General

The two merchantmen and a tanker left at dawn under an escort of Grayback gunboats to link up with the LCS “Task Group” (is that the right term for a three ship sub-grouping) 10nm outside of the port of Freeport. The USN LCS’ will escort these vessels to the port of Coupville. The LCS’ are equipped as follows: LCS 1: F(12)1 Mk48 VLS w/24 ESSM//1 Mk91, F(21)1 Mk31 w/21 RIM-116A RAM, P/S (1)2 12.7mm, A®1 Mk15 Phalanx Block 1B 20mm/76, ACommand and Control Module (Cooperative Engagement Capability), A Helicopter Platform fitted with RAST w/3 RQ-8 Firescout VTUAV. LCS 2: F(1)1 Bofors Mk3 57mm/70//F GFCS, F(21)1 Mk31 w/21 RIM-116A RAM, P/S (1)2 1…

In response to lst night's discussion on the Rolling Airframe Missile, please see the attached manufactuer's link and once there the data sheet in the upper right hand corner. RAM

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) has been caught unprepared by a German-made K-130 FFL. RQ-8 Fire Scout had already detected the FFL but due to the make-up of Coalition Forces, the FFL was not initially classified as a hostile contact even though Country X utilizes K-130’s just as our coalition partners, the German Bundesmarine. The LCS has been equipped primarily for Counter Mine operations. In addition, per page 21 of Harpoon Naval Review 2003, the LCS is equipped with a total of five Mission Packages, specifically MP’s 1,2 3, 7, and 8. In detail, the Mission Packages entail: MP1 (1)1 Bofors Mk3 57mm/70//F GFCS MP2 (12)1 Mk48 VLS with 24 ESSM//1 Mk91 MP3 ®1 M…

Ok, I'm transitioning to submarines for a while in order to account for some ASW operations. To that end I am using the first ASW Scenario in the quick start book and the subject matter sub is an upgraded German Type 206A SS. First question is regarding the Ship Turning Table which includes an entry of a "surfaced submarine" = standard rudder 400 yards 4kts decrease and hard rudder 300 yards and 6kts decrease. Where is the turning of submerged submarines discussed, did not see it in the rules. Second question is in regards to the DM2A3 533mm Torpedo. Annex F lists three separate ranges and their respective speeds. How/when/where/why are these ranges and spe…

Speed Change (3.3.2.1): Acceleration: (ATA*10%)*Maximum Speed = rate of acceleration. Deceleration: 20% of maximum speed at the start of a phase. Course Changing and Turning (3.3.3): If D-ATA = 0.5 a 90 degree change of course is allowed, all others can change 180 degrees. Altitudes and Altitude Changes (3.3.4): If accelerating 50% of maximum rate of climb (See Change of Altitude Table) If diving greater than 50%, aircraft can double acceleration rate and increase speed by 150% [Edit Dec 2008] There is an official rules change to 3.3.4 in Naval Sitrep #26, April 2004. Pre-calculated Range Reduction Modifiers 1/.3 = 3.3 1/.4 = 2.5 …

Per PaulK and as always sounds well-founded and appropriate. "Here's the math on your problem: fuel factor of 3.53kg/nm 145kts/240=0.6nm Performance Effects Altitude effect = 2.5 (just my way of stating 1/.4) Throttle effect = 4 The "Performance Effects" are used to determine range equivalents (in terms of fuel expended) for aircraft that deviate from Clean loading, Cruise altitude and Cruise throttle setting parameters upon which the basic endurance numbers are based. Range equivalent of fuel used based on Altitude (and load) effect = 0.6 X 2.5 = 1.5nm Range equivalent of fuel used based on Throttle effect = 0.6 X 4 = 2.4nm What this says is…

Found this while trying to learn more about maneuvering boards. Seems like good stuff. here

In Annex B of H4.1, the F/A-18C/D lists among its sensors: "...FLIR and Laser Spot tracker can be carried in a pod." It is not listed in as ordnance. What type is it? In Annex G2, an AAS-38A/B is described as "FLIR for F/A-18" but does not list the spot tracker, could it be inferred?

Does anyone have H4.1 equivelent stats on this Russian Air Surveillance Radar. On chat last night we were throwing around various websites and stats but there generally was no unit of measure for the altitude. Brad: Any in your "notes"?

Also a response from DaveS (msg#3688) on the Admiralty Trilogy Yahoo Group. (In the case of a pair of Litening II pod equipped AV-8B II+ dropping 2nd Gen SALH-guided GBU-12D's on a small ground target. Is it true that the designator capable of effectively designating the target provided that the designating aircraft keeps the target within its 270 degree frontal arc (per 6.3.4.2.2)? i.e. the designator is not restricted to the 12/3 degree detecting/classifying field of view and theoretically the "optic" lens can "slew" side to side within the 270 degree frontal arc of the designating aircraft? "In the case you are talking about, I would say yes. I know th…

Is the "accuracy bonus" discussed in 6.3.4.2.4 that a weapon, such as JDAM, is resolved on the Dive Bomb Table (Low or Medium depending upon the altitude it is launched)? Per DaveS (msg #3689) on the Admiralty Trilogy Yahoo Group: "If a GPS guided weapon is used against a nonmoving target it gets the bonus and you would use the Low or Medium altitude dive bombing tables as appropriate. If the target is moving and the weapon does not have terminal guidance, treat it as a dumb bomb (if it does have terminal guidance, treat it as a PGM)." Short answer: yes, the GPS accuracy bonus is resolving it on the respective dive bomb tables.

Some initial thought: JDAM has twice the range 8.0nm than the GBU-12D (4.0nm) benefits the aircraft actually launching. Drawback, launching aircraft needs to be above VLow and Low altitude bands. (per 6.3.4.2.4) JDAMs launched from Medium altitude are resolved on the Medium Altitude Dive Bomb Table. Also must have advanced or computing bombsight. Better guidance I/GPS versus SALH for the Paveway. pH from AV-8B II+ (computing) at medium versus a "small" target = only 12%. From High or VHigh pH goes up to 23% due to computing at the Low Altitude Dive Bomb Table. Still seems weak - launching aircraft is vunerable further out at that altitude, will add comm…

The following is the answer that Mr. Brooks A. Rowlett posted on the Admiralty Trilogy yahoo group in response to my question of whether there is any limitation to the effectiveness of sighting with FLIR when flying in the VLow altitude band. On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Pete Maidhof wrote: > I guess the idea came from limitations of AS radar vs VLow > a/c to the effect of 10% of the max range. The limitations on AS radar are from ground clutter reflecting radar signals back into the radar set. This clutter acts as random energy into the receiver and can be viewed as in effect increasing the noise level of the radar, thus requiring a much stronge…

While it does not appear in Annex B, here is what I have gleened from the manufacturer and fas.org. They give roughly the same info: Size/Signature: VSmall (my idea) Sensor: CCD (Day only) or FLIR (Day/Night) (would need to assign a generation) Ceiling: 15,000 feet Speed: 65kts Cruise, 110kts "dash" Range:100km Fuel: 11 USG Would you like to add anything to that?

This thread will be used to follow my feeble attempts to determine acceptable employment of this weapon system versus a an enemy air defense site consisting of 4x SA-6b TEL's, 1x Straight Flush Radar, 1x BTR-60 PU, and 2x ZU-23 AAA. The attacking force is rightly or wrongly 2x AV-8B II+ equipped with a Litening II pod and 2x GBU-12D, and have a general azimuth towards the radar. An attack limitation discovered so far is the aircraft's rapid approach towards the targets versus its ability to detect and classify these targets before their speed overtakes the target area. My first solution, which I began last night, has the section of Harriers split into Dash-2 t…

The following is half walk through, introductory moves of a scenario being tested. A pair of AV-8B II+'s (section) were patrolling 75nm west of Larak Island@ Medium Altitude, around 5,000', when it's 3rd Generation RWR detects a radar emitting from the island. While the section leader reports in to the Expeditionary Strike Group, they have detected the radar by ESM as well. The section is vectored into conduct a SEAD mission with the 2x AGM-65E Mavericks carried by each Harrier along with Litening II pods. The section descends to Low altitude about 70nm out. The Harriers accelerate to 580kts and at 23nm descend further to VLow. These pilots are veterans and…

I am stepping through an engagement between an AH-1W vs a ZSU-23-4. The AH-1W, with a 2nd Generation APR-39A(V)1 RWR and AGM-122A SIDEARM at low altitude can detect the radiating ZSU-23-4's Gun Dish Radar at 69nm (ZSU is on terrain <100 feet high)and engage it with the SIDEARM after conducting a pop-up to Medium Altitude undetected between 4nm (Gun dish detection of a Small Target) and 6nm (max range of the AGM-122A). The SIDEARM inflicts 1DP. How would this attack be resolved? 6.3.4.2 Guided Weapons appears to be where I should find the instructions, but it only addresses Command Guided and Semi Active Radar (SARH) Weapons, Semiactive Laser Homing (SALH) Wea…

If my earlier "SA-9" and "Back-Up Optical Sighting" posts were not clear, how about the questions/assumptions posed a different way. Is it safe to assume that in H4.1 all of the land-based SAM's found in Annex S without inherent radar systems are intended to be part of an overall air defense coordination network which will facilitate targeting information from radar systems – to C2 nodes - to those firing units? That a radar set or anti-air system with an inherent radar should be part of the scenario T/O. That those systems with an inherent radar capability (SA-6b with Straight Flush or SA-8 ) may have an optical sighting back-up only if duly noted in Annex…

In Annex "S" Surface-to-Air Missiles, as examples, both the 9k31M Strela-1M (SA-9b) and 9K35M3 Strela-10M3 (SA-13) have "Y" in their respective "Optical Back-Up" column, but what is it back up to? There are no associated radars with these two systems. Is there some other IR or similar sighting capability not referenced in Annex "S"?

What would the capabilities of an SA-9 Gaskin be,in H4.1 terms, at night versus a UH-1N flying NOE just after going feet dry at a range of 3,500m. Since my understanding for the H4.1 Data Annex, there is no associated Acquisition or Tracking Radars, and the missile guidance is IRH. Since IRH Guidance, the helo would have to be in the Visual Line of Sight of the SA-9. Would this mean that the Gaskin would have to visually detect the UH-1N? If the answer is visually, Surface to Air Visual Detection is 3nm versus a Small Target such as the UH-1N. Since this is a reconnaissance detachment insertion, the insert is going on a dark dark "Clear Night", say dur…