Matrix Games Forums

No, it wouldn't.

So let's start tracking which aircraft is assigned to which target, so that it gets a "no need to relearn the flight plan and attack details" bonus.

Let's keep track of the available air crew and remember which pilot flew which mission, since obviously pilots are men not machines and they cannot fly 12 missions per day; either multiple crews will share the same aircraft or we have to reduce the sortie rate of that specific plane.

Let's also keep track of the available ground crew on the base/carrier, since this make a tremendous difference on turnaround times. Preferably use an authentic man-hours-based model so that we can model surges and the like. Of course this will require going back to every single scenario, every single air facility entry in the DB and every .inst file and inputting the nominal crew capacity but let's not worry about details like that.

Also let's not forget differences on airbase/carrier layout, not all taxiways and elevators are alike so must account for that too.

Oh, and once I saw on a video multiple B-52s taking off at 15 sec intervals during a practice alert so obviously this should be the baseline.

See where this is going?

well, for forces that have a pilot per plane, that kind of turn around seems fair to me.

if you have more than a pilot per plane, you can get much faster turnarounds than that.

ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf

well, for forces that have a pilot per plane, that kind of turn around seems fair to me.

if you have more than a pilot per plane, you can get much faster turnarounds than that.

Getting a half-hour turnaround for modern carrier fighters with air-to-air and only six hours for strike is already being really lenient. It leads to maximum effort surge rates being routinely surpassed in completely average scenarios.

Playing Down town and an F-4C Heavy ATA loudout on an land base, 30 min. ready time, an F-4B on an carrier , 4 hours ready time for the same loudout?, i would have given them both 1 hour ready time for that loudout, and half an hour for light ATA loudout. but thats mine opinion

Bjørn

http://grandlogistics.blogspot.com/2009 ... on-of.html

The above website gives some sortie rates from various airforces during various conflicts. None of these were for sustained/high intensity operations, but they may be a useful benchmark for what can be sustained over a period of time.

Sorry, a little childish, but CV60s link and Sunburns statement closes the case for me

ORIGINAL: Rudd
Sorry, a little childish, but CV60s link and Sunburns statement closes the case for me

There is still a case to be made for enhancing the aircraft readiness system so there can be a player-driven tradeoff between sustained sortie rate and surge rate, with all the real-life tradeoffs therein. However I strongly suspect some players will gripe equally much when their F-35 is grounded for two days after back-to-back long range strike missions.

Yes, thanks to CV60 for that link, but my point is for ATA missions. All those missions in that link is for total missions/campains.

Bjørn

play the game in the editor , so when your ready to rearm your planes rearm them at what every time you think is right. I cant see a Chinese carrier reaming a plane with a similar load as an American one at the same rate. ( but than again they just seem to have 2 planes at the most on their carrier) But on the other hand the game should not turn into the sims where every factor is taken into account.