CV32

Yes, still the case. The annex limits are largely to blame. Unfortunately this includes dedicating any time to fixing errors for the moment.

Being released on Steam today : Nuclear War Simulator

Thanks, Enrique. I see you tried a mix of weapons, and S-300V was more or less capable of intercepting all of them.

I ran a test scenario in Command. A single Kh-22NA (NATO AS-4 Kitchen B Mod 3) was launched from a Tu-22M3 (NATO Backfire C) at near maximum range. The target was an industrial plant in Dnipro, Ukraine. A single Ukrainian S-300V1 (NATO SA-12) SAM battery was set up near the target. The S-300V1 began engagement (with 2x 9M83 missiles) when the Kh-22NA was at about 16 nm from the target, and descending below about 28,000 feet. The Kh-22NA was intercepted with 1x 9M83 SAM at about 9.7 nm from the target, while moving at 1499 kt and at 17,330 feet. I thought the scenario was interesting given the recent tragic Kh-22 strike in Dnipro and the widespread claims (by Ukraine and others) that Ukraine has no capability to defend against Kh-22. I didn't think that sounded technically correct, given that Ukraine does possess the S-300V1 and it was designed to defend against such weapons as Lance, Pershing and SRAM. The Kh-22 is certainly a challenging target, but the S-300V1 is at least technically capable of defending against it. (On "paper" or in a sim like this, of course. Caveats apply.) Still interested in what you might find in HCE.

I wonder if someone might do me a favour and set up a test scenario that pits S-300V (SA-12) against the Kh-22 (AS-4). Run it a few times and let me know how often the S-300V is successful in shooting down the Kh-22.

How A British Submarine Spent Hours Under A Russian Aircraft Carrier (The War Zone, 11 January 2023)

The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan (CSIS, 9 January)

Hi John, Add SAM sites just like any other unit. They are organized in the DB under Intl (international) by origin and with the prefix 'SAM' by name. The entries typically reflect a complete battery (launchers and associated radars) but in some cases you could add higher level radars to the mix. You can emplace the SAM sites individually on the map or add them to formations. I hope this helps.

An account of the sinking of Moskva that claims radar ducting: It became known how exactly Russian cruiser Moskva was discovered and sunk: details and photos (Ukrainska Pravda)

Bulldogs Away 2022 Fiction Essay Contest Winner (Proceedings, November 2022)

Flight Global 2023 World Air Forces directory (pdf)

Euronaval 2022: Latest PANG Aircraft Carrier Design Breaks Cover (Naval News)

The Quicksink mod adds a dual mode (radar/imaging IR) seeker to the existing JDAM guidance package. New Look At Air Force’s Ship-Killing Smart Bomb In Action, Seeker Details Revealed

Adversarial Studies Seminar: How the War in Ukraine is Evolving Monday, 05 September 2022 15:00 - 16:00 (BST) We are delighted to be joined again by Michael Kofman, Director of Russia Studies at the Center for Naval Analysis, for a discussion on how the war in Ukraine is evolving. This event will examine how the Russian army has adjusted since its initial faltering invasion, the Ukrainian response, and the probable course of events in the coming months. The seminar will be chaired by Dr Sidharth Kaushal, Research Fellow, Sea Power, RUSI Military Sciences. How to Attend This event is open to all. To take part, you must pre-register no later than 4 September 2022 using the ‘Register Now’ button above. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Its an excellent overview of what likely happened to Moskva. I do question one conclusion, the assertion that a Ukrainian Bayraktar TB2 provided targeting for the Neptun battery. I think it is probably just as likely (or even more likely) that an American Global Hawk UAV performed that role. (Although admittedly I haven't looked to confirm if the Global Hawk that was patrolling in the area was actually in position at the time.) My reasoning is as follows: (1) I am doubtful that the UA would send the TB2 into the air defence envelope of the Moskva, not just because of the risk to the UAV but it would also alert the ship. (2) The UA hasn't offered any imagery of the attack on Moskva taken by a TB2. I would think they would want to exploit the propaganda value of such imagery, as they did with Snake Island. Especially since Russia (predictably) denied that the ship was lost to an attack.