CV32

Their loss might be our gain, but I think they will regret the decision to retire all of their tanks. Recent operational experience in places like Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon continues to show that, while tank vs tank battles might be getting rare, the tank can still be a powerful tool when you need to root out a firmly entrenched enemy or simply need some "oh, sh*t" deterrence.

Roger, wilco. Got a specific suggestion for a generic coastal gun battery? I am thinking it would have to be something on the larger caliber side to have the range to be operationally useful in HCE.

This succintly describes my beef with JSF. Mediocrity at excessive cost is not an acceptable solution.

AvWeek gave great coverage of the hearings today in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on the F-35 JSF program. Some links of interest arising from the hearing: Joint Statement of Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter, USAF acquisition chief David Van Buren and F-35 JPO head Vice Adm David Venlet (PDF) Statement of Pentagon Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) director Christine Fox (PDF) Statement of Pentagon Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) director Michael Gilmore (PDF) Statement of Lockheed Martin VP/GM Tom Burbage (PDF) (he apparently did not take any questions) Statement of Michael Sullivan of the GAO (PDF) And a brief assessment of the hearing from Aviation Week's ARES blog [excerpt]

From Reuters [excerpt]

Missile launch tube(s), crew escape or spec ops lockout chamber, or something else, one thing is sure. The Chinese are really pushing hard on developing their naval forces.

I'd like to find a way for you to play if you would prefer to do that. Otherwise, yes, help running this beast. I am envisioning a panel of three umpires (umm, who might they be? ), with majority vote to deal with the inevitable bumps and wrinkles, as well as sharing the workload.

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

Definitely possible. Black Sea/Med access is a valuable commodity, with Turkey being the 'poor man of Europe' and a sometimes shaky NATO ally. Sovs might exploit Greek-Turkish animosities to their advantage. Definitely possible, though high stakes. The Chinese can't be expected to play nice. Unlikely. Unlikely. Soft underbelly of Europe. Would raise hackles in NATO. Possible, considering Denmark guards the door to the Baltic. NATO ally but small, vulnerable, and potentially sacrificed. Definitely possible. A continuing possibility since WWII. See the Current Events forum for plenty of material. Possible, though perhaps unlikely. Possible, though the Soviets showed a preference for acting through the third party here, probably because of the regional volatility and potential US intervention in Israel's favor. Possible. The Soviets used Aden and (some believe) Socotra as well. Backwater area, so the potential for US/NATO intervention might be reduced, as long as SLOCs aren't directly threatened. Possible. Lots of Soviet era client state activity here.

From what I can gather, HMCS Charlottetown, HMS Liverpool and FS Courbet were involved together in the same general action. Sounds like Liverpool and Courbet did the heavy hitting with their 4.5 inch and 3.9 inch guns, respectively, from around six miles offshore. Charlottetown's involvement seems to have been restricted to some 0.50 cal flavoured deterrent.

Semantics, imho. Nations with whom you are militarily allied, or otherwise have good relations, can typically be considered "friendly". They usually have the same general approach to matters of international importance (sometimes even domestic matters) as you. There is a natural ebb and flow in that relationship, such as when you disagree on trade or even on defense matters or foreign affairs. But facing one another militarily also typically puts an end to that alliance or the "friendly" relations. As long as you continue to be allied, friendly with one another, or like minded, there has to be some element of trust. It may be a matter of degree, and you may be more trusting of one ally over another. However, if a "friendly" nation is discovered to be complicit with your sworn enemy, untruthful or deceitful about their own relations with that sworn enemy ... trust dies and imho, that nation is no longer a friend. Nations are of course comprised of leaders, governments and citizenry. Their views and their allies or friends also change over time. The friend of my enemy is not necessarily my enemy, but he is probably not my friend.

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

Badass of the week: Pte Leo Major Distinguished Combat Medals in two wars ... impressive!

From 4GWAR blog [excerpt]

From Flight Global [excerpt]

Does this premise mean that there is no Soviet offensive into Western Europe or elsewhere? So a submarine war only? Submarines plus long aircraft. Got it. Ships, submarines and aircraft. Ships, submarines, and aircraft against shipping plus limited air attacks. Firstly, let me say that since the whole premise of a Harpoon scenario is hypothetical, I am typically loath to say any scenario concept is so outlandish as to be unworthy of investigation. So, I can hardly think of any scenario that wouldn't be playable. The Soviets were very big on combined arms. I think it would be unlikely that they would omit the participation of whole branches of their armed forces in the effort to accomplish a certain goal. So, a limited war by only submarines is probably unlikely. Any limited war that focused on maritime targets, then, would more likely see the involvement of every useful tool available: submarine, surface ship, aircraft, etc. In this way, I think your fourth idea is most plausible. Where I think you can make the most hay is with the overall politico-military objectives in your limited war scenario, i.e. what targets make it onto the permissible list. I can envision, for example, a scenario where the Soviets exert political pressure (bolstered by military threat) against 'weaker' NATO partners in order to effectively cut them out of the alliance in a conflict. Say, for argument's sake, that the Soviets wanted to force reunification of Germany on their own terms (i.e. have West Germany subsumed into East Germany), they might tell the rest of NATO to mind their own business and you won't get hurt. West German ports are deemed closed, and any NATO ports that receive REFORGER (US reinforcements arriving from CONUS) would be subject to attack as well as the convoys themselves.

I know that we've already ventured to some degree into this scale of warfare, what with the individually modeled armored vehicles and UAVs and such, but do we need to model 'individuals'? I'm not necessarily against the concept, but I would like to hear more input. On the game map the target will still appear as a truck or tank, so do we need to go any further than we already have? We can already represent neutrals of the same type.

You can expect to be able to trust your friends.

None whatsoever.

Well, Lockheed Martin seems to think its a "fifth generation multirole fighter", capable of everything from "deep strike and interdiction to the establishment of air dominance". An aircraft that "excels in all air-to-surface and air-to-air combat missions while operating around the clock in any threat environment. The unmatched situational awareness of the F-35, along with extreme agility, acceleration and stealth, provides an asymmetrical advantage over all adversary aircraft." (this from the LM brochure)

I don't disagree with either of those statements, but that said, I am not sure we can compare the resilience of 1940s Londoners (or their support structures) to the citizenry of modern day Miami. Nor did the Allies entirely ignore Peenemunde and its ilk.

From DefenseNews [excerpt] CV32: For the folks who decry the Hornet as a 'dog' in the turning and burning department, this is not going to come as happy news.

I think few aggressors will seek to use the ballistic missile as a precision weapon, at least not the folks seen as most likely to use them as a 'terror' weapon (e.g. Iran, DPRK, Libya, etc). Others may do exactly that, because they have the capability, the numbers (massed firepower), and the intent to hit a particular target (e.g. Chinese hitting Taiwan or Guam; the Russians hitting the Chechens, etc). Some may be inclined to do both (e.g. the DPRK in any new war on the Korean Peninsula). Where not intended as a precision weapon, the ballistic missile does not have to be terribly accurate to have negative effect. Both Florida and Texas, for example, are pretty densely populated in many areas. That the effect is grossly out of proportion to the likely response (especially if non-conventional warheads are used) is probably a foregone conclusion.

Can you be more specific?

That's what I am driving at. Economic damage, a la oil prices, chaos on the floor of the NYSE, "panic among the sheeple", etc, etc.