Roadways and parking lots for aircraft ?

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Jun 01 2007

Feltan wrote:Jan,

It is one thing to land a few aricraft at a remote road strip, and another to operate a squadron of a couple of dozen aircraft -- much less an entire airforce of potentailly hundreds of squadrons.(...)

Please read the links, you'll see that it's possible. Doing it for the USAF would probbaly be a logistical nightmare and won't fit with the US doctrine and needs but' it's definitely possible, it have been done in real life several times and will be again eveytime it's needed.

How can the Goats model that in SR2020? (...)

What about a FARP unit for planes? it would allow to land planes on it and will replenish a limited amount of planes (1 squadron of 18 planes sounds good).

i agree that it require some work but i think that it can add a nice feature mostly for multiplayer games.

cheers,

Jan

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 01 2007

If the goats can get farps to work, that would be a very acceptable solution to me.
However, they were unable to get them to work for helicopters in sr2010.

So we would need to hear from them if they even think this will be a possible solution.

By the way, can aircraft be loaded onto another unit (other than carriers)
and moved that way in sr2010 ?

Ive never even tried that, so i have no idea.

ainsworth74 · Post by **ainsworth74** » Jun 01 2007

I am with Feltan on this one, I feel that while having roads double up as spare runways would be nice, it still realy is just not worth modeling.

I think that Tkobos idea warrents far more attention, in my area there are two airports just twenty minutes away, both of which are over 7000ft long and perfectly capable of operating most aircraft (one of them handled air force one which needs a slightly longer runway). But its not modeled in sr2010.

I suppose one way of representing these airports would be to allow planes to land anywhere in loyal friendly territory. But they cannot resuply untill a supply truck or similar stops in the same hex, then perhaps they could be allowed to fly again but with a much reduced efficancy (after all these are still for the most part civilian facilites), and as soon as a airstrip or airbase becomes avalible then they fly to it. And then carry on as normal...

Post by **Balthagor** » Jun 01 2007

Before this gets too far (too late I guess...) I expect if this gets added it will be late in the development. For consistency of gameplay it is probably best if aircraft always try and return to a real airstrip/airbase. I'd suggest leaving this till later.

ainsworth74 · Post by **ainsworth74** » Jun 01 2007

Balthagor wrote:Before this gets too far (too late I guess...)

Ah yes its far far to late to stop it now!! The forum has latched onto this one and I suspect this disscusion has quite some way to go yet! So sit back and enjoy the ride.

Feltan · Post by **Feltan** » Jun 01 2007

Jan wrote: ...it have been done in real life several times and will be again eveytime it's needed...

Jan,

I think you are overstating the case for this.

As I stated before, everyone on the forums acknowledges that this is possible. Not universally done, and perhaps not globally adopted, but it is possible.

Combined with the "missing airfiields" issue, the real question is how do you handle a/c landing at someplace other than an "official" airfield.

Some good ideas have been presented. I'd like to offer a different one.

1. Keep airbases exactly as they are. Production centers and airfields rolled into one. It works fine.

2. Delete airstrips altogether. Just don't have them.

3. Introduce the much needed air force ground support unit -- a FARP if you will for fixed wing a/c. Only allows a/c operations when not moving. Large (a couple of thousand personnel), and slow as molassas to move.

4. Anywhere there is a stationary ground support unit, you have the ability to land and conduct air operations.

Regards,
Feltan

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Jun 02 2007

i'm globally ok with your suggestion apart two things.

First, i would link the FARP unit to a tech since, as you said it yourself, it's not univerasl and it need some adaptations of the road network, specificaly designed planes (easier field maintenance, stol capability) plus specialized training to make it efficiently.

Second, i'm not fully ok with your point 3 since it's planned to be a very flexible and mobile system, making it dependant of large units (easily targetable by ennemy) is at the opposite of the concept.

About 108 technicians (less than an infantry company) can service a 18 plane squadron in 10 minutes and then relocate to another road base spot.

here's another interisting link on the subject:
Dispersed basing - The Swedish Air Force's concept past and present with maps and photos

cheers,

Jan

Feltan · Post by **Feltan** » Jun 02 2007

Jan,

My suggestion is really to cover all the non-represented airfields in the game. However, in doing so I believe the roadway airfields would be addressed as well -- at least there would be a way to model such a capability.

It occured to me later, that the Goats may solve this if multiple facilities are allowed per hex. If it is possible to have many "inactive" airstrips at game start the problem tkobo stated earlier could also be resolved.

Regards,
Feltan

red · Post by **red** » Jun 02 2007

I'd think that modelling unrepresented airstrips would be a nightmare and the devs would never do it if only because of dev time.

Noble713 · Post by **Noble713** » Jun 02 2007

Feltan wrote: It occured to me later, that the Goats may solve this if multiple facilities are allowed per hex. If it is possible to have many "inactive" airstrips at game start the problem tkobo stated earlier could also be resolved.

I like this approach. Cities with airports but no (current) military activity could be handled quite easily.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 02 2007

Ya know, i think they could solve this by simply giving all major cities on the map in modern regions the ability to land and launch aircraft.

This would represent the civil airports at most large cities.And players would still need airbases to actually make their aircraft.And both the air strips and the air bases would still represent the military air facilities.

Post by **Balthagor** » Jun 02 2007

That sounds more like making a new component; Civilian Airport. It could have similar stats to an airstrip, maybe a lesser capacity. If we don't adopt this idea, it would be easy to mod in post release.

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Jun 02 2007

since, as fars as i learnt by researching details for Harpoon database, the only difference between a civilian and a military air facility are the hardened bunker where ammos and planes are stored. Having civilian fields close to everywhere would be nice because it will avoid planes to crash over friendly ground.

Then having mobile support (maintenance and replenishment) (cf., for exemple, swedish doctrine) would allow to limit a bit the capability of a fighter squadron to operate from nowhere.

to synthetise a bit, planes could land close to everywhere (that capacity would be linked with pop number?) but only be repaired and replenished by mobile support units.

cheers,

Jan

red · Post by **red** » Jun 02 2007

This makes me nostalgic for the WMD threads during SR2010.

I guess it'll all need to wait for later. It's pretty small stuff, if you put it in perspective.

Feltan · Post by **Feltan** » Jun 02 2007

red wrote:This makes me nostalgic for the WMD threads during SR2010. I guess it'll all need to wait for later. It's pretty small stuff, if you put it in perspective.

Well, I am frequently frustrated by not having sufficient airfields where I need them. And, combined with the prospect of loosing one's entire airforce due to lack of landing facilities -- it may not be small potatoes if implemented.

Chris, I am not sure a new category is needed. Many of the airstrips currently on the map are civilian airports with no military facilities. The thing we need to get around is the 3000 personnel assigned to a simple airstrip. If airstrips can be made inactive to start, one would not be faced with having to put 3K perssonel at each and every airfield on the map, but has the potential to activate them as needed (in effect, having mobile teams staff otherwise non-military fields).

Regards,
Feltan