CV32

Update in criminal investigation MH17 disaster (Openbaar Ministerie)

Israel Launched World's First Air Strike Using F-35 Stealth Fighters, Air Force Chief Says (Haaretz)

If you try to figure out the rationale for Soviet/Russian military designations, you're going to hurt yourself.

Russia’s Upgraded Tu-22M3M Long-Range Bomber to Make Maiden Flight in August (The Diplomat)

North Korea has Begun Dismantlement of the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site (38 North)

How far can China’s long-range missiles reach in the South China Sea? (DefenseNews)

Russia Shows New Hypersonic Missile on Two MiG-31 Aircraft in Victory Day Rehearsals (The Aviationist)

There's no doubt about that. In the case of the Barzah R&D center, they assigned 76,000 lb of penetrating high explosive warhead. That is a LOT.

The Russians claim 112 SAMs fired against 103 targets. The claimed pK rates are: 68.9% overall SA-22 (Pantsyr AD): 96% (24 of 25 targets) SA-11 (Buk): 82.7% (24 of 29) SA-8 (Osa): 45% (5 of 11) SA-3 (S-125): 38% (5 of 13) SA-13 (Strela-10): 60% (3 of 5) SA-6 (Kvadrat): 52% (11 of 22) SA-5 (S-200): 0% (0 for 8) As mentioned earlier, I think either the US/allies really wanted to smash the chosen three targets (and it appears the Barzah R&D facility in particular received a LOT of attention, including 57 TLAMs and 19 JASSMs) OR there were other targets in play. Him Shinshar CW storage was supposed to have received 22 missiles, including 9 TLAMs, 8 Storm Shadows, three MdCN missiles and two SCALP missiles. 7 SCALPs were said to have been assigned to the Him Shinshar bunker complex. Curiously, the released post strike imagery shows three marked aimpoints at each of these two sites. Given the numbers assigned to each site, it sounds like the weaponeers assigned a minimum of at least two missiles to each aimpoint across the board. Probably more to account for failures and contingencies. If you impute an actual failure rate of at least 5%, and that is probably a little conservative, probably six missiles failed somewhere in flight or missed their target altogether. It seems to me that is still not nearly enough to account for the BDA or the weaponeering, so I do think there were other targets in play. So why not tell the public what targets they were, and which ones? If I had to guess what they were, I would have to include Al Dumayr airfield. After all, that is where the two Mi-8 Hip helicopters alleged to have been involved in the Douma chemical attack came from. Mind you, helicopters are easily moved around or hidden if you know there is an impending strike. Still, I think DOD would have included Al Dumayr, if only to send a message (as with Shayrat last year). I also would not be surprised if there were other CW sites targeted. Russia claims 30 missiles assigned here, and 7 shot down. Why not say so? I don't have good answers here. Other than perhaps the air defences around sites like Al Dumayr were enhanced, and did manage to bring down some incoming missiles (probably TLAMs). I don't think the numbers are anywhere close to what the Russians claim. The other consideration is that there may have been air launched decoys in play (e.g. MALD). Some of these may have been Russian 'kills'. Keep in mind as well that the Israelis apparently took advantage of the moment to carry out some strikes of their own, which might be included in Russian numbers. They may also have used air launched decoys.

DoD Officials Erred About Weapons, Fighters Used in Syria Strike Mission (DefenseTech)

UK re-forms 617 Sqn for F-35B era (Flight Global)

Briefing by Russian Defence Ministry official Major General Igor Konashenkov (April 16, 2018) [excerpt]

A great deal of firepower appears to have been expended against a rather limited target set. Only the Barzah R&D facility appears to have merited a significant proportion of the weapons assigned, being a collection of large buildings, and the target does appear to have been flattened, but even so, 76 of the 105 missiles? Wowsers. This suggests to me that (1) the US/UK/France had built into the weaponeering plan a serious hedge against missile failure and interception; or (2) there were other targets not identified in the OSI briefing? The Russian version of events suggests the following: 4x missiles targeted Damascus International Airport 12x targeted Dumayr AB, east of Damascus (associated with the most recent CW attack), but all were shot down 18x targeted Marj Ruhayil (Bulay) AB, south of Damascus 12x targeted Shayrat AB (the airfield targeted in last year's strike), but all were shot down 9x targeted Mezzeh military airport but 5x were shot down 16x targeted Homs "aerodrome" but 13x were shot down 30x targeted facilities related to Syria's alleged CW program in Barzeh and Jaramana, and 7x missiles were shot down

Here Are All The Details The Pentagon Just Released Regarding Its Missile Attack On Syria (Updated) (The War Zone)

The F-35 Hits A Key Developmental Milestone, But With Watered-Down Requirements (The War Zone)

Pentagon Suspends F-35 Deliveries Over New Corrosion Issues (DefenseTech)

Correct. In order to update our forum, we have to say goodbye to the Issue Tracker function, unfortunately.

Revealed: China's Nuclear-Capable Air-Launched Ballistic Missile (The Diplomat)

'Towed array' is a very broad term, of course. Linear, passive towed arrays do not suffer from a blind spot. VDS - usually used to describe active sonars - would be more prone to a blind spot, especially when deployed at a shallow depth. Yep, and I like the behaviour. A linear towed array can be thousands of feet long when fully trailed.

China Welcomes Its Newest Armed Force: The Coast Guard (War on the Rocks)

I will be getting to it eventually, but so many competitors for my time lately.

Russia Delivers 1st S-400 Missile Defense Regiment to China (The Diplomat)

Eric, the question is about ship 'sprint and drift' behaviour in the ASW zone of the formation rather than player controlled ASW tactics generally. Btw, a towed array is omnidirectional. It does not suffer the same kind of problem with 'baffles' that a bow mounted sonar would.

You will want to sprint far enough to make it worth the effort. In other words, when you're creeping and acoustic conditions are at their optimum, your detection range is at its peak. So, you can potentially already hear out to the first CZ (30-33 nm), possibly further. When you sprint, then, you're intending to be in a position (at the end of the sprint) that allows you to hear out to a new, useful distance. I would say at least half of that CZ (15-17 nm). This means, if you're a typical warship sprinting at 25-30 knots, you need to do so for at least 25-30 minutes to move 12-15 nautical miles. When you start the drift, you're trying to once again attain optimum acoustic conditions, both for the sake of your equipment and to try and catch an opponent making too much noise (e.g. trying to catch up, intercept, etc.). And, then, if you get a sniff of a contact, trying to work out a solution without giving your precise position away. Calculating exactly how long this will take (either in terms of time or distance) is a relatively complex physics question, but I think a 10-15 minute drift makes good sense as a rule of thumb.