Captain Enema Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I killed the sole character I actually cared about already, so, well... Didn't I give her swine flu or something once upon a time? fun times. Poor gal. Sorry about that. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Didn't I give her swine flu or something once upon a time? fun times. Poor gal. Sorry about that. :( Talking about CNRP2. Dalian de Vicidalia still lives, though she has finished her third term in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 People put a lot of work in both nations and characters, as such both should be vulnerable to death or none at all. Just like nations, characters can be replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Can someone either post something, request an auto-advance, or just wipe the war? I'd be very thankful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Talking about CNRP2. Dalian de Vicidalia still lives, though she has finished her third term in prison. You'd think swine flu would be punishment enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted October 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Yes, the delay has been almost entirely my fault and for that I apologize. The following has been decided: Regarding shooting of satellites: If your nation has the appropriate tech level, you are capable of shooting down LEO satellites. This does not include MEO or GEO. The front with Triyun should be able to proceed at this point. Edited October 15, 2014 by Californian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) I sent you a follow up on some numbers, namely more of Mara's numbers and her heavy customizations of battelships to basically make it another ship (she seems to have editted her factbook since we last spoke). Lyn's one other thing I need is that he's firing a combo of harpoons and tomahawks. Tomahawk-Bs have a range max of 460 kilometers vs. 280 km for max ranged Harpoons. I know Mara's firing the Harpoons from forward corvettes, are you doing this as well, or is your fleet positioned in some other manner. I'm assuming the carriers are back at around 460 kilo range or is there a three way spread? Finally are you firing at max range or some other range? Thanks. Thanks for clearing up. Edited October 15, 2014 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Get on with it! I was looking forward to seeing a CNRP2 fight :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Yes, the delay has been almost entirely my fault and for that I apologize. The following has been decided: Regarding shooting of satellites: If your nation has the appropriate tech level, you are capable of shooting down LEO satellites. This does not include MEO or GEO. The front with Triyun should be able to proceed at this point. What about capturing them by shuttle? *demented evil grin* Or gunning them down by mounting an auto cannon to a shuttle boom.. since auto cannons were demonstrated successfully in space in the cold war? Edited October 16, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shave N Haircut Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Get on with it! I was looking forward to seeing a CNRP2 fight :( So was I. :\ Edited October 16, 2014 by Shave N Haircut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) I sent you a follow up on some numbers, namely more of Mara's numbers and her heavy customizations of battelships to basically make it another ship (she seems to have editted her factbook since we last spoke). Lyn's one other thing I need is that he's firing a combo of harpoons and tomahawks. Tomahawk-Bs have a range max of 460 kilometers vs. 280 km for max ranged Harpoons. I know Mara's firing the Harpoons from forward corvettes, are you doing this as well, or is your fleet positioned in some other manner. I'm assuming the carriers are back at around 460 kilo range or is there a three way spread? Finally are you firing at max range or some other range? Thanks. Thanks for clearing up. *Tsks at Triyun.* The Tomahawk Block IV is a multi-role missile able of being used against land and sea targets. Or didn't you know that already? It has an operational range of: Block IV TLAM-E – 900 nmi (1,000 mi; 1,700 km). Suggest you read the following book for more details: pages 528 and 529. Stop dictating !@#$ you got off wiki and get a real source. The block b was phased out in 1990 in favor of the block iv-e why would any modern power sensibly be using the b? But of course.. wiki didn't tell you that did it? Lynneth could be back much further :P Possibly even over the horizon from your naval radar. Fortunately for him, he doesn't entirely need radar. He has many other ways to observe your navy. I mean, honestly, did you believe the US navy actually went without a replacement for its primary ASM for the period? Did you even wonder WHY it was phased out? You also may want to read this to get a feel for your radar range. Edited October 16, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) You're also wrong. Block IV is developing a maritime interdiction capability it dos not yet have it. That's why there are all these articles about being outsticked. http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/NAV2010_11_roadmap_Weapons_sp.pdf http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tomahawk/ Note the date of my article and what it says about the maritime interdiction mission. The maritime interdiction mission contract was awarded in 2012 with the hope to have it operational by 2015, [url=http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-under-pressure-compete-anti-ship-missile]then was under doubt in 2013[/url], and [url=http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/feature/ms14_tomahawk.html]may be back on again, but is not there [b]yet[/b].[/url] This is the problem I guess between talking who write on this AND read their books, vs. just reading their books. It also hopes to notice the tenses of language and read the whole page: "The TASM is being phased out.... which was to have a common sensor capable of attacking both land and sea." That sensor was never built. Now if you read the whole page, you'll see where it says it was redesignated the tactical tomahawk, right across the page, it does give you the Tactical Tomahawk a.k.a. the Block IVs capabilities, which it specifically lists as land attack not both. This is again because while there have been funding proposals for developing anti-surface capabilities the Tomahawk Block IV has not yet gotten it. In fact to cap this all off if you don't believe the people I've cited (or your own source), you can mosy on over to Raytheon (the people who build Tomahawk missiles and its website and click on the tomahawk infographic [url=http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tomahawk/]"Tomahawk Cruise Missile Current Capabilities"[/url] scroll down past the current ones to the proposed future capabilities section and look to see having a new sensor being able to hit moving targets on land and sea is listed under those capabilities, with no mention of current capabilities. This is why it helps to read multiple books as well as newspapers etc, rather than a single google search to cherry pick a badly worded sentence how you would like. Also I know a lot about how radar works and how to do defense policy research ;) Edited October 16, 2014 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 That's kind of cherry-picking something a too specific? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 That's kind of cherry-picking something a too specific? Its really not considering how people use and demand tech in the RP these days, either we go all out full details needed or we go with the alternate where we use less details and people just take things as they are on the basic level. Most people seem to use the former so that is what we have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) You're also wrong. Block IV is developing a maritime interdiction capability it dos not yet have it. That's why there are all these articles about being outsticked. http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/NAV2010_11_roadmap_Weapons_sp.pdf http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tomahawk/ Note the date of my article and what it says about the maritime interdiction mission. The maritime interdiction mission contract was awarded in 2012 with the hope to have it operational by 2015, then was under doubt in 2013, and may be back on again, but is not there yet. This is the problem I guess between talking who write on this AND read their books, vs. just reading their books. It also hopes to notice the tenses of language and read the whole page: "The TASM is being phased out.... which was to have a common sensor capable of attacking both land and sea." That sensor was never built. Now if you read the whole page, you'll see where it says it was redesignated the tactical tomahawk, right across the page, it does give you the Tactical Tomahawk a.k.a. the Block IVs capabilities, which it specifically lists as land attack not both. This is again because while there have been funding proposals for developing anti-surface capabilities the Tomahawk Block IV has not yet gotten it. In fact to cap this all off if you don't believe the people I've cited (or your own source), you can mosy on over to Raytheon (the people who build Tomahawk missiles and its website and click on the tomahawk infographic "Tomahawk Cruise Missile Current Capabilities" scroll down past the current ones to the proposed future capabilities section and look to see having a new sensor being able to hit moving targets on land and sea is listed under those capabilities, with no mention of current capabilities. This is why it helps to read multiple books as well as newspapers etc, rather than a single google search to cherry pick a badly worded sentence how you would like. Also I know a lot about how radar works and how to do defense policy research ;) The Block 4 already has this capability. It's just the navy opted out of paying for it in this configuration due to budget in favor of additional Harpoons. It's probably part of the forced cuts Congress put on the 5 branches. This report indicates it was poised to be deployed when it got the axe in favor of an alternate weapon. Not because it could not perform the role. (Otherwise why consider buying it for that role?) Just because the US navy didn't want to buy it doesn't mean Lynneth couldn't. Besides that, in other roles this weapon has been both deployed and used. Given it has the potential to act in this role with the right configuration, is in use actively, and has been used in combat in Libya, I believe there's no problem at all with Lynneth having them and using them in the ASM role. It'd be different if he were trying to use say a sidewinder as an antiship missile, but this missile has been intended for this role. Edited October 16, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Wait wait wait, are we arguing now that we cannot use a weapons platform if it is not actively in service Triyun? Guess you're out 400 aircraft slots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 You're confused. No it did not have that capability ready. It had the capability specified as a mission requirement which was later dropped because the US navy did not anticipate facing a threat beyond the littoral regions in the 1990s. It had the capability specified in the original funding request, but that was later dropped as a mission requirement in favor the the LRASM. Raytheon then chose to self fund the new capability which is what they are doing right now. No doubt Lyn could develop a capability as could many to have a new sensor that doesn't exist, if that were allowed by the rules. Unfortunately its quite clear that it is in fact not allowed as the sensor has no IRL equivalent that is done yet. Additionally, just like the last post you seem to inexplicably have failed to read what your article actually says: [b]There was a plan to develop a successor to the retired [u]xGM-109B[/u] ship-killer [u]by 2015[/u][b], as an interim capability for the US Navy’s Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) program. That was shelved in the FY 2014 budget, as the Navy opted to drop the interim capability. Instead, they’re moving ahead with OASuW’s main xGM-84 Harpoon missile replacement program for air and sea launch. The LRASM derivative of Lockheed Martin’s subsonic but stealthy AGM-158B JASSM-ER is the initial air-launched missile, but there will be competition for air and naval missiles beyond FY 2019. Notice it says BY 2015, not completed, and that it was shelved. Also noted it refers to the retired B variant (i.e. the one I'm talking about with the 460 kilo range) IF you read the links I'd provided you, you would see Raytheon, again the people who know best as they make the missile, that they are self financing an upgrade. You'll note also what I linked you was dated a week ago. Even if I'm lying, the links you gave are lying, the links I gave are lying, and there really is a secret tomahawk block IV you talk about. Why would Raytheon a for-profit company during what is very tough times with sequestration cuts, be self financing to develop a capability it already has. Seriously Mael, when the company who makes the damn thing lists it as a future capability, every article here does. Granted you may not know how DoD procurement works, but then you should listen to those of us who actually have worked in that world. You need to just man up and admit your wrong rather than linking things that don't even support your argument, and claim they do. Its embarassing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) You do realize that by 2015 means within 2014 right, the current tech year? Edited October 16, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 You do realize that by 2015 means within 2014 right, the current tech year? Is it in use right now? And I mean right now as 16/10/2014. If not then the answer is simple no it can't be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Is it in use right now? And I mean right now as 16/10/2014. If not then the answer is simple no it can't be used. F-23 is not in use, so triyun's out all his stealth fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 F-23 is not in use, so triyun's out all his stealth fighters. If so then Triyun and anyone else with such tech will have to take them a step down. The same rules apply for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 If so then Triyun and anyone else with such tech will have to take them a step down. The same rules apply for everyone. DING DING DING! Either "it has to be in service or else it is not able to be used" applies to everyone, or "it has the ability to be produced right now" applies to everyone, the double standard is bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 DING DING DING! Either "it has to be in service or else it is not able to be used" applies to everyone, or "it has the ability to be produced right now" applies to everyone, the double standard is !@#$%^&*. I would like it to be made aware that in accordance with the F-23s that GM approval was given for them. I have only just been made aware of this and as such any such issue with them passes well beyond my station and into the hands of the GMs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Good thing I only use the F-22 which is in use and the B-1B for my high speed bomber, b2 for my stealth bomber and the space plane.. which I have mounted with autocannons for evil shenanigans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) When I was designing my forces I had questions for the GMs. The GMs at the time gave me approval for and F-23 which features the same internals that exist on IRL planes (after Mogar disputed it). The F-22 and F-23s internals like engines and radars were designed to operate in both not just one. I was given permission to then move forward with that. If those GMs interpreted the rules incorrectly, other GMs/ community discussion should be done to clarify. What was not acceptable though is to use something that's never been built at all/ tested, which is what a maritime interdiction Block IV tomahawk falls under. The engines flying the F-23, the radar, the pilot system, etc are all onboard the F-22 flying combat missions over Syria. Edited October 16, 2014 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.