CV32

Pretty much, yeah. Yeah, I'd like to leave a lot of this for Tactics 101 but you've lit a fire underneath me to get it done.

The winner for April month is ... mavfin! Thanks to some useful bug reporting. Drop me a PM and we'll talk about getting off a book to you.

I have noticed that submarines capable of VDeep will often go to that depth when under attack. Not always, but often. It works very well against torpedoes incapable of achieving VDeep, of course.

My vote goes to the 'droid.

Explained this in the other thread that Grumble posted in, but suffice to say that there is a thermocline, and its actually one of those features that the code does a respectable job. This is precisely the lack of near-realistic ocean environment that I was referring to earlier. Right now depth is simply a function of distance from land.

I was going to tackle the thermocline in that ASW wish list thread, but here is as good a place as any. There is only one thermocline or 'layer' existing in HCE and when present, it lies at the demarcation between Shallow and Intermediate depths. There are actually five different possibilities for how the layer might appear in game: 1. No layer at all; 2. A slight layer; 3. An average layer; 4. A strong layer; or 5. A layer described to be a 'bank vault door'. The strength of the layer is determined by the sea state, averaged between the target group and the detecting group (as opposed to unit). For example, assume a target's location has Sea State 5 (about midway between 0-9, so rough weather), while the detecting unit's location has Sea State 9 (phenomenally bad). Their average is 7. The layer strength will be calculated as follows: 4 - 7 = -3. Since anything less than 0 is treated as 0, the layer strength is considered 0, and hence we have no layer between the two groups. Active sonars have the figure of merit reduced by 2 x Layer Strength, while for passive sonars, FOM is reduced by 1 x Layer Strength. This is actually more advanced than both the Harpoon 3 and Harpoon 4.1 paper rules. So considering the age and complexity of the code, not a terrible attempt at modeling. More on this when I actually muster the energy to complete the Tactics 101 discussion on ASW.

Conventionally powered submarines do NOT need to raise their snorkel at all, in the present code. They have, for all intents and purposes, the same underwater endurance as the nuclear powered boats.

I don't think there are any ASW specific wish lists, iirc, but no doubt many of the individual wish lists will touch on ASW issues. Beyond easing the near-necessity of micro management of ASW, and other small changes, I'm not sure the code would easily accommodate the kinds of advances and improvements needed to make it more realistic/challenging.

Three Russian Nuke Subs to Be Recommissioned in 2013 (RIA Novosti) They are: Project 949A (Oscar II) Smolensk (K-410) and Tomsk (K-150) Project 971 (Imp Akula I) Kuzbass (K-419)

In a First, a Russian Warship Docks in Israel (RIA Novosti)

The FREMM building program was extremely ambitious, and I can't say I am terribly surprised about that. France's overseas territories would probably be adequately served with less expensive (and admittedly less capable) OPVs. No sister for De Gaulle, however, that's just ugh.

Frances 2013 Defense White Paper (Livre Blanc) formally ends Frances plans for a 2nd aircraft carrier. (Defense Industry Daily)

Ok, thanks for satisfying my curiousity about why you were playing Gold. Btw, the Ultimate edition of HC, aka HC20, contains twenty different versions of HC through the ages, all the way from the Harpoon Alpha builds right up to the current version of HCE, and includes both HC97 and HC Gold. You need to run the Platform Editor to adjust SAMs that are built into the Installations (airfields, ports, etc). Thanks. I somehow totally missed that thread on Matrix.

Is China Carelessly Overextending Itself? (The Diplomat, Flashpoints blog)

Mikoyan expecting Russian MiG-35 order soon (Jane's)

The MV-22B Osprey component of this deployment went through here (St. John's) 23-24 April.

The Last Reunion of the Doolittle Raiders (Defense Media Network)

Excellent work, Enrique. Thank you very much. In keeping with my database design philosophy, which aims for: * realism based on open source intelligence (OSI) * not breaking previously created scenarios * following the 'Harpoon/Admiralty Trilogy' paper rules and sources wherever it makes sense I think we can adjust aircraft carrier capacity as follows: Use the maximum capacity found in the available, credible OSI, or Harpoon paper rules, as long as: a. The capacity must match the period for which the DB is applicable. For example: e.g. Nimitz (CVN-76) in the HCCW (1950-75) might be different from Nimitz in HCDB (1980-2015). and b. The capacity in existing DB entries cannot be adjusted downward, in order to avoid breaking scenarios.

I have to ask: why HC2002 Gold?

A complaint probably as old as Harpoon itself.

Its just the simplicity of the model coming through, again. Take the AIM-54 Phoenix, for example. In real life, the Tomcat's AWG-9 radar is used to illuminate targets, and provide semi-active guidance during the missile's cruise phase. The missile's own seeker does not come into play until the terminal phase of the engagement, or at very short ranges. Because there is a terminal active radar seeker, HCE doesn't penalize you by insisting that you energize the F-14's radar. Neither does it limit you to shooting only six missiles at six separate targets (if the Tomcat could carry more than six).

The ASW model in HCE is very rudimentary. Principally because we lack a realistic model of the ocean environment or how sonar behaves in it. We have only the most basic representation, with no consideration for temperature, salinity, currents, ambient noise, bottom topography, etc, etc. As for sonar, we have only a single "frequency", no accounting for different techniques, etc. There's also no accounting for countermeasures or decoys. The list goes on. Have a look through the Tactics 101 threads for a lot more background on what a truly realistic model would need to address.

US Says Syria Has Beefed Up Air Defenses (DefenseNews)

Israel Inaugurates 5th Dolphin-Class Sub (DefenseNews)

Interesting post. You're quite right about the necessity to close the distance. Its not simply because of torpedo range, however, but because of typically short torpedo seeker acquisition range. You've probably noticed that all but the most modern torpedoes will easily lose their target and wander away if not dropped virtually right on top of the target. Most of your other "advice" would be considered gaming the game, to be honest. If it doesn't bother you, then by all means have at it and enjoy yourself. Others, however, myself included, might want to avoid doing that because it tends to "cheapen" the simulation experience. Dumping multiple torpedoes in rapid succession, for example, is often a quick and easy recipe for a kill in the game. But in real life, ASW operators would want to conserve torpedoes (they are not in unlimited supply as they are in the game) and avoid mutual interference between multiple torpedoes. Mines are modeled as submarines because we don't have any other choice but to do that in the current model. One of the drawbacks being that mine countermeasures gear is also effective against actual submarines, albeit typically short ranged and with low DP. Thankfully, MCM assets are usually in short supply in most scenarios and limit the opportunity for "gaming". And, lastly, it should be noted that the SV-22 is a fictional platform.