CV32

From Marine Corps Gazette [excerpt]

Glad to hear it was so easily resolved. Unfortunately there is no easy way to do this. The latest version of the official database will no doubt use different ID # for its entries than your custom DB, and will be incompatible.

From Navy Times [excerpt]

Shenyang F-60 UCAV

From AOL Defense [excerpt]

From AOL Defense [excerpt]

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

I hear ya, Pete. Not much time for reading lately. Maybe when the cold weather sets in.

If you still have your commondb.res (the actual data files for your DB) and your commondb.rsr (picture files for your DB), you should be able to import your database using the "Import New Database" button in the Platform Editor (PE). The *.res and *.rsr files should be in your main HCE directory when you do this.

From AOL Defense [excerpt]

From AOL Defense [excerpt]

From AOL Defense [excerpt]

From AOL Defense [excerpt]

Given Iran's penchant for referring to glorified gunboats as "destroyers", then I figure an "aircraft carrier" really means a ship with a helicopter pad capable of accommodating more than one helicopter in a pinch.

As you know, I cannot delete names from older entries in the DB because it would fundamentally break pre-existing scenarios. This is a well established tenet of the HCDB. What I have been doing, instead, is to assign the pennant number instead of the commissioned name, to help discern the difference.

From Defense Aerospace [excerpt]

From Defense Aerospace [excerpt]

Good to know someone else has toyed with the idea. I would very much prefer an actual functional decoy, of course, but wondered if this 'sub simulator decoy' might serve as at least a reasonable facsimile until that happens. I didn't want to make the 'decoy' ASuW capable, because I am wary of submarines taking potshots at ships with the decoy and giving away their presence too early. Especially as the 'decoy' tends to have a long range. This longer range might mean that going with a single, generic type, with a short range, might be the better approach too. Waiting to see what experience folks report before proceeding further ...

From AOL Defense [excerpt]

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

Yeah, these have 'Salamander' all over them. Thanks, Enrique.

Hehe, I guess the question should have been worth only $200.

Twelve rounds?! I think you're liking the odds of the Kirovs returning to service in that case.

Thanks, Enrique. I have begun a serious overhaul of the entire DB, so you can expect incremental improvements as time passes. Hehe, it will be interesting to see how my rudimentary attempt at mimicking "decoys" work out. (I expect they will, at least, garner some attention during play). Thanks. I'll check em out. The Standard Missile is one of those items that is on the "to do" list. You will see changes here in due course. Can't remove naval aviation capability for fear of breaking already released scenarios, so these are the kind of issues that unfortunately must remain. Looks like a typo. Simply because we don't have H4 data for the ZQQ-7 suite from Carlson and the boyz, as you've seen on Admiralty Trilogy, so using ZQQ-6 for now.

No, unfortunately I do not, but I have to say that some of it does look familiar. Maybe an enterprising sleuth can nail down the sources.