CV32

A new version of the official Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) Database (HCDB-110216) is now available. Get the new DB in the Downloads section. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: CH-146 Griffon - Canada CP-140A Arcturus - Canada Ships: 23 July (Type 148) PTM - Egypt Houku (EG/94) PTM - Egypt Ivan Gren (1171.1) LST - Russia Mistral (RFS) LHD - Russia SIGMA 9813 FF - Morocco SIGMA 10513 FF - Morocco Enjoy.

From Flight Global

From RIA Novosti 15:50 15/02/2011

The big downside being that every aircraft that might potentially use it would have to be 'carrier capable'.

Some real life experience/history to be drawn upon: 1. Anglo-French attacks on Egyptian airbases in 1956 (Suez Crisis) 2. Turkish raids on Cyprus airport in 1974. 3. Israeli attacks on Egyptian airbases in 1967 war. 4. Indian air force strikes on Tezgaon airbase during 1971 Indo-Pakistan war. 5. British attacks on Stanley airport during 1982 Falklands war. 6. French attacks on Quadi Doum, Chad, during Operation Epervier in February 1986. 7. Operation Desert Storm, 1991. 8. B-2 strike on Obvra airfield in Serbia in 1999. 9. Israeli strikes on Beirut airport in 2006.

Keep in mind that damage to the Installation as a whole and damage to the runway are, to some extent, modeled separately. You could put a runway out of action (using specialized anti-runway weapons in the Weapons annex) but do little damage to the base. I am trying to correlate the damage factor to the number of 'cuts' in the runway. Runway repair is pretty sophisticated these days, with separate team components comprising crater teams (to fill in the hole), mat teams (patching the surface), airfield lighting team (to install strobe and approach lights), and a mobile aircraft arresting system (much like a carrier's arresting wires) team. They used to employ a lot of steel mat and gravel to fill in runway craters, but nowadays they have aluminum planks, quick set concrete, ready made concrete slabs, even folding fiberglass mats. I understand the goal is to have a 60 x 45 ft mat in place within 1 hour 47 minutes. In the current system, a 'destroyed' runway will permit vertical only landings/takeoffs. I would recommend retaining that arrangement, as a helicopter or VTOL aircraft can potentially land on just about any flat surface that is large enough to accommodate it. Good question. Need more codespeak here. We don't currently model aircraft damage, so that's probably not an option. Total loss is a possibility, but we probably don't want the AI using a damaged airfield without paying any attention to the potential risk. More thought needed here.

The principal problem is that we have no way to simulate the delayed effect of time fuzed submunitions or area denial mines. Everything in the Weapons annex of the DB explodes on impact. You could simulate the effect, perhaps, by putting these kind of delayed action weapons into the 'anti-runway' category but again the effect is immediate (acting like any other anti-runway munition).

Assuming this makes sense, how could this approach be translated into a form useful for HCE? Maybe, and this is just brainstorming ... STOL aircraft can still use a Small runway damaged up to 50%, a Large Runway damaged up to 66% or a Very large runway damaged up to 80% Jet aircraft can still use a Small runway damaged up to 33%, a Large runway up to 50%, or a Very large runway up to 66% Twin engine aircraft can still use a Large runway damaged up to 33% or a Very large runway up to 50% Four engine aircraft can still use a Very large runway damaged up to 33% Still brainstorming ... 10% damage repaired within 2 hours 25% damage repaired within 4 hours 33% damage repaired within 8 hours 50% damage repaired within 16 hours 66% damage repaired within 24 hours 75% damage repaired within 36 hours >75% damage repaired within 48 hours Not sure how, or even if, the submunitions or mines can be accommodated code wise. As for repair crew capability, it would make sense that airfields with Very large runways would have better repair capabilities but they would also have better resiliency to damage, so maybe this cancels out the effect?

The HCDB uses the following general rule of thumb for runway size: Very large - 3,000 meters (ca 10,000 ft) long or more Large - 1,500 m (ca 5,000 ft) to 3,000 m (ca 10,000 ft) Small - less than 1,500 m (ca 5,000 ft) The H4 paper rules make the following observations about damaged runway use: STOL (short takeoff or landing) capable aircraft can still use a 1,000 meter runway with up to 4 cuts (a 'cut' is an obstruction (such as a crater) that makes that section of the runway unusable) or a 2,000 meter runway with up to 6 cuts or a 3,000 meter runway with up to 7 cuts Jet fighters can still use a 1,000 meter runway with 2 cuts or a 2,000 meter runway with up to 4 cuts or a 3,000 meter runway with up to 5 cuts Twin engine aircraft can still use a 2,000 meter runway with 2 cuts or a 3,000 meter runway with up to 3 cuts Four engine aircraft can still use a 3,000 meter runway with 1 cut Regarding runway repairs, the same rules talk about minor damage (1 cut?) being repaired in 2-4 hours, while extensive damage (3+ cuts?) might take 24-48 hours. Submunitions or mines (understandably) and number of available repair crews (engineers) complicate the repair process.

A new version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Cold War' Database (HCCW-110215) is now available. Get it in the Downloads section of the HarpGamer website. New additions include: Installations: Glasgow Prestwick - UK Kaliningrad - USSR Leningrad - USSR Leipaja - USSR London Heathrow - UK Mamonovo - USSR RAF Ballykelly - UK RAF Brawdy - UK RAF Bruntingthorpe - UK RAF Coltishall - UK RAF Cranwell - UK RAF Elvington - UK RAF Kinloss - UK RAF Leconfield - UK RAF Leeming - UK RAF Leuchars - UK RAF Llanbedr - UK RAF Lossiemouth - UK RAF Lyneham - UK RAF Machrihanish - UK RAF Manston - UK RAF St Mawgan - UK RAF Tarrant Rushton - UK RAF Valley - UK RAF Wattisham - UK RNAS Yeovilton - UK Riga - USSR Rumbula - USSR Spilve - USSR Tukums - USSR Aircraft: Tu-22B Blinder A - USSR Tu-22K Blinder B - USSR Tu-22KD Blinder B - USSR Tu-22P Blinder E - USSR Tu-22PD Blinder E - USSR Tu-22R Blinder C - USSR Tu-22RD Blinder C - USSR Tu-22RD1 Blinder C - USSR Tu-22M2 Backfire B - USSR Tu-95RT Bear D - USSR Tu-126 Moss - USSR Tu-128 Fiddler B - USSR Tu-128A Fiddler B - USSR Tu-142 Bear F - USSR Vulcan B.2 - UK Vulcan B.2A - UK Yak-25RRV Mandrake - USSR Yak-25RV Mandrake - USSR Yak-25RV-I Mandrake - USSR Yak-27R Mangrove - USSR Yak-27R1 Mangrove - USSR Yak-28B Brewer A - USSR Ships: 130mm Arty Bty - Intl Ability MCM - USA Agile MCM - USA Aist (1232) LCU - USSR Alesha (317) MCM - USSR Alligator (1171/1) LST - USSR Alligator (1171/2) LST - USSR Alligator (1171/3) LST - USSR Alligator (1171/4) LST - USSR Anchorage LSD - USA Andrusha (1256) MCM - USSR Asheville PG - USA Asheville (ARM) PG - USA Austin LPD - USA Bluebird MCM - USA Blue Ridge (1970) LCC - USA Blue Ridge (1974) LCC - USA Boxer (Essex/59) LPH - USA Boxer (Essex/62) LPH - USA Casablanca LPH - USA Casa Grande (1950) LSD - USA Casa Grande (1960) LSD - USA Dixie (1959) AD - USA Flagstaff (1968) PGH - USA Fort Fisher (Anchorage) LSD - USA Grisha I (1124) FFL - USSR Grisha II (1124A) FFL - USSR Grisha III (1124M) FFL - USSR Gus (1205) LCM - USSR Iwo Jima (1961) LPH - USA Iwo Jima (1972) LPH - USA Kola (42/1952) FF - USSR Kola (42/1970) FF - USSR Komar (183R) PTM - USSR Kilauea AE - USA Krivak I (1135) FF - USSR Kronshtadt (122bis/50) PC - USSR Kronshtadt (122bis/62) PC - USSR Lebed (1206) LCM - USSR MDK-22 (189) LCM - USSR Mirka I (35) FFL - USSR Mirka II (35M) FFL - USSR Mount McKinley (1950) LCC - USA Mount McKinley (1962) LCC - USA MO-V (OD-200) PC - USSR MP-2 (450) LCM - USSR MP-8 (188) LCM - USSR Nanuchka I (1234) PTM - USSR Nitro (1959) AE - USA Nitro (1965) AE - USA Osa I (205) PTM - USSR Osa II (205U) PTM - USSR P-2 (200/50) PT - USSR P-4 (123bis) PT - USSR P-4 (123K) PT - USSR P-6 (183) PT - USSR P-8 (183T) PT - USSR P-10 (183TK) PT - USSR Petya I (159) FFL - USSR Petya I Mod (159M) FFL - USSR Petya II (159A) FFL - USSR Petya II Mod (159M) FFL - USSR Polnocny A (770D) LST - USSR Polnocny B (771) LST - USSR Polnocny C (773) LSM - USSR Princeton (Essex/62) LPH - USA Raleigh LPD - USA Ropucha I (775) LST - USSR Riga (50/1954) FFL - USSR Riga (50/1972) FFL - USSR Samuel Gompers AD - USA Sasha (265) MCM - USSR Sasha (265A) MCM - USSR Shershen (206) PT - USSR Slepen (205PE/70) PC - USSR SO1 (201) PC - USSR SO1 (201M/57) PC - USSR SO1 (201M/65) PC - USSR SO1 (201T) PC - USSR Sonya (1265) MCM - USSR Stenka (205P) PC - USSR Suribachi (1956) AE - USA Suribachi (1965) AE - USA Thomaston LSD - USA Tucumcari (1968) PGH - USA Turya (206M) PTH - USSR Valley Forge (1961) LPH - USA Valley Forge (1964) LPH - USA Vanya I (257D) MCM - USSR Vanya II (257DM) MCM - USSR vydra (106K) LCM - USSR Wrangell (1950) AE - USA Wrangell (1972) AE - USA Zhenya (1252) MCM - USSR Zhuk (1400) PC - USSR Enjoy.

From DefenseNews, 15 February 2011 US-Argentine tensions simmer with verbal jabs

There's no easy answer to that, but being able to detect, locate and destroy the mines from beyond their own effective range (0.5 nm) is the determinant of success without posing undue risk to the sweeper. I would say a Kingston could probably clear mines if it had the right kind of close support, but it would still be a tedious and probably risky exercise.

The Sea Dragon helicopter uses the same generic minesweeping gear as the surface ships, in the DB. The only additional utility is the speed and immunity of the helicopter (no small thing, of course). Minesweeping is much more effective on the surface when your ship has remotely operated vehicle (ROV) capability and a decent sonar set.

Its probably a function of the limitations in the sea mines and minesweeping models, more than anything. The range of the sea mine you're using is 0.5 nm, while the range of the minesweeping gear is 1.0 nm. Without a very good sonar set, however, it is extremely difficult and risky work. I am careful about increasing the effectiveness of the minesweeping gear because it would make them very good at killing submarines (since the mines are modeled essentially as non-mobile submarines). Likewise, I am careful about decreasing the effectiveness of the mines because we cannot hope to simulate the number and density of actual minefields. Hence, for every mine you destroy in HCE you've probably cleared a much larger field in RL. I am, however, always open to suggestions about potentially improving the model.

Welcome back. It is in fact an indicator of jamming, and more specifically, that the unit is being jammed. The jamming you are seeing with the lightning bolt symbol is offensive jamming. The jamming equipment is employed by the platform energizing its radar(s), i.e. its radar must be active for the offensive jamming to be active. Glad you're liking it. HC has come a long way, and continues to improve. As for the Phoenix, the AIM-54A version has a pK of just 0.40. The improved capability AIM-54C version has pK 0.55. Whether they will score hits against fighters depends on the maneuverability of that target (its ATA/DATA values) and whether it has defensive jammers and/or decoys.

From Ares Spain's Aircraft Carrier Begins Air-naval Certification Campaign Posted by Christina Mackenzie at 2/14/2011 9:28 AM CST The Juan Carlos I, Spain's amphibious aircraft carrier launched on September 30, 2010, is undergoing year-long sea trials and last week started the process of gaining its air-naval certification. The first helicopter landed aboard on February 8 at 10:51. Other helicopters from the 6th Squadron (Hughes 500) and the 3rd Squadron (AB-212) then followed. Commander Emilio Aceña Medina brings his helicopter in to land on the Juan Carlos I. Photo credit: Spanish Navy The next phase will involve landing and take-off of Harrier AV-8B Plus of the 9th Squadron. The Juan Carlos I can handle up to 30 medium or heavy helicopters when configured as an amphibious helicopter carrier or between 10 to 12 Harriers and a similar number of medium helicopters when configured as an aircraft carrier. The Juan Carlos I. Photo credits: Spanish Navy

Consider it done. I am going to pass on this one for the foreseeable future, especially since the Russians have trouble fitting out their one and only carrier as it is. Sure thing. No problem. Done. Will appear in the next iteration.

The Defense Science Board (DSB) recently mentioned A-RCI as an example of a successful phased program. Perspective is everything, I suppose.

Bunga.

And we all know nature abhors a vacuum. It will be 'interesting' to observe what happens next.

Rough guesstimates of aircraft carrier magazines: Carrier Magazines, circa early 1980's 48x AGM-84A Harpoon 48x AGM-45B Shrike 40x AGM-78 Standard ARM 40x AGM-62 Walleye II 100x AIM-54 Phoenix (any model) 100x AIM-7 Sparrow (any model) 200x AIM-9 Sidewinder (any model) 40x Rockeye II cluster bombs 40x Mk 46 lightweight torpedoes (any model) 2,500 x 500 lb Mk 82 iron bombs 800 x 1000 lb Mk 83 iron bombs 500 x 2000 lb Mk 84 iron bombs 60 x GBU-10 Paveway kits (for 2000 lb Mk 84) 100 x GBU-12 Paveway kits (for 500 lb Mk 82) 40 x GBU-16 Paveway kits (for 1000 lb Mk 83) 40 x B-61 nuclear gravity bombs Carrier Magazines, circa late 1990's 24x AGM-65F Maverick 48x AGM-84D Harpoon 24x AGM-84E SLAM 24x AGM-84K SLAM-ER 48x AGM-88C HARM 60x AGM-154A JSOW 100x AIM-54C Phoenix 200x AIM-9 Sidewinder (any model) 300x AIM-120 AMRAAM (any model) 40x Rockeye II cluster bombs 80x GBU-10 Paveway kits (for 2000 lb Mk 84 or BLU-109) 100x GBU-12 Paveway kits (for 500 lb Mk 82) 60x GBU-16 Paveway kits (for 1000 lb Mk 83) 40x GBU-24 Paveway kits (for 2000 lb Mk 84 or BLU-109) 240x GBU-31 JDAM kits (for 2000 lb Mk 84 or BLU-109) 40x Mk 46 Mod 5A(SW) lightweight torpedoes 40x Mk 50 Barracuda lightweight torpedoes 2,500 x 500 lb Mk 82 iron bombs 800 x 1000 lb Mk 83 iron bombs 500 x 2000 lb Mk 84 iron bombs You can mix and match other weapon types of the approximate weight and dimensions to suit your own purposes.

One of the biggest limitations currently found in HCE (as compared to ANW, for example) is the lack of a logistics model. This can effectively mean that you (as the player) or the AI (the computer) can launch strike after strike, or sortie after sortie, as quickly as the turn around of 30 minutes will permit. Moreover, the inventory of weapons and fuel on both sides is essentially limitless. In the past (and occasionally even now), scenario authors would try and get around this by providing instructions or notes to the player (typically contained in the Orders file or a readme.txt) directing the player to do such things as not change his available loadouts for aircraft. You can, however, introduce a measure of further realism (and difficulty!) into a scenario if you self-impose certain limitations. The easiest of these to do is to create an artificial limit on your inventory of weapons. The posts that follow in this thread will hopefully provide some direction on how to do this.

N. Korea military says no more meetings with South

Related topic dominating the local news here today: Canada takes FAA to task for rotorcraft 'run dry' exemption

Here on the northeastern edge of the continent, we've finally received a decent snowfall but it only arrived in the past three weeks or so.