View Single Post
  #45  
Old 04-18-2014, 08:58 AM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
running on compressed air alone? you can't really be serious.
you might as well forget any jet you're fawning over, it isn't gong to happen.
Quite serious. Compression makes combustion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
You can disagree all you want and do it in your own game, but the fact is, MP has no need for combat jets for air superiority.
If it was afraid of aircraft THAT much why is there not any serious anti-aircraft weaponry anywhere in the books?
Something far easier to obtain, maintain, and operate than ANY jet aircraft.
Stinger systems are not a serious system, a nice tactical battlefield defense system yes.
Chapparal (Sidewinder AA missile) starts on pages 18-19 in the 3rd edition. Found on the MARS One, Science One, and Prime Base. A large Medium category Air Defense missile system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
Yes they do, and will continue to do so, COIN has changed dramatically since Vietnam as has air to air capabilities.
COIN aircraft have proven they are a bitch to detect much less hit with look down shoot down capabilities.
Helos are easy due to that lovely radar reflection from the rotors and I've been sent in on helo's minus escort into combat zones before any air superiority was achieved or desired several times in my career.
Modern coin capabilities fly way lower than any air superiority jet pilot even dreams of going (married one).
COIN aircraft rely on Air Superiority fighters to keep the skies clear. Iraq or Afghanistan isn’t a good example as the Iraqi air force wasn’t very credible to start with and the Mujahideen didn’t have pilots. (helos, yes; fighters, no)

COIN aircraft are Air to Ground support aircraft. Calling them COIN aircraft is just obscuring they title to support the hearts and minds campaign. Much like a dropping a bomb on a bridge became “servicing a target”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
The Morrow Project is NOT and NEVER has been set up you own local warlord.
The morrow porject does not field an army.
It fields small teams spread out through the united states, NOT in Iraq or afghanistan, Russia, Crimea, Germany or Poland.
Yet, there is the MARS One vehicle. Which has no rescue equipment other than a med unit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
WHO after WW3 and all those nukes is going to have any desire to continue the war?
Apparently both sides…….. In the “Fringeworthy: Complete” CD collection from Tri Tac Games (owned by Richard Tucholka) is some supporting material for the Morrow Project. The War begins 19 November, 1989 and lasts several months. Denver is the last place known nuked and that is for atleast the third time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
EMP alone is going to make and end to long range aircraft going anywhere.
Hardened systems only protects against a few nukes going off not hundreds -to thousands -yes the us military does teach that fact-
I am a graduate of the NBC NCO course 1999. EMP has been highly overrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
Just HOW are the soviets getting those aircraft to the states to the degree that requires the Morrow project to demand air superiority aircraft be stored away?
Bear bomber have exceptional range for their class, some models with ranges greater than 9,000 miles. Enough to strike targets in the upper continental US and return without refueling with an over the Pole course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
You expect them to sacrifice Ilyushin tankers just to bomb a nuked US?
Nope, the tankers will be in their race track orbits over the Soviet arctic shoreline as the NATO ones will be over the Canadian shoreline with interceptor aircraft nearby to protect them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
They will need all the aircraft for themselves after all they are surrounded by far more people against them than we are.
Possibly, depends upon the State of things. If it is 1989…….. Not so much. China is their friends, South Korea and Japan can’t do much beyond their territorial waters. Europe is going to catch some nukes, then Russian will dominate their air space and sea lanes. Europe will fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
The collapse of governments will bring a cease to hostilities to the degree you insist is going to happen.
Governments will but the military in each is going to carry on as long as they can. Russia has the “Dead Hand” system for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
Nobody with such aircraft left is going to waste them on a fools errand on sending them all the way over to bomb an already nuked to collapse United States, nothing more is to be gained.
Retaining the initiative, denying the enemy maneuver, and disrupting war or domestic production are typical reasons for strategic bombing missions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
You seem to be missing the theme of the game yourself.
No, I plan for what the Project was supposed to be if it had functioned properly. Then, I have fun taking away all the toys, giving the Team something that almost could be useful, or having a reasonable explanation for how the “Cavalry” is what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer View Post
Avgas is not kerosene, jet A, or JP-8.
Unless you take every and all precautions on storing it (and it's still not a guarantee) you will have some interesting things to deal with in the fuel to preserve your aircraft.
Production of aviation fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_fuel
The production of aviation fuel falls into two categories: fuel suitable for turbine engines and fuel suitable for internal combustion engines. There are international specifications for each.
Jet fuel is used in both turboprop and jet aircraft, and must maintain a low viscosity at low temperature, meet definite limits in terms of density and calorific value, burn cleanly, and remain chemically stable when heated to high temperature.[3]

Aviation gasoline, often referred to as "avgas", is a highly refined form of gasoline for aircraft, with an emphasis on purity, anti-knock characteristics and minimization of spark plug fouling. Avgas must meet performance guidelines for both the rich mixture condition required for take-off power settings and the leaner mixtures used during cruise to reduce fuel consumption.
Avgas is sold in much lower volume than jet fuel, but to many more individual aircraft operators; whereas jet fuel is sold in high volume to large aircraft operators, such as airlines and military.[4]
Avgas (aviation gasoline) is used in spark-ignited internal-combustion engines in aircraft. Its formulation is distinct from mogas (motor gasoline) used in cars. Avgas is formulated for stability, safety, and predictable performance under a wide range of environments, and is typically used in aircraft that use reciprocating or Wankel engines.
Jet fuel is a clear to straw-colored fuel, based on either an unleaded kerosene (Jet A-1), or a naphtha-kerosene blend (Jet B). It is similar to diesel fuel, and can be used in either compression ignition engines or turbine engines.
Jet-A powers modern commercial airliners and is a mix of pure kerosene and anti-freeze and burns at temperatures at or above 49 degrees Celsius (120 degrees Fahrenheit). Kerosene-based fuel has a much higher flash point than gasoline-based fuel, meaning that it requires significantly higher temperature to ignite. It is a high-quality fuel; if it fails the purity and other quality tests for use on jet aircraft, it is sold to other ground-based users with less demanding requirements, like railroad engines.[5]

Last edited by ArmySGT.; 04-18-2014 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote