New plane for the expansion?

[myrm]

My plan was to dig out my copy of Avalon Hill's Flight Leader, read the aircraft summary pages (all 5 of them) and then make my own stats based on those data. The availability was gonna be based on length of time in service and the number of nations exported to.

I'd love to see such aircraft as the Buccaneer, the Etendard, the Lightning (the British one from the 60s), Jaguar and the Canberra

[Charles Lewis]

One thing to keep in mind for those of you considering adding additional planes is that the plane stats are internally relative to each other. I'm not sure what the benchmark for MAS was (F-15, Jay?), but if you wander too far away from that, the stats get wonky. Frontline aircraft from the 60s are about as far as you can reasonably go. 50s vintage stuff is probably too far out of date.

We are considering an expansion down the road that would focus on post-WWII to Vietnam, which make things like the Thud and the Starfighter frontline stuff, and the F-4 the best thing since sliced bread and an F-14 something to aspire to like the F-22 is in regular MAS.

FYI, the benchmarks for the WWII adaptation were the Spitfire I and the Me-109E.

[myrm]

I was trying to stay reasonably within modern, post- Vietnam since the worst plane already in seems to be the Mig17. Flight leader covered all planes from the De Haviland Vampire up to mid 80s aircraft and those projected for late 80s service, I tried to aim for more recent ones than the Mig17...

Of the ones I suggested:
Buccaneer served with UK forces 62 to 93
Lightning served with the RAF 59-88
Jaguar served until last year with the RAF and is still in servicein other countries
Canberra served 1951 to 2006
Etendard - the Super variant is still in service in France.

Im hoping that that selection (at least some of the Marks produced for a given airframe) do fall into the sort of bracket where the stats don't go wonky

[mwaschak]

My plan was to dig out my copy of Avalon Hill's Flight Leader, read the aircraft summary pages (all 5 of them) and then make my own stats based on those data. The availability was gonna be based on length of time in service and the number of nations exported to.

That is a good idea. I would be interested to see what your results you come up with.

I'd love to see such aircraft as the Buccaneer, the Etendard, the Lightning (the British one from the 60s), Jaguar and the Canberra

Hey, you got it! I will add them to the list.

Any other teasers of planes in the expansion? A-4? F-18E/F?

I do have a few more promotional planes to add so any requests will be happily entertained.

Obviously based on my interest in the Crusader, I'm a fan of the 60's era planes... F-105?

These are definitely on the expansion list. In fact, Mark helped me finish the stats.

I did see the A-7 card, thanks for that!

You're welcome! That one was a very popular request.

-Jay

[mwaschak]

One thing to keep in mind for those of you considering adding additional planes is that the plane stats are internally relative to each other. I'm not sure what the benchmark for MAS was (F-15, Jay?), but if you wander too far away from that, the stats get wonky. Frontline aircraft from the 60s are about as far as you can reasonably go. 50s vintage stuff is probably too far out of date.

Quite right Charlie. The planes are built to scale to a medium of performance. I actually did it based on what I considered to be a stable aircraft from each "generation", which went something like F-4 > F-15 > F-22. Then I could gauge performance, and measure it against the F-15.

As you mentioned, a pure Vietname era game could be adapted off of the base plane, the F-4, and then you could really vary performance from -5 to +5 all around. Then you have a small spread over ten years of planes, as opposed to the whole of the jet age.

-Jay

[mwaschak]

Im hoping that that selection (at least some of the Marks produced for a given airframe) do fall into the sort of bracket where the stats don't go wonky

It may need some testing but you should be ok as long as you establish a firm baseline. Personally I spent a lot of time looking at the F-4 (Navy) vs the MiG-21 to get the feel of the game right. I think the same will be true here.

-Jay

[Heckmac]

Hmm... sticking to a Historical model... the development path in Vietnam era would probably be something like:

Navy: F-8 > F-4B > F-4J > F-14A (1st Operational: '73)
USAF: F-100 > F-4C > F-4D > F-15B (1st Operational: late '74)

...but I would keep the performance aspects for the F-8 & F-4's fairly close with the radar, ecm, etc being the 'real' difference

developing missile technology would give us various marks of the sidewinder and sparrow... developing early smart bomb technology... hmm

now if you supplement the plane lists with: F-105, A-4, A-7, F-111, AH-1D, A-6, F-104, F-106, F-101, F-102, F-5... you round them out and obviously begin introducing some anachronisms but not gross ones. On the aggressor side you have your basic collection of Mig's but you could add anachronisms based on more advanced SAM systems that the Russians chose not to supply to the NVAF, historically speaking. & don't forget Russian advisor pilots...

Now I am motivated to get cracking on this. Pity, I am uber-busy at work right now. I'll find some way to squeeze it in.

One thing, promise me you will have a "Jane Fonda AAA" counter!

- Charlie

[echoco]

might be a little too much.

S-3 viking
S-2 tracker

submarine targets

anti-sub helo

MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector)

[myrm]

Im hoping that that selection (at least some of the Marks produced for a given airframe) do fall into the sort of bracket where the stats don't go wonky

It may need some testing but you should be ok as long as you establish a firm baseline. Personally I spent a lot of time looking at the F-4 (Navy) vs the MiG-21 to get the feel of the game right. I think the same will be true here.

Could I ask which mark of the F4 was the baseline...

[mwaschak]

Could I ask which mark of the F4 was the baseline...

I used the F-4C if I remember my notes correctly. There were actually a few versions of the F-4 when I was kicking around the original but decided to hold off on the rebuilds and variants.

One thing, promise me you will have a "Jane Fonda AAA" counter!

Hey, why not !

-Jay

[ianstead]

A Jane Fonda AAA counter??

Sure I can do that.

[mwaschak]

A Jane Fonda AAA counter??

Sure I can do that.

I wonder if she is still manning the AAA in 2016 to shoot at mercs?

[Charles Lewis]

Couldn't decide whether to start a new topic or engage in a little thread necromancy. I decided to go for the ooky option...

This past weekend, I caught the first half of Future Dogfights on some channel (now that I have satellite, I have no idea what channel I'm on half the time). Basically, this took the format of the really good Dogfight series and extrapolated forward to the near future.

The part I watched involved the F-22 in combat. While they were making a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true, the part that really caught my attention was the use of a B-1 variant called the B-1R bomb/missile truck. This variant was proposed a few years ago, but has yet not been acted on. The intent would be to put four of the F-22's engines on a B-1 frame, along with some physical adjustments to improve performance. Among other things, this would allow the B-1R to "supercruise" at speeds over Mach 2 without using afterburner - a feature of these new engines, though with some reduction of overall range (but given the large range inherent to the B-1, this would not significantly impact the operational range).

The practical application called for B-1Rs loaded with about 20 of the next generation AMRAAM (AIM-120D) to follow along F-22s at a standoff range. The intent is that the F-22s, using their stealthy abilities, could detect an incoming wave of enemy aircraft without being detected themselves (thus triggering a reaction), transmit targeting date to the B-1Rs, who could then ripple fire a barrage of AMRAAMs at extreme range (120 miles from the targets).

This whole process would allow a small number of F-22s and even smaller number of B-1Rs engage and defeat much larger enemy formations.

That said, I was wondering if this might be something to consider for Worlds of MAS.

[mwaschak]

Charlie,

That is some strategy. I wonder if there is any reason to suspect it could succeed. With the exception of the stealth advances it reminds me a great deal of how the US Navy handled fleet defense from Backfire attacks against NATO carrier groups. The AWAC would pick up the incoming targets, and the phoenix missile was dispatched at range to handle the problem.
It could certainly be worth exploring. B1's with AMRAAM in Band X, with the Raptors ahead at Band X+3 marking targets.

-Jay

[Charles Lewis]

The whole bit was rather far-reaching, given that the F-22 has not seen combat (to our knowledge), and the assumptions made about its general superiority over any Generation 4 fighter probably need to be taken with a grain of salt.

In the show's bit, one of the B-1s did get damaged, when some Rafales, which survived the AMRAAM barrage, engaged it at range. They couldn't detect the F-22s, of course, so they went after the only target they could identify.

In many respects, it was an cheerleading session for the Air Force's latest plane. It's entirely possible that most, if not all, of what was shown is indeed how it could play out. The F-22 is, after all, the first Generation 5 Fighter to enter service. But given that the whole scenario depended on the presence of the B-1R, a plane that doesn't currently exist, I'm not sure how realistic it is.

That said, there's nothing stopping us from playing around with it in MAS. Certainly given a world where mercenary MASs abound, the ability for a government to engage superior numbers of hostile aircraft with a few higher-tech aircraft would be very attractive (and probably more critical than it is now, not counting war scenarios against China).