CV32

How US strategic antimissile defense could be made to work An interesting piece. Contains a criticism of SM-3 testing methodologies and instead advocates airborne missile defense via stealthy drones.

Interesting tidbit.

Yes, but they've contracted for three F-35B STOVL jets among the LRIP batches. Not that these three might ever see active combat service.

More Harrier farewell pics ...

The three F-35B JSF should fit aboard perfectly.

From Defense Aerospace Changes to Royal Navy's Surface Fleet Announced (Source: U.K Ministry of Defence; issued December 15, 2010) Changes to the Royal Navy's surface fleet, including the withdrawal from service of HMS Illustrious and the four remaining Type 22 frigates, have been announced today by Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox. The changes follow announcements regarding the Royal Navy's surface fleet in the White Paper 'Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review' published on 19 October. In a written ministerial statement to parliament today, Dr Fox said that HMS Illustrious will be withdrawn from service in 2014 and HMS Ocean will be retained to provide the landing platform helicopter capability for the longer term. Four frigates are also to be withdrawn from service. These are the remaining Type 22s: HMS Chatham, Campbeltown, Cumberland and Cornwall. Chatham will be withdrawn from service at the end of January 2011, Campbeltown and Cumberland will follow on 1 April, and Cornwall at the end of April. HMS Ark Royal will be finally withdrawn from service at the end of this year. The Bay Class amphibious support ship to be withdrawn from service will be RFA Largs Bay, in April 2011. The Auxiliary Oiler RFA Bayleaf and the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessel RFA Fort George will also be withdrawn from service in April next year. October's White Paper explained the Government's intention to make certain changes to the Armed Forces in order to deliver the force structure we require for the future and to help address the legacy of unaffordability in the Defence Budget. Today's written ministerial statement explains in more detail those changes that affect the Royal Navy's surface fleet. HMS Ark Royal, Ocean and Illustrious The White Paper announced that the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal would be decommissioned, and, accordingly, she will finally be withdrawn from service at the end of this month. It also announced that either her sister ship HMS Illustrious or the Landing Platform Helicopter ship HMS Ocean would be withdrawn from service following a short study into which of these two ships was better able to provide the capability we require over the next few years. This work has now been completed and it has been decided that HMS Ocean should be retained to provide our landing platform helicopter capability for the longer term. HMS Illustrious will be withdrawn from service in 2014, once Ocean has emerged from a planned refit and been returned to a fully operational state. This will ensure that we retain the ability to deliver an amphibious intervention force from the sea and maintain an experienced crew to support the later introduction into service of the new Queen Elizabeth Class carrier. HMS Chatham, Campbeltown, Cumberland and Cornwall The White Paper explained that four frigates would be withdrawn from service in 2011. These are the remaining Type 22 frigates HMS Chatham, Campbeltown, Cumberland and Cornwall. Chatham will be withdrawn from service at the end of January 2011 and Campbeltown and Cumberland will follow on 1 April. HMS Cornwall will be withdrawn at the end of April once she has returned from her current operational deployment to the Indian Ocean. Amphibious Ships Other changes affect the Navy's amphibious ships. One of the two Landing Platform Dock ships will in future be placed at extended readiness while the other is held at high readiness for operations. From November 2011, the high-readiness ship will be HMS Bulwark, and on current plans this will change to HMS Albion in late 2016 when Bulwark enters a refit period. Royal Fleet Auxiliary The final changes affect the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The White Paper said that there would be a fleet of resupply and refuelling vessels scaled to meet the Royal Navy's requirements. With a smaller surface fleet these requirements are correspondingly lower, and hence we have decided to withdraw from service the Auxiliary Oiler RFA Bayleaf and the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessel RFA Fort George from April 2011. Additionally the Bay-Class amphibious support ship RFA Largs Bay will be withdrawn from service in April 2011. [CV32: RFA Largs Bay was only commissioned four years ago!]

You're very welcome.

Done. In several flavours.

It was a good addition. "Sacrificial lambs" are a useful scenario writing tool, particularly if you can use them to set a tone or atmosphere of tension, and maybe throw the player off his game or at least erode his confidence. I don't mind being 'mean' in a scenario at all.

A new version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Cold War' Database (HCCW-101216) is now available. Get it in the Downloads section of the HarpGamer website. New additions include: Aircraft: ASH-3D Sea King - Italy Belfast C.1 - UK Buccaneer S.1 - UK Buccaneer S.2 - UK Buccaneer S.2A - UK Buccaneer S.2B - UK Buccaneer S.2C - UK Buccaneer S.2D - UK C-54 Skymaster - USA C-131F Samaritan - USA C-141A Starlifter - USA Canberra PR.9 - UK CH-3C Jolly Green - USA CH-46D Sea Knight - USA CH-47B Chinook - USA CH-47C Chinook - USA CH-53D Sea Stallion - USA CH-54A/B Tarhe - USA CH-124 Sea King - Canada Commando Mk 1 - Egypt Commando Mk 2 - Egypt Dragonfly HR.5 - UK Gannet AEW.3 - UK Gannet AS.1 - UK Gannet AS.4 - UK Gannet COD.4 - UK Gazelle AH.1 - UK QH-50A/B DASH - USA QH-50C DASH - USA OH-13 Sioux - USA S-2E Tracker - USA S-2F Tracker - USA S-3A Viking - USA Sea King HAS.1 - UK Sea King Mk 41 - FRG Sea King Mk 50 - Australia SH-2F Seasprite - USA SH-3A Sea King - USA SH-3D Sea King - USA TF-9J Cougar - USA UH-1B Iroquois - USA UH-1F Iroquois - USA UH-1H Iroquois - USA UH-1P Green Hornet - USA UH-2 Seasprite - USA Wessex HAS.1 - UK Wessex HAS.3 - UK Wessex HAS.31 - Australia Wessex HAS.31B - Australia Wessex HC.2 - UK Wessex HU.5 - UK Whirlwind HAR.5 - UK Whirlwind HAS.7 - UK Ships: Albion (1962) CV - UK Ark Royal (1959) CV - UK Ark Royal (1964) CV - UK Ark Royal (1970) CV - UK Bulwark (1960) CV - UK Centaur (1961) CV - UK Centaur (1963) CV - UK Eagle (1964) CV - UK Hermes (1959) CV - UK Hermes (1966) CV - UK Hermes (1973) CV - UK Victorious (1958) CV - UK Victorious (1963) CV - UK Enjoy.

Deep sound channel acoustic propagation.

A new version of the HCDA database, the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Americas' Database (HCDA-101215), is now available. It is available in the Downloads section of this website. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: B767-200ER - Colombia Cheetah C - Ecuador Ships/MLUs: Arce (Balsam) OPV - El Salvador Bahamas PG - Bahamas Cape Roger OPV - Canada Chang (Cape) PG - Costa Rica Cabo Blanco PG - Costa Rica Dauntless PG - Antigua Dauntless PG - Bahamas Dauntless PG - Cayman Islands Dauntless PG - Dominica Dangriga (Wasp) PG - Belize Isla del Coco PG - Costa Rica LCM-8 LCM - El Salvador Leonard J. Cowley OPV - Canada Liberta (US 65 ft) PG - Antigua M160 PG - Anguilla Marlin (103 ft) PG - Bahamas Melville PG - Dominica Orca PG - Canada PM-10 (US 65) PG - El Salvador PM-11 (US 77) PG - El Salvador PM-12 (Point) PG - El Salvador Protector PG - Bahamas Protector PG - El Salvador Quest (1996) AGOR - Canada Santamaria (Point) PG - Costa Rica Sir Wilfred Grenfell OPV - Canada Sturrup (Cape) PG - Bahamas Enjoy!

Yeah, I'm aware of the different designations and capabilities, but since the RAF Typhoon was created in a single entry, with both air to air and air to ground capabilities, it will be very problematic to divide them now into separate entries because of the potential for negative effects on folks' scenarios.

I think the huge DP values might be the criticals at work. You see them fairly often when sinking submarines. Nice one.

Thanks for the chuckle. I purposely translated the pre-existing Su-33 entry into the more advanced Su-33M so there would be minimal impact on older scenarios. Absolutely, but lacking really decent data right now. Anything you can dig up would of course be appreciated.

Sounds like NATO elected to use the Doomsday device without warning. I'm enjoying the running record, btw.

A new version of the official Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) Database (HCDB-101213) is now available. Get the new DB in the Downloads section. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: Su-33 Flanker D - Russia Su-33M Flanker D - Russia Su-33MK Flanker D - PRC Mobile Land Units (MLUs): BM25 Musudan Bty - North Korea DH-10 Bty - PRC Enjoy.

Okay, here's what I have done (and which will appear in the next update): The existing Su-33 entry has been reworked to reflect the upgraded Su-33M. Two new entries have been added to reflect the (very) basic Su-33 and a hypothetical Su-33MK for the Chinese. Still no air to mud stuff, but the loadouts have been revamped generally and I have added antiship and anti-radar flavours of the AS-17 Krypton (Kh-31A/P).

I will be reworking the Su-33 entry, using updated Harpoon4 data now available. (This is necessary from time to time, as old entries work with what was known at the time they were created). There won't be any air to mud loadouts, because for one, apparently the AV-MF hasn't acquired any for the Su-33. I will keep the hypothetical anti-ship loadout(s), but these will be reworked too. And, in future, please use the dedicated HCBD thread for these kinds of requests. It makes it much easier for me to track changes. Please and thank you.

Haven't reworked the Su-33 entry in quite a while, but the maximum loadout should be 12 missiles, typically comprising 4x AA-11, 2x AA-10 Alamo D and 6x AA-10 Alamo C. I will amend this for the next version. If you have scens in the pipe, I can do that sooner rather than later.

Attained victory with 1:23:45 to go. Lost the patrol ship Mersey early on, but she was caught under enemy air cover at game start and did not have much of a chance. Not long thereafter, lost the Forbin class Chevalier Paul early on to a torpedo from a Scorpene class submarine, which really hurt but I moved the de Gaulle in behind the Prince of Wales group to take advantage of the latter's air defense envelope and this worked out. Rubis managed to close the distance with the Vikramaditya group, and put her torpedoes to good use against the carrier and escorts. Lost a couple of helicopters to air raids out of Gan, but other than a couple of Super Hornets dropped by enemy SAMs (due to my inattention more than anything), no other losses. Fun scenario. Thanks for putting it together!

Well, that makes me feel old. Thanks! Congrats on the release of Persian Incursion. Looks good! There was a little bit of promotion here back in March.

Wouldn't necessarily be wrong for a whole host of 'man in the loop' weaponry, but difficult to control against non-valid detections and obviously not what we were looking for.

My vote is for HMS Furious, both to honour that old girl and to relay some of the sentiment that must be felt in the RN these days.

I have to admit to having difficulty following most of that, Enrique, but I have these concerns with changing the current approach: 1. Sinking a carrier when you were supposed to sink a destroyer might, in theory, seem a bonus but it could have catastrophic results. Perhaps results never intended by the scenario author. Here's a hypothetical. Suppose, for example, that a DPRK midget submarine sank a US Navy carrier instead of the corvette Cheonan. Pyongyang might have reasoned (in their own bizarre way) that sinking a corvette would achieve certain political means. Sinking a USN carrier, however, although perhaps worthy of much greater 'glory', might inevitably bring war to the DPRK, lead to a toppling of the regime, and put an end to the DPRK altogether. Not exactly desirable. My point is that achieving a technically greater result (whether measured in tonnage, etc) is not necessarily a 'win'. 2. Putting Minimum Victory as a requirement before Total Victory leaves the proper arrangement of the victory conditions, so as to avoid nullities and nonsensical results, in the hands of the scenario author. Where it should be. 3. Changing the current approach might wreak havoc with the countless scenarios already written and produced.