Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf

USAF did it faster in desert storm...

was that extended enough for you?

quote:

The other key factor to the success of the Harrier in the Falklands was its
reliability, which allowed it to maintain a high sortie generation rate. From April to June
1982 the British Harriers flew 2,197 sorties and 2,514 flight hours while maintaining an
availability rate of 96%.9 The aircraft often flew three sorties per day and had an
average cancellation rate of only 1% throughout the conflict.

quote:

The Harriers were
able to achieve a higher sortie generation rate than conventional carrier-based (CV)
aircraft because they were not tied to the limitations of catapults and arresting gear. For
example, towards the end of the ground war VMA-331 flew 56 sorties with 19 aircraft on
one day alone.

quote:

Although the AV-8B was and still is a challenging aircraft to maintain, the
squadrons reported readiness rates over 95% throughout the war. As seen in the
Falklands, this phenomenal reliability coupled with the inherent flexibility of the STOVL
aircraft were key to its success. The 86 aircraft deployed to the Gulf flew 3,380 sorties
from 17 January to 28 February 1991.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tommo8993

I dont think, 6 hours for the Spanish navy to strap 1 penguin missile on a helicopter and refuel it.

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Well, yes. Except I doubt Harriers were back then all-weather fighters with night capability - or if they were, they had no business at night to attend to anyway. Moreover, the Falklands war took place during the Austral winter... Your calculations are right, but should take into account the reality of the length of the day, dusk and dawn included, and be divided by 2 or by 3.

For instance, that website
http://www.solartopo.com/daylength.htm

Gives a day length under 9 hours in early May 1982. By 21st May, it's under 8h30, and by 31st May it's only 8 hours - which would mean 3 times less than a 24 hours basis for the calculations.

Facebook
Twitter

quote:

ORIGINAL: BipBip

Each argument seem irrelevant from your point of view...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I would think the Falklands would be a pretty good snapshot of a relatively short and intense air battle, yet sortie rates were all longer than the six hours in game. So why is it every time someone brings actual data, there is nothing but a "yeah, but..."

So people arguing for not changing much have brought some data from a couple different conflicts. I have seen nothing for shortening readiness times. Just some generalities on Desert Storm and the Isreali air force. What were the actual sortie rates in those conflicts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I would think the Falklands would be a pretty good snapshot of a relatively short and intense air battle, yet sortie rates were all longer than the six hours in game. So why is it every time someone brings actual data, there is nothing but a "yeah, but..."

So people arguing for not changing much have brought some data from a couple different conflicts. I have seen nothing for shortening readiness times. Just some generalities on Desert Storm and the Isreali air force. What were the actual sortie rates in those conflicts.

http://192.5.14.43/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1028/MR1028.appb.pdf

RAND data here which suggests an average of only 2 strikes per day, for an "average fighter aircraft" based on data from F-15 and F-16 aircraft.

for the F-16, day squadrons would have a plane flying 2 strikes per day, and night squadrons did the same (data from keith rosenkranz book on the topic). the F-16 was only tasked with strikes during ODS, and did no air to air missions (although they did expend munitions in self defence, AND made Pk rates very poor at the same time, as a large portion of sidewinder shots from F-16s during ODS were the result of accidental pickling - launching whilst the seeker is still caged...).

I was going off of data for OCA missions, but if we are looking for sortie rates based on strike sorties, then 6 hours is not that unusual.

what would be good is the ability to alter a loadout after starting the mission readiness process - deciding to take different munitions is something Flight lead has control over, unless specified by the mission planner...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DoctorHaider
Why do aircrafts that were marked as "Ready" in the Air Ops dialog begin rearm in the same configuration again when ordered to launch??? This is rather annoying when you launch a group of planes to eternally "form up" with part of the group rearming fr several hours on the ground/carrier.

Facebook
Twitter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Well, yes. Except I doubt Harriers were back then all-weather fighters with night capability - or if they were, they had no business at night to attend to anyway. Moreover, the Falklands war took place during the Austral winter... Your calculations are right, but should take into account the reality of the length of the day, dusk and dawn included, and be divided by 2 or by 3.

For instance, that website
http://www.solartopo.com/daylength.htm

Gives a day length under 9 hours in early May 1982. By 21st May, it's under 8h30, and by 31st May it's only 8 hours - which would mean 3 times less than a 24 hours basis for the calculations.

This is a fair point, and once we flip the switch on day/night affecting air ops (the data for this is already in the DBs), we will have to adjust the relevant ready times.

In scens up to the mid-late 80s, you will see _very_ quiet nights when this feature is applied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinner6

Hello Sunburn,

Though I don't have a save file, I believe I can point you to a youtube video that catches this on film anyway.

As a prospective customer, I was directed to take a look at the videos made by Baloogan as an example of gameplay.

I cant post a link because I am a new member.
The first video is of the air tutorial, entitled "COMMAND Episode 1 Part 1 Air Tutorial"

youtube.com/watch?v=ddhTe4skXdk&feature=share&list=PLgRuKky0mojZE3AmK_fEZ5ACpnvflHi-o

-At the 39:00 mark,Baloogan creates a SEAD mission and then populates it with planes from VF105, that are flagged as 'ready'.
-At the 58:15 mark, he then attempts to launch the mission (and does not immediately notice the ready time has changed). I noticed it immediately and it struck me as inexplicable based on the intervening gameplay. He shrugs this off as a mistake he has made in setting the planes to maintenance mode, but I see nothing in the video to suggest this is the case. But then, I wasn't playing. Perhaps some sort of misunderstanding when assigning planes to the mission?

Be assured, I'm still very interested in this title either way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boochar

In reality what the players are complaining about is scenario design. They want to be able to launch strikes on something that the beginning Order of Battle is not loaded for and it takes six hours to re-mission them. Less of an issue is how long it takes to reload an aircraft after it has returned to base after a mission. Command has several scenarios that are supposed to last for days. The reality is the two sides start so close to each other they are over in a couple of hours or less. This creates a situation where a 6 hour prep time means they will never fly in the time frame you need them. The scenario designer often has thought about how he wants the sides to be set up and balanced but sometimes they are just default load outs. Perhaps there should be an option for scenario design to allow the player to select load outs prior to starting with no time penalties.