it's a cobbled together nightmare. It's not a good idea for regular use, because the bomber still can't maneuver or run like a fighter can; all you've done under normal circumstances is made a much more expensive than normal target.

For this one particular situation, though, buying something cheap with the expectation that it probably won't survive the mission in flyable condition is worth it.

And fly it from a local airfield. Sierra Leone or Guinea should have something suitable, they both have reason to hate Liberia, and since you're only using the airfield for a single outbound flight you don't have to worry about setting up the infrastructure for a more permanent base.

>>11142500

Garbage. Even vs. F-16's it's going to drown. It's a goddamn converted tanker with a deck and guns strapped to it.

>>11142581
Respectable versus what they thought the Liberians might have, not against large amounts of high-spec US gear.

ECM and decoys will be just as important as good missiles in this one. This would be a good opportunity to pick up an ECM pod if you haven't yet OP.

>>11142500

"Defensively, the ship had quite a few systems, including a vertical launch ASTER and MISTRAL SAMs, as well as several GIAT 20mm point defense cannons."

Though that's still probably garbage compared to a warship, it's not exactly defenseless

OP, the biggest piece of advice I can give you is this:

You're not fighting enemies anymore. Steve has been watching. Learning. From you.

You're going up against another PMC, which means another adventuring party. They're going to play as dirty as you, be as good as you, and kill as ruthlessly as you. Which means you've got to up your game.

>>11142592
Depends, that High Spec US gear has hurt OP before, but it hasn't won a battle yet.

I think the most important question here is: Just how many aircraft does OP expect to face here?

>>11142616
>>11142616
>ASTER

Goddamn, the French didn't fuck around, that's some good SAM system!

Also see about getting the three pack version of the ASRAAM. More capable than the Stinger option and only one less missile. Another good choice for the Harrier.

As for planes, well, you've already made a good investment in the F-18 (and a good call taking the Phantom last mission.) As for Judge, I'd have to side with the F-14. The last avionics upgrade ever released for the F-14 integrated air-to-ground capability, so Judge can join the mud moving fun when he so chooses; and for this mission the F-14 certainly has the better radar. (Unless I'm sadly mistaken.) Fuck the haters; the F-14 is far more manuverable at subsonic knife-fighting speeds then people give it credit for. Strictly speaking, though, the MiG-29 is still better there- the manuverability bothers me less then the underpowered problem. Underpowered is bad in the rolling scissors, and hinders you all around.

Of course, that is less important when you have the superior horrible rape radius.

>>11142616

Respectable armament up close, yeah. However, if Airscan has antiship missiles (and I'm sure they do...).

>>11142686
Aye...it'd be good to have that horrible rape radius. But OP is dealing with F16s which could potentially chew up a big bird like the tomcat if they got in close. Potentially. And who knows what else AirScan is fielding?

>>11142667

>ASRAAM

It is incredibly juvenile, but I can't help but marvel at that one every time I see it.

>>11142703
Well that was my thinking, if they launch any air to sea missiles, the Carrier has a good chance of picking quite a few of them off.

>>11142717
The F-14 can dictate the terms of an engagement with an F-16, it has the sheer brute force to do so. It may not be the best dogfighter, but it can do a pretty good job at it.

>>11142720
any air to air missiles out there designed to be able to intercept cruise missiles?

>>11142703
Presumably, the Aster missiles are meant to be used on those. The Mistrals are short-range (5km i.e. 3mi) IR homers, so if those are in use then things have already gone pear-shaped.

>>11142720

Yeah, maybe. Depends on how many Airscan has/survives to launch though.

We're helpless without knowing what they'll be fielding. Anything we can do here is just guessing.

>>11142730
true but this is assuming the plan works. If they can sneak in or some how turn the tables on OPs flight everything changes. Still the tomcat does have the power to pull away from the falcon and keep the range open if it wants to.

False-flag would also be a great idea. Any civilian plane that could reasonably be flying in the area and that could have missiles kitbashed onto it would be great for the "SURPRISE, MOTHERFUCKERS!" value.

>>11142771

Let's just hope Airscan doesn't get that idea...

>>11142771
Snag a plane of the same type the UN is using and play false flag missile boat? sure...could work.

>>11142717

Meh. That's why you use teamwork and cover each others tails. Not even dogfights are 1v1 duels. Furballs are what happen when you fuck up, no matter HOW much the Fighter Mafia masturbates to their Falcon.

And fleet defense of a Carrier is exactly what the F-14 was designed to do.

>>11142807
I must admit i'm a fan of the Fighter Mafias style but I can see where they could be wrong. Problem with covering your wing man in this flight is the wide differences between each of the flights aircraft and fighting styles. I mean who's gonna cover the Harrier(if he gets a harrier) when the shit hits the fan? Nothing can keep up with its turns. Not saying covering your wingman in this case isn't possible...just harder.

>>11142782
Goddamn, they are a real company? Or did you make that graphic?

>>11142860
What is there to "cover your wingman" beyond "fire off a missile/some cannon rounds at the guy targeting your wingman to at least fuck up his aim if you don't kill him"?

>>11142807

Fleet defense against long range bombers...not fast movers. Still it adapted nicely and i've gotta admit this is a perfect opportunity to pick one up if someones been yearning for one.

guys... guys

guys look at this... guys

Brigadier General Joe Stringham, a founding member of AirScan and in charge of operations in Cabinda was responsible for many covert counter-insurgency activities in El Salvador during their dirty war in the '80s

>>11142886

Forgot my citation, yes its wikipedia, but the article has citations itself

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

>>11142860

Well, for starters, anybody that brings a Harrier to a airsup battle should be raped by a wookie. On matters of general principle, of course.

The Fighter Mafia had a good point, and made a great plane, but if you've seen some of the shit they've said over the years- especially in regards to the F-22- it can be really, really hard to believe that these men once made the F-16.

>>11142880
generally its a good idea to stick with your friend and work together...not just shoot at something thats shooting/gonna shot at your friend.

>>11142886

Jeese these guys are the IRL blackflag

On December 13, 1998, AirScan misidentified the village of Santo Domingo as a hostile guerrilla target, leading to a cluster bomb attack by Colombian Air Force units which killed eighteen civilians, including nine children.

op, if you're still looking for new pilots, I think now'd be a good time to get them, no? *wink wink*

>>11142911

>implying Harriers being Harriers isnt a reason to take one

>>11142911
It all went to their heads after the Falcon.

And thats a lovely mental picture there. Sea Harrier at least could manage fairly well. Hell it servers as fleet defense itself...or it did.

>>11142943
>>11142886
Holy Fuck, have we been Steve'd again?

>>11142886
wait a sec
>Brigadier General Joe Stringham, a founding member of AirScan and in charge of operations in Cabinda was responsible for many covert counter-insurgency activities in El Salvador during their dirty war in the '80s

If I'm not mistaken the plan is to
>leak location of carrier
>leaked window of opportunity to sink it

What are the chances that AirScan will fall for this trap?
Better have a back up plan IMO

>>11143085
My guess is that the operational schedule has some sacrificial lambs in it, so Air Scan can believe the quality of the intel. They won't come in stupid, but they'll come in confident. And, who knows, they might think they're going up against a normal bulk carrier with a flat top welded on to it, not a full fledged air defense platform.

Besides, its one of those "Yeah, it might be a trap, but an opportunity likes this just can't be passed up."


Ok, let's change focus here. Stop thinking about Black Aces. Put ourselves in AirScan's shoes. How would we do this? We've got a shot at the enemy's carrier, how do we go about it? One of the guys thinks it might be a trap.

>>11143212

Depends on the assets we have.

Personally? Hornets with Harpoons. Launch from standoff range, problem solved.

>>11143212
overload its defenses with AtS missiles...gg.

But seriously we have to assume they know that the carrier is armed in some fashion. Can they know exactly what it carriers? Yes but probably not. Will they expect that many systems? No probably not but always better to be safe than sorry.

Therefore we can assume they'll come in as fast, yet as sneakily, as they can and launch from a respectable range that won't put them inside whatever it is they suspect a bulk hauler turned carrier would mount.

>>11143301
carries, not carriers

>>11143212
Well, Harpoons would be my first guess, but I'd provide umbrella air cover as well if I had the fighter backbone to support it. And worst case scenario would have our small missile launch not be effective, so I'm thinking some kind of dedicated penetration strike aircraft with a large payload, if one was available. I'd also have cutout points on the way in, so that if things go south we can back out if we need to.

>>11143212
>>11143139
My guess is that they will probably pull a feign out, draw out the combatants and attack elsewhere.
Since this is Airscan we're talking about, I bet they'll have stealth capable planes at their disposal and will probably come up on another side. They will most likely fly in no formation (for stealth).

I suggest pulling your punches and have a plane in intercept role as a reserve (Judge?)

The good thing is depending on range from land, the enemy mercs won't be spending much time in the area, giving you the upper hand in a dogfight.

AirScan is known for using drones to scout so watch for bird sized returns on your radar that appear to be moving at a higher speed than normal.

I suspect we'll see a B-52 in this mission.

>>11143212
Two ways: Stright and hard, or indirect and subtle.

If you go straight and hard, Hornets with Harpoons, add one or two with AMRAAMs and one with ECM.
Alternatives of this version include non-US planes firing non-US weapons, eg Etendards with Exocets.
This would be a straight no-nonsense shootout.

The other variant can be a lot harder to spot. It's not very haard to jury-rig an Exocet or four onto something that flies or swims. This means everything is a potential threat. Fishing trawler, cargo plane, everything can potentially kill your carrier if it comes close.

>>11143839
The ROE makes it very straightforward. Anything within 150 miles of the carrier is a threat.

What about a boat? OP's flight shouldn't expect a vessel, but if there is one, should they have a backup bomb/missile, or go straight-on AA?

If AIRSCAN uses drones, we've got trouble. They'd probably use pic related for maritime scouting. I don't know the launch specifics of a Mariner, but drones are not worth a missile. You'd want to gun them down.

This doesn't look good from any angle.

>>11144173
Tired, Down on their luck, Pressed for time, and it's running out.

This smacks of a modern day re-enactment of the Battle of Britain.

>>11140708
From the front that Dassault is achingly beautiful.

OP, the above anon was right. You're going up against DMPCs, not regular 'ole bad guys anymore.

Heck, if the enemy country (forgot if it was Libya or Liberia, don't wanna sound stupid. Too late for that, eh?) still has anything resembling an air force, Airscan may have them throw sacrificial planes or helicopters to meet the Vengeance with AtShip ordnance, while Airscan themselves stay in AtA mode.

>>11144173

I'm heading to bed, Steve got back to me, and said that the Russians would be willing to cut a deal with us if we needed it, depending on our timetable.

As to AirScan, purchase records indicate that they had acquired several Surplus export F-16s, as well as some purchases from Libya and the Ukraine, although the nature of the purchases remains vague beyond 'aeronautical components.' A recent purchase of note had large sums funneled through back channels to Ecuador, although the exact purchase remains unknown.

So, that's what I know so far. Kind of mysterious but I'm sure you guys will figure it out, not the first time Steve has given us chunks of intel like this, leaving it up to us to put pieces together.

Anyways, good night for now, hope to read your conclusions tomorrow morning!

>>11144312
Perhaps you should try to get a new model Mig-29k for Judge, as WELL as Scotch. Or an MKI. Or a -33, if they're willing to part with them. According wikipedia, at least, some of the -33s missiles can be used to intercept ASMs.

p and m, best threads ever

>>11144312
Alright, /tg/! Time to make the shi/tg/et done!

What comes out of Ukraine and Libya that US Aircraft would want?

>>11144830

I'm personally more concerned about the Ecuador thing. Nothing they have(According to the internet) could warrant a large cash transfer, therefore, that seems fishy to me. Ukraine and Libya could be technology compatability.

>>11144893
Could Ecuador have been used as a middleman for some other piece of equipment or armament?

>>11144928

Possibly, but I don't see what they could be buying that just couldn't be done directly with their US contacts, since they're butt buddies with them.

>>11145183
True.
My knowledge of Ecuadorian air assets and what they have for export it very limited.
The only things that come to mind for large monetary transfers is:
A. Laundering money. They're trying to buy something non-US and so need to go through Ecuador.
B. Purchasing a civilian aircraft to convert to a missile boat.

Ecuador is a member of the UN so...
AirScan bought a civilian aircraft from Ecuador, and they're going to give it a UN paintjob, load it up with missiles, and use a valid Ecuadorian transponder with UN identification to get in close to the carrier while their F-16's draw away any air cover that the Vengeance has. Since they've IDed themselves as a UN flight, ROE states that they cannot be fired upon. Once they're within range, they let loose a swarm of AtS missiles.

Does this sound plausible, given AirScan's background?

To the top with you

>>11145574

That seems just ridiculous enough to work, except ONE thing. ROE only gives a no-go on firing on UN aircraft INSIDE Liberian airspace, in addition, all aircraft within 150nm of the carrier are hostile, no ifs ands or buts

>>11145574
>>11145928

Even still, very very sneaky. Idk about the Libyans (or if they have any sort of military hardware worth exporting) but Ukraine might suggest that they have Russian tech. Could be trouble....

>>11146037

Or it could just be Russian tech compatability mods.

>>11146201

I had a random though that maybe AirScan might use that russian anti-AWACS missile that OP's group used during their Russian contract.

Then I remembered that russians like making anti-carrier missiles.

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

Fuck, that's big.

>>11146669
Holy crap that's half the size of the plane.

>>11145928
they could be hoping that moment of confusion and/or hesitation about a UN aircraft, probably a large hauler of some type (and therefore filled with valuable/essential supplies), appearing in their airspace could lead to that tiny window they need to do something sneaky, either from the UN marked craft or some other wing waiting in the wind.

OP, I'd definitely not discount this. ANYTHING you see within that 150nm engagement rage, you take out. Don't hesitate for a second.

>>11146669

Well, fuck.

>>11146669 this
+
>>11145574 this

= OH SHIT

I rrrrrreally hope Steve doesn't read these threads

>>11146974
I sure as heck hope not or all our advise would be for naught or worse give him ideas.

From what I've seen, Anyone with Russian-compatible hardpoints could take Alamo-EMs, the naval ones, they can engage targets 3m above sea level, meaning they could probably shoot down incoming ASMs, as well as fighters.

>>11147195
given that most ASM's operate below 20 meters, I think they should definitely stock up with these.

Caution: Oh shit.

I just had a horrifying realization the CSAR is as good as not even there. The reason I say this is if they are shot down and lose the Vengeance then the Moroccan Navy sure as hell are not going to risk sending their ships into enemy controlled airspace thats loaded with ASM's save them assuming that the AirScan mercs don't shoot the pilots when they're in the water.

>>11147423

Even worse, if they lose the vengeance they'll lose all the planes they've got stashed on board.

>>11147503
I forgot about that part but lets not speak any further on how badly things will go if they fail and try to help make sure that they don't.

The F-14 is made for this mission, I really hope Judge takes it, AIM-54Cs and the AWG-9 could save the day.

Enemy aces inbound!

And the most dogfight-capable bird anyone's looking at currently is...the Rafale?

We're toast.

>>11147722
I wouldn't recommend the 14A though, personally.

In fact, holy shit, if there was ever a mission where someone SHOULD have a fucking Su-33 full of AIM-9Ms, THIS IS IT

>>11147766
I'm guessing its due to the 14A's shit engine/airframe combo?

>>11147860
Well I just assume that a later variant would be better due to UPGRADES.

Also the Tomcat flies like a pregnant cow.

>>11147990
Hell of alot more nimble than the F-4

What is the position of the Moroccan fleet in relation to the Vengeance OP?

Depending on where they are they may be able to assist in protecting the Vengeance from a possible boat based attack and/or help provide an Anti-Missile screen.

>>11147602

What if Judge took a Foxhound? It was designed from the Foxbat specifically as a low-altitude interceptor, against cruise missiles. How effective would that be, loaded with long range stuff for general interception plus current-gen heaters for the ASM's?

>>11148240
Sounds good, but I know nothing about MiGs in general.

Where the shit are all the proper planefags?

>>11148240
Getting it on and off the carrier would be impossible/ball breaking levels of no fun.

>>11148334

How that slipped my mind, I have no idea.

In that case, might as well +1 to the Cat fans- high power heavy fighter, going from AirWar C21 it's slower than the MiG but if you swap the Phoenix for MICA radar guided (should get em cheap from France) plus some Lima Sidewinders, should be work well.

For long range air to air engagements F-14 is godly but sucks everywhere else. The Fulcrum is very versatile and more suited to the medium and short range scuffles. Its also known to be able to pull crazy stunts. The F-14 is faster though

>>11148370
Not to mention the RIO and the radar. Judge could use the Tomcat as a AWAC like the IRIAF.

Also he will be able to stay in the fight a hell of a lot longer than the -29 with the Tomcat

I still say Su-33. The previous threads pretty much summed up why it's the perfect plane for this.

>>11148390
There's a cost issue and an availability issue.

Total Air War 2.0 as an interlude.

>>11148384
Well the Mig-29K version that Judge is thinking about is naval version Mig-29M which has published combat range of 850 kms so it can stay up some time. And it has 8 hardpoints to put missiles on

>>11148474
True.

I wonder if there's a carrier-variant Mir2k?

>>11148546
Nope, the French Navy used the F-8 Crusader before the Rafale.

Oh no
Oh no
Oh no
Yo yo yo
Oh no you didn't
Sucka tried to play me
But you never paid me, Neva
Oh no you didn't
Payback is a' comin'
You will be runnin', foreva
Oh no you didn't
Until i get my vengeance
I will never end this mayhem
Oh no you didn't
I'm a mercenary
You ain't got a prayer, you owe meeee
Oh no you didn't

>>11148653
FUcking lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEbE3fGfF-o

>>11148623
So the Rafale is pretty much exactly the plane you want for this mission.

Make sure it's the Iori Minase version. For the utter humiliation of being shot down by a neon pink Rafale covered in bunnies.

>>11148659
Baron should be bringing a tape or something to future missions so he can play it during the final assault on Liberia's command bunker.

>>11148674
Oh yes, so much potential there.

>>11142943
Oh no! Not Santo Domingo!

Well shit. We all know that no converted aircraft carriers can survive in the South Atlantic.

>>11149767
They're in the North

>>11149767
Indeed...^_^

This one's going to be a bitch.
And an expensive one at that.

Can you hire goons to run some cheap boats with expensive systems on board? Here's what I imagine:

AirScan will have drones in the air and satellite imaging leading up to the mission, so everything has to look good. They will send up a squad of AtA and a strike package. They have a confirmed location of the target and see a lot of small boats and maybe a few planes in the area. Their approach will be as covert as possible, using civilian planes as cover, hugging the waves, splitting off the strike package to appear unexpectedly.

Their drones should only be attacked if they get close enough to be obvious. If they send a Harpoon or an Exocet it should only be intercepted on it's terminal run. So the carrier will need some reliable CIWSs.

(...)

>>11150009


As the jets approach the vicinity of the target massive jamming and ECM springs up everywhere. Missiles are in the air from out of nowhere. Apparently those damned Blackflag thugs managed to hide a first perimeter screen in jury rigged boats all over the place. Drones hitting water left and right. Remaining jets take formation for target run.

No matter, we have AWACS support and that clears things up a bit. Wait, what is that? One of the commercial airliners just had a radar-baby. It's speeding up. Fast bogey heading for AWACS, there's nobody close enough! Shit. Radar went dead.

Okay let's just deliver this load and sink that carrier cargo ship. Here they come. We expected them to loiter for CAP after that boat surprise, let's at 'em then. As long as the strike gets through.

Oh no! More AAA boats around the carrier. And the thing's defense is stronger than expected as well!

_______________

F-18 sounds great. A Tomcat could hurry to a hot spot and take down strays from far off, but it's expensive and good for not much else. If the Fulcrum can get up from a carrier it seems more versatile to me. Scotch shouldn't take a VTOL. Its strength is being stationed without a runway, but it's always stretched too thin when going AtA.

Say, remembering the Great Harrier Debacle at Kitona, I just started thinking... we're expecting F-16's and AtS missiles, but what keeps AirScan from just sending one flight of falcons to bugger the squadron, and twenty below-third gen buckets to riddle the carrier with exocets? Landing denial works both ways in this one.

>>11150265
The trick would be finding enough pilots for the kind of swarm you're plan is making me think of. Of course who knows what kind of resources they have. We can assume they've got some soviet era stuff from Ukraine which could be airframes or missiles so your idea has merit.

I assume AirScan will be attempting to use BVR weaponry against the OP's carrier? Remember the Ustinov & Queen Victoria incident? I believe this could be turned to our advantage.: OP's group flies CAP over an unrelated ship while the Vengeance floats off somewhere else entirely.

>>11150402
I say. That sounds absolutely sneaky.

Although I suspect AirScan propably has good enough SATINT to screw that over.

>>11150402
Bonus of decoy ship is a UN relief ship. Double bonus if you can both record AirScan blowing it up, and record them ignoring numerous pleas from OPs group not to blow up the UN vessel <obviouslyfakename>.

The odds of getting a Flanker don't sound that bad since, apparently
>the Russians will be making a deal with us if needed
or some shit. And an Su-33 would definitely be a great help on this kind of mission.
Blah blah, dead horse, thwack thwack.

On that note, what would it take to pull a fast one on AirScan and have a plane or two sitting in the carrier, preflight and ready for launch, and then punt them up as soon as shit GETS REAL?

>>11150402
>>11150442
>>11150457
No no no, you're doing it wrong.

You heap the defences round the real carrier. They can see it's a carrier and know it's a carrier. Even if they can't see it, they know it's important.

Then you have just two F-16s or something flying patrol around a big fucking tanker. For no reason. Off in the middle of fuck nowhere.

THAT'S a decoy.

>>11150009
I think this has merit.
Have a picket line of cheap boats manned by a some PMC's or French Navy sailors armed with ECM and ECCM packages, and a few MANPAD's (maybe something cheap and either French or Russian?).

>>11150580
A Super Hornet packed full of EWS shit would be helpful, too.

>>11150641
>EWS shit

That looks so weird in the middle of a sentence like that.

>>11151066
woah...where's he going that he'll need six LGBs?

>>11151187
Munrovia

>>11151454
Ah, ruddervators.

You know who else had ruddervators?

>>11151454
YF-23 just looked so much more sexy than the stupid F-22...sigh

>>11151187

To take out Stonehenge.

>>11151518
I dunno, the F-22 has kind of grown on me.

Is this thread going to descend into us attributing female characteristics to planes and discussing the allure of their curves?

>>11140705
ＳｔoP ATｔＡｃKＩｎG ＡｎＤ_FｕｃkIＮｇ_ＷＩTＨ_ｗｗＷ.ＡnＯＣArrｏtｓｔａｌk.ｓe ｒｅＰＬＡCe_cａＲRoＴs WIＴh ｎ
g dydduo ov il g tjkq hbw jzd jxqe bce t

>>11151624
Nah, we did that one already.

>>11151593
>>11151518
I think the YF-23 looks a bit too silly. The Raptor just has...that certain something.

Then again, I could be biased because Sorcerer flew fucking YF-23s.

>>11151624
You say it like it was a bad thing.

>>11151624
Well if there's going to be drooling, you'll need a bib.

Remember kids. The Su-27 series is what happens when planes commit incest.

Strike Eagle is a big fat cow. But god damn can she ever wreck shit.

A lot of Russia's planes are ugly fuckers, big and square or weird (lol Fishbed) but something about the Flanker design is just strangely aesthetically appealing to me. The extended forward fuselage and pushed-back wings just make such a strikingly recognisable silhouette.

>>11151940
>>11151869
>>11151838
>>11151729
>>11151686
>HURRRRRR, SOMEONE'S HAVING BADWRONGFUN! SPAM THE THREAD, QUICKLY!

>>11151964
Wait what.

I have no problem with anything going on in this thread. On top of which, I don't really think five images posted several minutes apart each constitutes a flood.

>>11151964
>hurr

I'm not sure whether this is meant to be taken seriously or not.

>>11152006
Is that a Flanker and an Eagle?

What the fuck would the offspring look like?

>>11152006
hawt?

It's a pity they were totally impractical, RQ-16s would have been pretty awesome.

>>11152029

>>11151940

Personally I like the MiG-21's look.

>>11153665
>>11153665
I really dislike the MiG-21's look, but enjoy the Su-22s. I can't figure it out.

>>11153922

The wings maybe?