Steven

I had asked a similar question when I designed a scenerio with the US attacking Iran and the reaction of Arab countires. With such a swift and massive retaliation, I think any US military installation, US Embassy or government facilty or US company with locations in Middle East countries would feel quick political and possibly violent pressure from the host country regardless if Tehran had been involved with financing or planning the attack in Boston. If Tehran did have involvement, I think the UN/NATO pressure would be slightly less intense. But with 4 million people dead in Iran, Yemen and Afghanistan, the UN and NATO for sure will receive pressure from countires with populations in the affected areas. This would be economically a near death blow to the US. Tony E brings up the best point. We play our favorite military strategy game on a machine that is most likely built in China. We buy a lot of our favorite and expensive items from the Chinese and they could possibly accept the attack on Iran as an indirect threat to them. Production of Chinese products bound for the US as well as US products meant for China could be stretched thin but to what level is tough to say. I also see the value of the US dollar in a rapid freefall and the US credit rating being downgraded, possibly to junk status, as China, our biggest debt purchaser, probably not wanting to have a a whole lot do to do with US dollars or debt. China probably would make out like a bandit as the dollar would fall and the Yuan would probably intially dip due to world insecurity then modestly rise. Gold, which China holds large amounts, could skyrocket. Curious on how American military defense contractors would handle a near worthless dollar and subsequent purchases from the DoD. The reaction of Arab countries falls immediately behind that of China particularly because of oil. With a third of the worlds oil coming from an Arabian country, their reaction would determine the price of oil. But as I see it, if a pipeline is attacked in Africa and oil goes up a few bucks, I see oil markets spiking with attacks on Iran. Even as most Arabian countries hold relatively calm to good relations with the US, an attack on brother country makes it a tricky proposition. But "terroists working with Iran" is a broad statement and the involvment of Tehran, I feel, would be key to this scenerio and the first 72 hours. Fantastic thoughts Mgellis and Tony E.

Fellow Harpooners, I have a theoretical scenerio in the works where Iran invades Manama Bahrain in retaliation for EU sanctions. (I figured the 5th Fleet HQ and the US Embassy would be good targets.) It appears that on my machine the more units their are in the scenerio the slower the game runs (slewing doesn't work well.) So since I wanted to have red targets in the Straits of Hormuz, Tehran and on Bahrain, would breaking up the scenerio into two or three smaller scenerios would make it run any smoother? Thanks to all as usual. Steve

I love the editors note at the end of the article.

I guess I just wasn't paying attention when I read the instruction manual. I didn't know that you could click on the load game screen and open any of the scenerios in any of the DB folders. Luckily their are intelligent people here who put up with novices like me. Thanks, Steven

According to a leaked cable, the US is concerned of a possible transfer of 19 North Korean BM-25 mobile ICBM's to Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM25_Musudan The link has the specs as well as the cable regarding the potential transfer of the missiles. An alrerady unstable region has now become a much more wickedly complex Harpoon ANW scenerio. Since I haven't found any defenitive information that the transfer even occured, I placed this request second afater the Shahab 3 which is currently in Irans arsenal. ANW V3.10.1.6 HUD 4 1.6.1 DB Thank you again, Steven Raymond

The current threat from Iran is the Shahab 3 missile, a MRBM and works similar to a multiple reentry vehicle on a US SLBM. With its 1930km range and a maximum flight altitude of 400km with a terminal stage velocity of Mach 7 it is serious threat to the region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3 Using ANW 3.10.1.6 HUD 4 1.1 Thank you for your hard work. The HUD 4 DB is looking real good. Steven Raymond

Is it possible to design a senerio in one DB (HUD 3 1.6.2) and change it to another (HUD 4 1.1.) ??? Thanks again. Steven

Steering something that small going that fast while allowing for some kind of useful accuracy will have to be one of our military's greatest achievments. Even more so if it can be steered into the path of C-803, KH-31 or something of the like traveling at MACH 2-4. Curious if they would put it into the fleet without terminal guidance and use it like the current 5" guns since most of the DDG's will be approaching 25 years old in 2025. Will they continue building DDG's? Is the DD(X)even fitted for it?

Just thinking of the numbers of just the subs; almost 300 of them (if you include reserves) within a week sailing of each other. Thats quite the scenerio and fast developing. Makes you wonder why ASW platforms took such a dive (sorry had to put that in their). With the P8's projected full operational capabile date of 2018 it makes ASW a bit tough even in a scenerio.

True. Thankfully SecNav is not a lifetime appointment.

HUD 3 v1.6.2 DB ANW 3.10.1.0 After building a scenerio all the a/c at one base that are bombers/attack do not show as ready to launch even when scenerio was built with them ready. The a/c that are ready are tankers and transports. What did I forget? Thanks again.

Hey guys, With ANW DB HUD3 v1.6.2 the DB is a bit daunting if your looking for a specific unit so I asking my seasoned Harpooners if their are any Iranian small boats (i.e. Boghammers or a little larger but smaller than the C-14's) that have ASM capabilities? Thanks again.

I have sided with you for the most part but I think you could be here for an hour typing your rant and you would barely scratch the surface of our Navy's (militarys) issues. We seem to be slow in adjusting to naval combat requirements either because we are trying to build 22nd century platforms with 21st century knowledge or our government is trying to make the worlds greatest Navy on the cheap. I am one for a complete naval force and we seem to be drifting to having a complete naval platform i.e. the USS Gerald Ford, DD(X), LCS, F35 etc. With the cost of all of these projects we can't possibly have all of them at once. My personal preference would be to have the surface/sub-surface platforms that we have currently in service and with the brain power that we have design what sub-platform (BMD for example) that we need around them. If we continue on our dreamlike pace we'll have a stealth aircraft carrier that's 1500 ft long with SM3's and TLAM's at $50B a pop. (Insert big belly laugh here.) I'm not sure if the US is trying to be in the business of being military supplier to the world. It's a nice little extra selling F16's or some AIM 9's to countries that don't have the needs to make their own but with the size of our government deciding what we have and what we need gets steamrolled into a quagmire and we seem to side on the "expensive is better" which countries like Taiwan, India and Australia can't afford or don't really need. So I am glad that we have Nimitz-class carriers and Ohio-class subs, SM2's and TLAM's and I think we're a great navy because of them but unforntunately we are way ahead of the technology curve and too big of a government to manage it with the domestic issues that we have as a country.

And I think that's what make this scenerio interresting. With Iran in the middle of the Arab/Islamic world and with Muslim followers have, until recently, been only followers of other Arabic/Muslim countries. As long as Iran keeps their guns holstered and doesn't provoke an attack by closing the strait or attacking Israel I think the US is going to have a tough time finding allies in the Arab world. I am a fellow sailor, I have all the faith in my US Navy and Armed Forces but I would not want to be in Vice Admiral Foxs' shoes right now. His 5th Fleet has their work cut out for them. Thanks both of you for your input.

I'm looking to beef up a scenerio involving Iran and the US. If the US had struck targets within Iran in order to uphold UE/UN sanctions and without an offensive attack by Iran (against Israel or the US) how would countries within the Arab League of Nations look at the attack on a brother country? I'm curious if heavily Arabic/Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE and Bahrain would shun the attack, remain neutral or offer support? How about Turkey which is not within the Arab League but its majority religion is Muslim and has a significant US Air Force base within its borders (as Bahrain and the HQ of COMFIFTHFLT). Since I am not the expert on US/Arab relations I'm hoping others have read how some of these other countries feel about the Iran sanctions and the US military appearing to be staging (albeit not agressively) to enforce those sanctions? Strategically I can see this being a difficult scenerio if the countries didn't offer as a minimum the use of their air space or in the case of Egypt not allowing passage through the Suez. Syria I think is obvious in their relations with Iran and Yemen could possibly harass ships coming out of the Red Sea with terroist speedboats I presume? Lots of hard, hypothetical questions, just looking for some easy answers though! Steve

With the shift from a military of dominance and power to one of efficiency and intelligence I think we can expect more AMPHIB's in the near future. Am I pushing my luck to say that the days of 500,000 boots on the ground are over and smaller forces will be the norm? Maybe Russell over at AGS (with a nudge from Tony and Brad and the fans of this great game) we could see amphibs that can deploy Marines and tanks on LCAC's in ANW? ;) I've been wanting to send a company or two into Taiwan from a LPD for days now. Thanks Greg for the great news.

Probably didn't think of that as the numbers tossed me around a bit but still a big upgrade from the Yugo's. Glad to see it rather than cutting back. Curious what their budget will be in 2018.

Interresting in two ways... 1) Is Vietnam feeling the pressure from China? (Spratly Islands perhaps?) I ask this because... 2) According to Wikipedia China paid $1.5B-2.0B for eight Kilo's, about $250M a piece . Also according to Wikipedia Vietnams military budget was $2.4B in 2009. So quick math says they are spending 10% of their budget a year on a single sub? Is my math correct? Seems a bit rich for a country whose per capita income is only $1300. Just for comparison the US Navy is spending 10% of their budget on several programs such as the Virginia class submarine, DDG-51 destroyer, carrier replacement program and the F/A-18. Any thoughts?

I've seen that ANW has a v3.11 update yet after using the check for update option the program says that I have the most up to date version which I still have 3.10. Been struggling with this for awhile so do relieve my frustration!

Could be a bit long winded here so bear with me... Using ANW v3.10.1.0 HUD3 DB v1.6.2 In designing a scenerio I have several sides; US, Iran, three seperate IADS sides (set up to defend Iran), and Turkmenistan. I have wanted to have a scenerio where an Iranian A/C "defects" to another another country i.e. Turkmenistan, and use the defecting A/C as a target. In setting up the postures I have made Iran/Turkmenistan "friendly", US/Turkmenistan "neutral" and Iran/US "hostile". While using the mission editor to have the A/C fly from the Iranian base to the Turkmenistan base the editor states that a ferry mission requires a friendly destination airfield or base. I believe the idea has worked with setting up the Turkmenistan base as Iranian but if the base is labled as hostile to the US (and if it has AAA/SAM sites) it will shoot down my A/C. Do I need to take out the Turkmenistan side out and have the base as Iranian or is their something else I can do to make this work? (Take out out the defensive weapons I guess?) Have a safe New Years to everyone. Steve

There has to be a similar article out that shows the US in the same position with China, North Korea and Iran. All of these left of center leaders beefing up their military postures and the US DoD is on Weight Watchers. Ugh...will we ever see a 600 ship navy again?

Hey Gunny, I dont have a specific request (but I will make them if you prefer) but I miss moving land units from Harpoon Classic. Think you could toss in some MBT's, SAM's or troop units that can move during gameplay? Thanks Steve

Yes it is my first thank you. I've conquored it two ways; 1) Using the bombers out of Guam 2) Taking the CVBG in to shore and usung EA18's and F18's. In both situations I have taken out the red airbase which would reduce the workload by half. The CVBG approach was more time consuming while the bomber approach was risky unless you took out the SAM's first. Good scenerio I think.