CV32

Buy a couple copies and keep at least one for posterity.

That sounds like a possible bug, since LOS is definitely taken into account by design.

It does seem like a bug, because I know that on other occasions, SA-5 SAMs launched at me have (properly) gone stupid after I dropped below the radar LOS. Which was great, both functionally (and as a player).

Did you open a thread on the MG Tech Support forum, with a suitable pre-engagement save? You will also need to refer which exact version you are using.

I once raised an issue with mine clearing (mentioned earlier in the thread) on the Matrix Games forum, but it was largely ignored, so I haven't bothered since.

Formations and formation keeping is a critical foundation of HCE. It is one of the reasons I tackled the subject matter in Tactics 101.

What to do when a unit is assigned to multiple rings (i.e. a sector in ASW and a sector in Picket #1)? I think any cross-ring assignment should be treated as a picket, meandering around the combination of sectors.

I am fine with this approach.

That said, one alternative would be to have the outermost portions of multiple rings conform to the role/purpose of the innermost rings.

For example:

A unit assigned both a sector in the ASW ring and a sector in Picket #1 would perform as though it were in an ASW ring.

A unit assigned both a sector in the AAW ring and the ASW wing would perform as though it were in an AAW ring.

And so on.

Unfortunately for the sim, technology is outstripping the capability of the code. LRASM will be capable of going after a particular ship in a group.

This is how nuclear war with North Korea would unfold (Washington Post)

CV32: There is an underlying political message (of course!) but at least the scenario is interesting.

Russia’s Su-57 Stealth Fighter Is Doomed to Fail (War is Boring)

Marine Corps investigation faults F-35 program after in-flight fire (Marine Corps Times)

F-35 Sensor Performs Ballistic Missile Defense Missions The F-35’s Distributed Aperture Sensor (DAS) has performed an airborne identification and trajectory-oriented target tracking of a ballistic missile in a test off the coast of Hawaii in 2014, but it's only reported now:

https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/-F-35-Sensors-Test-Perform-Ballistic-Missile-Defense-Missions-111919506

 

Actually reported at least as early as 2012.

Northrop Grumman's F-35 DAS and Radar Demonstrate Ability to Detect, Track, Target Ballistic Missiles

The Navy’s Much-Hyped Electromagnetic Railgun May End Up Dead In The Water (Task & Purpose)

In Return to Cold War Posture, U.S. Sending Sub Hunting Planes to Iceland (Foreign Policy)

Defense Contractors Holding the Pentagon Hostage with Service Contracts (POGO)

Every now and then I pull out this game and give it a go.

But I have to say it continues to disappoint ... not because it doesn't deliver a lot, because it does, but because it still doesn't deliver what I expect from it.

For example:

An SA-21a/b Growler battery engages a flight of Super Hornets at a distance of over 175 nm.

The Superbugs are flying at 36,000 feet. The SAM site is virtually at sea level (<30 ft).

The SAM site fires a number of missiles, and of course, the Superbugs detect them incoming and dive to 300 ft AGL (<1,000 ft above S/L).

There is intervening terrain - between the SAM site and the Superbug flight - that is nearly 4,000 ft in height.

Despite this, the SAM site "sees through" the mountains and the missiles dive from >40,000 ft to hit my Superbugs in terrain following flight.

Frustrating nonsense. I expect more realism than this.

Am I expecting too much?

An unfortunate update passed along via Admiralty Trilogy:

The ARA San Juan had been called back to port after the commander informed of a complication with one of the batteries. "Entry of seawater by ventilation system to battery tank No. 3 caused a short circuit and the beginning of a fire in the balcony of battery bars, bow batteries out of service, at the time of immersion, propelling with a split circuit. I will keep staff informed," Pedro Martín Fernández informed in a message via radio frequency.

ANALYSIS OF ACOUSTIC DETECTION OF THE LOSS OF THE ARGENTINE SUBMARINE SAN JUAN
By Bruce Rule

An analytical review of all information released by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization on the acoustic signal associated with the loss of the Argentina Submarine ARA SAN JUAN confirms the following:
That acoustic signal originated near 46-10S, 59-42W at 1358Z (GMT) on 15 November 2017. It was produced by the collapse (implosion) of the ARA SAN JUAN pressure-hull at a depth of 1275-feet. Sea pressure at the collapse depth was 570 PSI. The frequency of the collapse event signal (bubble-pulse) was about 4.4 Hz.
The energy released by the collapse was equal to the explosion of 12,500 pounds of TNT at the depth of 1275-feet. That energy was produced by the nearly instantaneous conversion of potential energy (sea-pressure) to kinetic energy, the motion of the intruding water-ram which entered the SAN JUAN pressure-hull at a speed of about 1800 mph.
The entire pressure-hull was completely destroyed (fragmented/compacted) in about 40 milliseconds (0.040s or 1/25th of a second), the duration of the compression phase of the collapse event which is half the minimum time required for cognitive recognition of an event.
Although the crew may have known collapse was imminent, they never knew it was occurring. They did not drown or experience pain. Death was instantaneous.
The SAN JUAN wreckage sank vertically at an estimated speed between 10 and 13 knots. Bottom impact would not have produced an acoustic event detectable at long range.
The open question is: why was no corrective action - such as blowing ballast - taken by the SAN JUAN crew before the submarine sank to collapse depth? According to Argentine Navy spokesman Gabriel Galeazzi, the Commanding Officer of the SAN JUAN reported a "failure" in the submarine's "battery system," The time of that report was 0730 on 15 November, assumed to have been GMT. Subsequently, the problem was reported to have been "fixed." The SAN JUAN intended to submerged and continued its transit north. The SAN JUAN pressure-hull collapsed at 1358 GMT on 15 November.
In the case of the loss of the US nuclear submarine SCORPION (SSN 589), hydrogen out-gassed by the main battery exploded at 18:20:44 GMT on 22 May 1968 incapacitating/killing the crew with an atmospheric over-pressure in the battery well estimated to have been 7-10 times the fatal value. The pressure-hull was not breached. This assessment was based on analysis of acoustic detections of the event and damage observed in pieces of the fragmented battery recovered from the wreckage at a depth of 11,100 feet by the US submersible TRIESTE, e.g., microscopic, spectrographic and x-ray diffraction analyses. (There was no flooding of the pressure-hull before the battery exploded.)
SCORPION lost power and sank slowly over nearly 22 minutes to collapse at a depth of 1530-feet at 18:42:34 GMT on 22 May 1968.
There is the possibility that a similar sequence of events occurred aboard the SAN JUAN. If the wreck is located and efforts are made to recover components, emphasis should be placed on the battery system.
The author of this assessment was the lead acoustic analyst at the US Office of Naval Intelligence for 42 years, analyzed acoustic detectors of the loss of the USS THRESHER (SSN 593) on 10 April 1963 and testified before that Court of Inquiry. The author expresses his appreciation to those who supported this assessment with research and calculations

Images of Russian Project 955A SSBN reveal design changes (Jane's)

As Tony mentioned, putting images together for the DB has never been viewed by me as offering a good return on investment of time and energy.

Not in an era where a couple of clicks can bring up a plethora of images on the Interwebz.

Russia Scooped Up Wrecks Of Its Crashed Naval Fighters Off The Seafloor Near Syria (The War Zone)

Army Expected to Sell Off Thousands of Surplus 1911 Pistols (Kit Up!)

A great opportunity for some of you to grab a piece of history.

Now seems likely to have been the victim of a catastrophic explosion, perhaps a battery explosion.

Explosion Was Recorded Where Argentine Submarine Went Missing (New York Times)

Russia’s A-100 AWACS makes maiden flight (Jane's)

Russian official says MENA country has Iskander-E missiles (Jane's)

Argentine navy loses contact with submarine (CNN)

TR1700 class ARA San Juan (S-42)

Russia Rolls Out New Tu-160M2, But Are Moscow's Bomber Ambitions Realistic? (The War Zone)

North Korea’s Submarine Ballistic Missile Program Moves Ahead: Indications of Shipbuilding and Missile Ejection Testing (38 North)

Syria #11218 MIG-21MF Fishbed J 80 has a loadout (#57201 Intercept-2) with main armament 4xAIM-9P Sidewinder (#18760), shared with other two MiG-21MF (#11398 and #9723) both of Egypt and historically correct after Egypt changed sides in Cold War. But I don't know about AIM-9 Sidewinder in Syrian service, think it should be a loadout almost identical but with 4xAA-2 Atoll D (R-13M)(#18532), as sugested from the text description (#2595), but I don't find no similar loadout in the DB.

Don't overthink it ... its an error.

Hoping to find time soon to get a new update available.