Matrix Games Forums

Primarchx brings a lot to the table and has the trust of the development group even when we don't agree. When he posts we read.

Mike

Primarchx brings a lot to the table and has the trust of the development group even when we don't agree. When he posts we read.

So do a lot of us COMMANDers and forumites. Good timing to say thanks to him for his contributions.

Cheers,

Martin

Cheers to Primarchx! He is a great source for information!

ORIGINAL: Gratch11

1/ I guess we can all agree that rearming and refueling on a carrier and on land are two different things

2/ Couldnt the game have different times depending on mission?
on land Like just refuel - 10 min
CAP refuel+reload - 15 min
Strike - ?

Still Think 6 hours to reload and rearm in hot battle is stupid, big difference between desert storm scenario and desperate CW scenario

It should also depend on the era.

What about scalable modifier based on the scenario designer's intentions?

ORIGINAL: thewood1

ORIGINAL: Lerxt

You think 6 hours is bad? Try 20 hours for a B2. Not realistic.

btw, what information do you have on sortie rates for B2s. I am curious because they are hard to find.

25 years flying jets, civilian and military.

B2s and the care needed for maintenance? I have to assume you know about all the issues the B2's skin has? I worked at a company that helped make it and the the numbers of maintenance hours on a B2 is 10-20X of a B52. Take a look at sortie rates for B52s. Usually 1 a day on a surge.

From Lessons learned, Operation Odyssey Dawn...

Nearly one year ago in the early hours of March 27, as the mercury dipped to 28 degrees, Aircrews from the 28th Bomb Wing launched in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, North Atlantic Treaty Organization's mission to protect civilians from enemy attack during the uprising and civil war in Libya.

For the first time in history, B-1B aircrews executed a global strike mission originating from the continental United States.

With a mere two days notice, Ellsworth Airmen were tasked to prepare several aircraft and build hundreds of precision munitions to provide the specific combat configuration needed for the mission.

Fascinating story impressive team work.

This link came from a thread on the warfaresim.com site

https://app.box.com/s/otu7y9kwcz739v6phnkb

If you look through the whole ppt, you see some interesting numbers:

14 aircraft - 8 Mirage 2000 and 6 Rafales
7-8 days of engagement from Jan 11 to Jan 19
60 sorties flown...all against ground targets

That comes out to a rate of .6 missions/aircraft a day. The ppt made a point of saying this was an accelerated sortie rate. It was also stressed that there was urgency in getting the militant columns stopped. That is why there was a "surge".

I am sure there were many extenuating circumstances...including supply of the airbases, distance of missions, target availability, and pilot support, etc. But you can see that the French were not even getting a mission a day out of their aircraft.

I agree that there should be an expedited turnaround for aircraft, especially for aircraft that are on the same mission, so that pilots do not need a briefing and ordnance does not need reprogramming.

Pilot fatigue would need to be modelled, including such things as combat stress and tiredness.

Mali - hmmm not exactly representative is it - COIN and very very asymmetric.

I think that was a point I made. But still a lot of good info on sortie rates.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think that was a point I made. But still a lot of good info on sortie rates.

Granted, but where logistics are in place and the location is not austere indeed in the case of a carrier it is the same as an MOB, then 6 hours is excessive for even a sustained rate. The other option, used IRL, is to increase the number of aircraft to allow for 'depressed' sortie rates (per airframe) in order to keep the tempo going according to the needs of the operation. Whilst this would work on land, not sure it's an option at sea.

I remember seeing a special on Israeli Airforce during 6 day war and If I recall correctly they had during the 60´s worked on getting the rearming and refuelling times down from several hours to about 30 min, and that was one of the major reasons to why they were successful.

True, but that is not representative of sustained combat ops. It's also 40 years ago with an elite air force (not that you can't play them in Command!).

ORIGINAL: Gratch11

I remember seeing a special on Israeli Airforce during 6 day war and If I recall correctly they had during the 60´s worked on getting the rearming and refuelling times down from several hours to about 30 min, and that was one of the major reasons to why they were successful.

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

True, but that is not representative of sustained combat ops. It's also 40 years ago with an elite air force (not that you can't play them in Command!).

2 weeks plus is sustained, the time periods here are nothing of the sort. Most of these 6 hour issues are in scenarios lasting 24 - 48 hours.

You can't assume that each time. The scenario being played may only be part of a wider, larger campaign.

ORIGINAL: bsq

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

True, but that is not representative of sustained combat ops. It's also 40 years ago with an elite air force (not that you can't play them in Command!).

2 weeks plus is sustained, the time periods here are nothing of the sort. Most of these 6 hour issues are in scenarios lasting 24 - 48 hours.

I think that there are three issues in terms of game play spinning around here:

1- There is a bug of some sort that sends a ready aircraft into a six hour ready cycle at times. It may have been fixed in the newest release. The result is often a screwed up mission with one or more sorties sitting on the ground while the rest loiter around waiting.

2- Re-arming an aircraft that already has a loadout takes 6 hours and it is felt that is too long. I would submit that it is not too long based on what has to occur to re-mission that aircraft. The aircraft may have to be moved. The current load has to be removed safely and stowed. The new loadout has to be brought up from the armory after it is assembled and checked. The load out has to be mated with anything it needs fitted before mounting (ie fins, etc). The loadout has to be mounted and checked again. The planes systems have to be set up for the new loadout and checked. The pilots have to be given new briefings on the target, target and route enemy defenses, the flight paths, supporting elements, emergency procedures, radio call signs and freqs. The pilots have to recheck/preflight their aircraft. The flight and "deck" operations crew have to accommodate this new change within the existing orderly chaos of flight operations. If the mission is a CAS mission that is constantly repeated, a turn around can be very quick. These are the types of missions that are often cited for the historically quick turnarounds. The pilots are already briefed and the routes etc are already known. They are basically flying the same route to a point where they are told to attack X type of target at X location that is within a set geographical area. They are not completely changing their mission and attack profiles.

3- Command is lacking a planning segment the air mission creation process. We can not get into the planing of what gets automatically readied or launched first, when the mission should be on target etc. From the Air mission creation window we have some serious lack of information issues.

The hardest choices for a command staff on a carrier is what is readied and when because if they want to change things it will take a long time to accomplish and put their ship at more risk. Land bases have more options but different challenges.

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

You can't assume that each time. The scenario being played may only be part of a wider, larger campaign.

ORIGINAL: bsq

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

True, but that is not representative of sustained combat ops. It's also 40 years ago with an elite air force (not that you can't play them in Command!).

2 weeks plus is sustained, the time periods here are nothing of the sort. Most of these 6 hour issues are in scenarios lasting 24 - 48 hours.

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

Anyway, There could be a slider around the idea of "readiness" or "war effort" to be able to set up scenario with fast turnover of the assets, and other with a slower tempo.
We could also think about a "crash prepare" button that would make the ground personnel to hurry to work on an aircraft, with the side-effect of having the aircraft grounded for several hours after its mission and thus simulate the aftermath of such a quick preparation (doing the operations that were due to be made before the mission, etc...).
There could even be an evolution of the ready times during the scenario : a nation could start "unprepared" and then rush to save themselves, or another start prepared for a blietzkrieg and have prepare times that come to be longer and longer when operation lasts some time, as if its logistic lanes were not able to sustain the war effort.

But sticking to the book (ie time between 2 missions in a harrier = 6 hrs) is perhaps not the best choice...

And I do a "+1" to the remark of Boochar about the bug of the aircraft sometimes reverting to 6hrs before being ready... an immersion killer.