Send Gzg-l mailing list submissions to
gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gzg-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
gzg-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gzg-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Store links to beta test rules [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
(Robertson, Brendan)
2. RE: Re:FullThrustscenarios [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] (Robertson, Brendan)
3. [ft] Another campaign set posted [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
(Robertson, Brendan)
4. Re: Question about comment (Richard Bell)
5. [ft] Andromeda Ascendant [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
(Robertson, Brendan)
6. Re: Question about comment (Mike Hillsgrove)
7. Re: Question about comment (VinsFullThrust@xxxxxxx)
8. Re: Question about comment (John Atkinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:53:08 +1100
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gzg] Store links to beta test rules [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: "'gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <DC98B870617D804CAB60865F339E95C21038DC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
I noticed when looking for the beta UNSC rules that the only link to them
is
from the bottom of the "news" page.
It could probably use a link in the "rules/downloads" section with the
phalon beta link (as could all the other "beta" rules links).
Having to search around for them took a while.
Brendan
'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
IMPORTANT
1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information
for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated.
4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA.
6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:02:17 +1100
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [GZG]Re:FullThrustscenarios [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: "'gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <DC98B870617D804CAB60865F339E95C21038DD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
In case anyone missed it, the website link below needs to be:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/fthome.htm
When I changed from dialup to adsl, they chopped the link address down to
8
characters, so the old site (although still active) doesn't get updated as
should eventually be purged.
Brendan
'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of
Mark & Staci Drake
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: [GZG] Re: Full Thrust scenarios
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/fthome.htm
IMPORTANT
1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information
for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated.
4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA.
6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:08:50 +1100
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gzg][ft] Another campaign set posted [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: "'gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <DC98B870617D804CAB60865F339E95C21038DE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
Just posted the latest version of the campaign set I was playing with, if
anyone wants to comment:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/ft/ftcamp3.htm
Brendan
'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
IMPORTANT
1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information
for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated.
4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA.
6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:39:47 -0700
From: "Richard Bell" <rlbell.nsuid@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question about comment
To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID:
<a4e0c2eb0612101539n50f22eaexa62f39c35ff8596f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The F/A-18 has never flown in hostile skies, so there is no real
record of air-to-air losses. It has flown over hostile territory, but
that is not the same thing. What it does point out is that we have
yet to produce a true multi-ability craft, as even an F-15E Strike
Eagle is a very poor dogfighter when loaded for ground attack; even if
it does have a full complement of air-to-air missiles.
A fighter that was heavily armored, with long range, equipped with
heavy anti-ship ordnance and the anti-fighter weapons would be more
expensive than we can readily imagine. So far, no one has tried to
make such an aircraft.
On 12/10/06, Glenn Wilson <glenn-wilson-1950@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:29:54 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Lee
Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT]Multi-abilityfightercostings To:
gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Message-ID:
<532283.1468.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1 Please look at the cost of the F18 Hornet. It doesn't
carry long range AA Missles of the F14 nor the bomb load of the A6 or
even
the survivability of the lesser ohf the two. It can't jam radar without
add
on bomb pac loads. The pilots don't win the world contests either as they
are expected to do all jobs with a minimal training and little practice.
What they do well is ..... well fly and die in face of specialized
forces.
My reply:
I would like to see some numbers on when the F/A-18 has suffered the kind
of
losses suggested here...
The F/A-18 is the last choice of the main line USAF/USN fighters
introduced
from the 1907's until today in my mind (F16, F15 and then (retired) F14
for
me if I don't consider the F-22 since it still is 'new kid on the block'
status.) But this plane seems to do adequately in real life if not the
my
personal favorite. The failure to replace the A6 with a specialised
attack
aircraft seems to be driven by economic reasons (training, spare parts,
etc.) pushing doctrine and the F/A-18's ability to deliver the Air to
Sea/Mud payloads gives the USN a chance to see if their theories actually
will work in combat. Assuming the plane is not retired before an
adequate
'test' occurs...
Gracias,
Glenn Wilson
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:40:10 +1100
From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [GZG] [ft] Andromeda Ascendant [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: "'gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <DC98B870617D804CAB60865F339E95C21038DF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
Just thinking about putting together some FTJava scenarios in the
Andromeda
universe and working on ship stats.
Weaponry seems to be almost purely missile based, so there's two ways I
could do it.
The Magog Point Singularity weapons are easily modelled as K-Guns, but the
rest could either be lots of SMLs or modeled using missiles as Beams
(which
means shifting some PDS mass into screens to model the same effects).
Andromeda Ascendant (SML based version)
Mass: 180
Hull: Average
FTL: Standard
Main Drive: 4A
Armour: 18
Hits: 54; 18/18/18
Crew Factor: 9
[OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO]
[ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
[ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
[ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
Firecons: 2
3 x SML (FP/F/FS)
Magazine (24): 4 x Std, 2 x ER, 8 x FT3 Heavy Missiles
8 x PDS
ADFC
Fighter Bay - 6 Fast Fighters
Andromeda Ascendant (beam based version)
Mass: 180
Hull: Average
FTL: Standard
Main Drive: 4A
Screen-2
Armour: 18
Hits: 54; 18/18/18/18
Crew Factor: 9
[OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO]
[ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
[ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
[ooooo*ooooo*ooooo*]
Firecons: 2
4 x Beam-3 (F)
2 x Beam-2 (6-arc)
3 x PDS
ADFC
Fighter Bay - 6 Fast Fighters
Brendan
'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/
IMPORTANT
1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information
for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated.
4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA.
6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:06:11 -0500
From: Mike Hillsgrove <mikeah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question about comment
To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <457CA0F3.1020907@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>I would like to see some numbers on when the F/A-18 has suffered the
kind of losses suggested here...
Right now, the F18 is multipurpose, cheap, and the reason that we can
get away with it is because there does not exist a single Air Force or
Navy anywhere in the world that plays anywhere in the same league. The
only other nations with any sort of actual blue water navy are on our
side. Even the Russians only have a brown water navy - and that brown
color comes from the rust on the hulls. When everyone else has bows and
arrows, a Thompson submachine gun makes you a champion!
It also performs well within it's designed parameters. No airplane can
be king at all altitudes, missions, and speeds.
Logic means nothing to military planners. Money and glitz mean
everything! For example, the Air Force has always utterly hated the
A-10. Pilots love it. The Army adores it. The brass hates it beause
it's cheap, slow, and is designed just to support the army and it's
mission. It's not an airplane killer! Who cares that it's tougher than
tough and can hang around longer than an obnoxious mother-in-law, and
kill anything that moves absolutely positively DEAD. It can - and has -
carried more than one pilot home on a single wing. IT AIN'T FAST and it
ISN'T GLAMOUROUS. The Air Force brass has tried to kill this plane more
times than Charlie has tried to get in a can of tuna. It will be
replaced by the F-16, that can be shot down with a BB, that needs speed,
that can't hang around, and can't fly that low or slow. The Army of
course will get slagged by "longs" or "shorts", but hey - who cares -
it's just the army.
What makes the Navy effective with anything you give it is that the
pilots are trained better. You can give a superior pilot a SPAD 13 and
he will find a way to win with it. Won't be easy, or as often, but he
will find a way.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:37:20 EST
From: VinsFullThrust@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question about comment
To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <bd1.a27bf04.32ae56a0@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In a message dated 12/10/2006 3:15:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
glenn-wilson-1950@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:29:54 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Lee
Subject: Re: [GZG] [FT]Multi-abilityfightercostings To:
gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Message-ID:
<532283.1468.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Please look at the cost of the F18 Hornet.
It
doesn't carry long range AA Missles of the F14 nor the bomb load of the A6
or
even the survivability of the lesser ohf the two. It can't jam radar
without add
on bomb pac loads. The pilots don't win the world contests either as they
are expected to do all jobs with a minimal training and little practice.
What
they do well is ..... well fly and die in face of specialized forces.
My reply:
I would like to see some numbers on when the F/A-18 has suffered the kind
of
losses suggested here...
The F/A-18 is the last choice of the main line USAF/USN fighters
introduced
from the 1907's until today in my mind (F16, F15 and then (retired) F14
for
me if I don't consider the F-22 since it still is 'new kid on the block'
status.) But this plane seems to do adequately in real life if not the
my
personal favorite. The failure to replace the A6 with a specialised
attack
aircraft seems to be driven by economic reasons (training, spare parts,
etc.)
pushing doctrine and the F/A-18's ability to deliver the Air to Sea/Mud
payloads
gives the USN a chance to see if their theories actually will work in
combat.
Assuming the plane is not retired before an adequate 'test' occurs...
Um, I am not sure where this info comes from. But the F/A-13 Hornet is the
top line aircraft prefered by Navy and Marine pilots in the US and its
allies.
There is a reason it was choosen as the aircraft for the famed Blue Angels
and it aint because it lacks power, lacks manueverablity... In combat it
reaches speeds in access of 1100mph and carried a max oridnance load of
1600lbs.
All this and able to swap from fighter to bomber back to fighter in the
same
mission. Care to tell me another aircraft capable of this function?
Vince J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/private/gzg-l/attachments/20061210/20d8f524/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:27:54 +0300
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question about comment
To: gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID:
<aa9f2ea80612110127u3ac7025fw16334236c4a145ab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 12/11/06, VinsFullThrust@xxxxxxx <VinsFullThrust@xxxxxxx> wrote:
load of 1600lbs. All this and able to swap from fighter to bomber back to
fighter in the same mission. Care to tell me another aircraft capable of
this function?
I'm pretty sure you're dead wrong about the performance of the
aircraft you incorrectly identify as an F/A-13. Mostly because
1600lbs isn't enough to carry ONE bomb of the most commonly used size.
But to address your real point, and it applies to the F-15E as well.
No aircraft can swap from fighter to bomber in the same mission.
A properly designed multi-role aircraft can be a capable attack
aircraft, OR a capable fighter on any given mission with a given
ordnance load.
Part of being a capable fighter involves being maneuverable, to set up
attacks with short range missiles and cannon. If you are carrying
enough ordnance to be worth a damn for airstikes, you aren't going to
be maneuvable compared to a stripped-down just-the-basics
purpose-built fighter aircraft.
Jettison your bombload so you can dogfight, and you aren't returning
to an attack mission until you go back to the flight line and get new
bombs.
All the OTH stuff with medium-range missiles doesn't require any
particularly special platform, because you're just launching missiles,
and that can be done off the back of a five ton truck with the right
electronics package. Doesn't count. Naval vessels can launch the
same missile at the same range with the probability to hit, and that
doesn't make them "fighters".
Objecting to an aircraft because it cannot be all-singing and
all-dancing on the same mission is stupid and shows lack of knowledge
of basic aerodynamics. Claiming an aircraft can be all-singing and
all-dancing on the same mission is stupid and shows lack of knowledge
of basic aerodynamics.
The reason the F-14 was taken out of service, other than age, was
because the aircraft was basically built around the Phoenix, and the
Phoenix was built for precisely one mission. That mission was
shooting down the massive waves of cruise missiles that the Red Banner
Northern Fleet's Naval Aviation arm was going to launch at USN
carriers in the Big War That Never Happened. Considering the fact
that most concievable opponents of the USN have perhaps a dozen aging
Soviet bombers with some creaky second-hand Chinese cruise missiles
wired to them, the threat just doesn't exist anymore. No more
mission, no more hideously expensive single purpose fighter to fly
that mission. The most likely cause of USN ship damage in the next 30
years is going to be some jackass with a speedboat full of ordnance
wired up to a deadman's switch. Allahu Akbar and Kablooey!
And even at that, the USN is desperately searching for some relevance
to modern conflicts, reviving the small boat riverine navy a la the
PBR years and getting all up into the whole "littoral" thang. They
aren't thinking in terms of titanic sea battles or refighting the
Battle of the Atlantic. They couldn't get a new expensive fighter
program through Congress, and besides the Army Chief of Staff (who
can't afford to replace blown-up tanks) would physically throttle the
CNO in the middle of a JCS meeting if he suggested trying to get
Congress to give him a trillion dollars to buy a new fighter.
How in Bob's name did this conversation about modern-day USN aircraft
get started on the Full Thrust list? It shows up as a new
conversation in my mailbox. Can we go back to star fighters? That
conversation was boring, but at least it was on-topic.
I need a beer.
John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again. We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
End of Gzg-l Digest, Vol 20, Issue 16
*************************************