CV32

I think the Sango (Shark) submarine theory is probably more likely than the suicide attack. Moreover, if it was a torpedo, the Chinese Yu-3 does seem to fit the bill, as some are postulating. It has the appropriate size warhead (around 205 kg) and influence fuzing (rather than impact). Its passive acoustic homing guidance system doesn't make it a great choice for shallow waters like these (only 20-40 meters deep by all accounts), but I suppose it doesn't rule it out either. Though its a rather cold and calculating way to look at it, I have to give some credit to the DPRK if they actually were able to pull this off. They got in, did the job (nasty as it was), and apparently got away clean.

From Stratfor Video (via YouTube):

A good host of photos of the raised bow section of the Cheonan can be found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499651/posts Good discussions at IRC lately about this whole affair, btw.

Another outlandish suggestion. Unitset EC2003 GIUK/Atlantic and HCDB Location North Atlantic Backstory Something related to the disappearance (and then re-appearance) of the MV Arctic Sea last summer. Blueforces A multinational force trying to find the Arctic Sea. Redforces The "hijackers" and whatever national entity was behind its disappearance, presumably. Mission objectives/ai waypoints considerations Find and stop the Arctic Sea!

My outlandish suggestion. Unitset Not sure what you mean here. Location Mideast (definitely needs more scenarios to fill it out) Backstory Iran invites Israel to a knock down, drag out grudge match in the Persian Gulf to settle the score once and for all. Israel sends a naval armada to teach Iran a lesson. Blueforces Israel Redforces Iran Mission objectives/ai waypoints considerations Israeli naval armada must transit down through the Red Sea, through the IO, through the Strait of Hormuz, and up through the Persian Gulf to kick butt at Bushehr.

Ditto. Interesting to see the 'newish' armored vehicles being used too.

From Yahoo News Torpedo blast likely sank warship: SKorea minister By HYUNG-JIN KIM, Associated Press Writer Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 49 mins ago SEOUL, South Korea – An explosion caused by a torpedo likely tore apart and sank a South Korean warship near the North Korean border, Seoul's defense minister said Sunday, while declining to assign blame for the blast as suspicion increasingly falls on Pyongyang. Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said an underwater explosion appeared to have ripped apart the vessel, and a torpedo blast seemed the most likely cause. Investigators who examined salvaged wreckage separately announced Sunday that a close-range, external explosion likely sank it. "Basically, I think the bubble jet effect caused by a heavy torpedo is the most likely" cause, Kim told reporters. The bubble jet effect refers to the rapidly expanding bubble an underwater blast creates and the subsequent destructive column of water unleashed. Kim, however, did not speculate on who may have fired the weapon and said an investigation was ongoing and it's still too early to determine the cause. Soon after the disaster, Kim told lawmakers that a North Korean torpedo was one of the likely scenarios, but the government has been careful not to blame the North outright, and Pyongyang has denied its involvement. As investigations have pointed to an external explosion as the cause of the sinking, however, suspicion of the North has grown, given the country's history of provocation and attacks on the South. The Cheonan was on a routine patrol on March 26 when the unexplained explosion split it in two in one of South Korea's worst naval disasters. Forty bodies have been recovered so far, but six crew members are still unaccounted for and are presumed dead. The site of the sinking is near where the rival Koreas fought three times since 1999, most recently a November clash that left one North Korean soldier dead and three others wounded. The two Koreas are still technically at war because their 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. Also Sunday, investigators said a preliminary investigation of the front part of the 1,200-ton ship — retrieved the day before — pointed to an external explosion. Chief investigator Yoon Duk-yong told reporters that an inspection of the hull pointed to an underwater explosion. He appeared to support the bubble jet effect theory, saying, "It is highly likely that a non-contact explosion was the case rather than a contact explosion." But he, too, said it was too early to determine what caused the explosion. Earlier Sunday, Prime Minister Chung Un-chan said South Korea will take "stern" action against whoever was behind the explosion as the country started a five-day funeral for the 46 dead and missing sailors. Makeshift alters were set up in Seoul and other major cities to allow citizens to pay their respect. "We will remember all of you in the name of the Republic of Korea to let you keep alive in our hearts," said Chung, clad in a black suit and tie. The 46 sailors will be promoted by one rank and awarded posthumous medals, he said. In Pyongyang, the North marked the 78th anniversary of the founding of the country's military Sunday with a vow to "mercilessly" punish any hostile moves by "the imperialist enemies," a term it uses when referring to the U.S. Pyongyang routinely accuses the U.S. of plotting to invade the North, despite the repeated denials by Washington. "If the imperialist enemies intrude into" the North's territory, "its army will beat them back at a stroke by mercilessly showering bombs and shells on them," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in an editorial carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. It didn't mention the ship sinking.

From Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Russian Nuclear Forces, 2010 (PDF)

From Chosun Ilbo Military Increasingly Convinced of N.Korean Sub Attack Military officials and experts believe that if a North Korean torpedo was involved in the sinking of the South Korean Navy corvette Cheonan, it was probably launched from a 325-ton Shark-class submarine. The sub ranks between a full-blown submarine and a mini-sub in terms of size. South Korean military intelligence are reportedly focusing on the fact that one or two Shark-class submarines from a submarine base in Cape Bipagot, South Hwanghae Province are unaccounted for during the time of the Cheonan's sinking. The Bipagot submarine base is around 80 km from Baeknyeong Island. Shark-class submarines can travel at speeds of 13 km/h under water, so it would take them between six and seven hours to reach Baeknyeong Island. Intelligence officers and experts believe the sub made the trip under water, since traveling on the surface of the water would have exposed it to South Korean and U.S. spy planes and surveillance satellites. A drawback of the Shark-class diesel-powered submarines is that they need to surface regularly to recharge their batteries and ventilate, a process known as "snorkeling." During this process, the ventilation device can be detected by radar and other surveillance equipment. "The snorkeling equipment is not big, so there is a slim chance that it was detected by South Korean radars while the sub was in North Korean waters," said one source. The military believes a North Korean sub could have approached by taking a detour through open seas left of Baeknyeong Island, instead of coming in straight between Hwanghae Province and Baeknyeong Island. That is because the underwater currents are extremely fast in that area and it is closely monitored by South Korean forces. There is also the possibility that a sub could have drifted into waters near Baeknyeong Island with its engines shut off. "Between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. on March 26, the day the Cheonan sank, the currents flowed north to south and shifted direction from south to north after 9:40 p.m.," said military expert Kim Byung-ki. "There is the possibility that a North Korean sub was lying in wait and used the northerly current to return to North Korea after the attack." Once it infiltrated waters near Baeknyeong Island, it could have fired a torpedo around 1 km to 2 km away from the Cheonan in deeper waters. And a mid-sized torpedo, weighing more than 200 kg rather than a small one weighing between 50 kg to 80 kg, is being cited as the probable weapon, judging from the huge damage the Cheonan suffered. A lingering question is why the Cheonan's radar system was unable to detect a torpedo attack, if that was indeed the cause of the sinking. The Defense Ministry says the sonar aboard a South Korean warship like the Cheonan has a 70-percent chance of detecting submarines or semi-submersibles around a 2 km radius. But retired naval commanders say the chances are actually only 50 percent, so sonar officers could have been unaware of an approaching torpedo.

From Chosun Ilbo 'Human Torpedoes' Are the North's Secret Naval Weapon South Korean military officials are said to be focusing their attention on "human torpedoes" deployed by North Korea military after testimony by defectors that could link them to the sinking of the Navy corvette Cheonan on March 26. Human torpedoes trace their origins to the Japanese underwater suicide bombers known as "kaiten" who were put into action at the end of World War II. North Korea's human torpedo units belong to the 17th Sniper Corps and are deployed in both the East and West seas at the brigade level. The units are made up of elite soldiers, just like South Korea's UDT/SEAL teams, and were fed very well even when the rest of North Korea's people were starving due to economic hardships, according to defectors. Jang Jin-sung, a North Korean poet who defected to South Korea, wrote recently on his blog that the human torpedo units "are treated better than submarine crew and their training centers around suicide bombing attacks." North Korea reportedly formed such squads in each branch of the military after leader Kim Jong-il said during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that no military in the world can defeat an army that can carry out suicide bombings. But the human torpedoes not only use suicide bombing tactics but also launch attacks using semi-submersible vessels equipped with light torpedoes or other explosives, which are fired or placed on their intended targets at close range. The North is said to have come up with the human torpedoes after its defeat by South Korea in the first and second naval battles in the West Sea, which forced it to realize that it cannot win by conventional means. Park Sun-young, a lawmaker with the Liberty Forward Party, told the National Assembly on April 8 a three-man team aboard a Seal Deliver Vehicle could have sunk the Cheonan. SDVs are used to transport commandos under water. Some military experts say an SDV laden with explosives could have approached the Cheonan to launch a suicide bomb attack. But that is far from certain. Many experts say it would have been difficult to launch a human torpedo attack on the ship, considering the depth, speed of the underwater current and the heights of waves at the site of the tragedy. "SDVs are very slow and there is a low possibility that such vessels were used in an attack," Defense Minister Kim Tae-young told lawmakers earlier this month.

Chatted about this with TonyE briefly on IRC. He reminded me that it is the offensive ATA rating that is important in air to air gunnery, rather than the Gun Atk values. See the dogfight rules under 6.3.3.3.

The rule is for datalink controlled weapons. The AGM-65 Maverick is not such a weapon. I wouldn't say the rules are badly written - quite the opposite - but as with many things in life, there are exceptions to every rule. Depends on how much realism you're going for. The versions of Maverick are distributed among the services - USAF, USMC, Navy. Obviously the A-10 isn't typically going to be carrying USMC or Navy weapons. In this case, the laser spot tracker is the Pave Penny. Aboard another aircraft type, it could be another system. It is not a radar, and yeah, the A-10 does not have a radar. It was developed for the low and slow visual battle - where a radar would not have been particularly useful and well, the technology of the time did not suit the mission. There is more at play here than simply the weapon's brute force firepower, such as the aircraft's own maneuverability in air to air combat. Someone more familiar with the air to air gunnery rules can speak to that.

CV32: It gets better. From DefenseNews South Korean Navy Grounds Lynx Helos By JUNG SUNG-KI Published: 20 Apr 2010 16:41 SEOUL - The South Korean Navy has suspended its fleet of Lynx anti-submarine helicopters following the back-to-back crashes of two of them last week. The service ordered emergency safety inspections of the British helicopters, a Navy official said April 19. Investigators are looking into the cause of the crashes at the same time, he said. The Navy had operated 25 Lynx helicopters modified for anti-submarine and surface warfare. The first batch of 12 Mk.99 Lynx helicopters was delivered to the service in 1990, and the second batch of 13 Mk.99A Super Lynx helicopters in 1999. Possible causes include an engine problem and pilot fatigue, said the official. The export variants for South Korea are powered by two Rolls-Royce Gem 42-1 engines, whose production was halted years ago. The Navy therefore has had difficulty supplying the Gem engines but managed to secure used engines from the Royal Navy, he said. "Investigators are looking into all possible causes of the crashes, including an engine problem, but nothing has been confirmed," the spokesman said. Alexander W. Jun, regional director of Rolls-Royce Korea, said, "It's true that the production of the Gem engine has been suspended, but there was not much difficulty in supplying the ROK Navy with the engine." On April 15, a Lynx crashed off the country's southwest coast, leaving one pilot dead and three other crew members missing. The helicopter disappeared from radar at 8:53 p.m. after losing contact with its fleet command while patrolling 15 kilometers off the coast, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The JCS denied an allegation that the Lynx had been responding to an invasion by a North Korean submarine. "The helicopter was on a routine nighttime mission," JCS spokesman Col. Park Sung-woo said. The incident occurred as the country's military was being placed on a high alert following the sinking of one of its warships in waters off the disputed sea border with North Korea. The 1,200-ton corvette Cheonan, with 104 crew members on board, went down after an unexplained explosion. Fifty-eight sailors were rescued before the ship sank, but 46 others were missing. The bodies of 38 sailors have been recovered while eight others remain missing. A joint investigation team involving civil and military experts is probing into the cause of the sinking, with more evidence suggesting an external impact caused by a torpedo attack or a mine explosion. The other Lynx crashed at 22:13 p.m. April 17 in waters off the west coast on its way back to a destroyer after chasing "unidentified targets" near an island off the sea border, the JCS said. The targets were later confirmed as a group of birds, it said in a news release. The helicopter made an emergency landing and the three pilots aboard were rescued, said the release. The helicopter was largely undamaged and was later retrieved, it said.

From DefenseNews Report: N. Korean Torpedo Sank S. Korean Warship AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 21 Apr 2010 06:00 SEOUL, South Korea - North Korean soldiers believe a South Korean warship which sunk last month was hit in a premeditated military operation approved by leader Kim Jong-Il, a South Korean activist said April 21. "Despite Pyongyang's denial, many North Korean soldiers believe a torpedo sank the ship," Choi Sung-Yong, a campaigner for the return of South Koreans abducted by Pyongyang, told AFP. He said his claim was based on a telephone conversation with an unnamed North Korean army officer. South Korean officials refused to comment. The sinking of the 1,200-ton Cheonan on the tense maritime border killed 46 sailors and suspicions are hanging over North Korea, although Seoul has not directly accused Pyongyang. South Korean officials say an "external explosion" was the most likely cause, while Pyongyang has accused Seoul of seeking to shift the blame in order to justify its hard-line policy toward its communist neighbor. "I heard the ship was sunk in a premeditated operation approved by Kim Jong-Il," Choi said. The officer said Kim gave an order to exact revenge for a sea skirmish last November, Choi added. Choi said 13 commandos using a small submarine appeared to have launched a torpedo attack. South Kprea's defense minister has raised the possibility that a mine or torpedo may have sank the ship March 26 near the disputed sea border, the scene of deadly naval clashes in 1999 and 2002, and the November firefight. The November incident left a North Korean patrol boat in flames, and local media reports said one North Korean sailor was killed and three wounded. North Korea has vowed to take "merciless" military action to protect its own version of the Yellow Sea border.

From Defense Aerospace EADS North America Intends to Submit Proposal for U.S. Air Force Tanker (Source: EADS North America; issued April 20, 2010) ARLINGTON, Virginia --- EADS North America announced today that it intends to submit a proposal on July 9, 2010 for the U.S. Air Force’s tanker modernization program and will offer the KC-45 – the most capable, American-built solution that is flown, proven and in production now. EADS North America is progressing in discussions with potential U.S. partners to build a winning team in order to provide the most capable, best value solution to the Air Force. The KC-45 is the only aircraft flying today that meets the U.S. Air Force’s tanker requirements as outlined in its KC-X Request for Proposal (RFP). The KC-45 builds on the EADS-based tanker that was previously selected in 2008 by the Department of Defense and that has won the last five consecutive tanker competitions worldwide. “We will offer a modern, more capable tanker in response to the Defense Department’s decision to encourage competition for this major taxpayer investment,” said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. “Our KC-45 is the only real, flying, low-risk solution that today meets the demanding Air Force air refueling requirements and is actually in production now. That fact is critical because our warfighters deserve a true best value solution.” EADS North America will build and modify the KC-45, along with A330 commercial freighters, at an EADS North America/Airbus production facility to be constructed in Mobile, Alabama. The KC-45 program and aircraft production/modification center will create and support tens of thousands of high-value American jobs while making a long-term investment in the nation’s economy at a time when other aerospace companies are outsourcing production overseas. “This tanker competition is all about the warfighter and the aircraft that most successfully meets their requirements. The KC-45 offers what the Air Force needs today: a modern military tanker that is in production now with deliveries beginning this year,” said Sean O’Keefe, EADS North America Chief Executive Officer. “Not only does the KC-45 offer the best value and a huge capability advantage over the competition, it also will support tens of thousands of jobs across America by expanding our nation’s industrial aerospace capacity.” The KC-45 is the U.S. military version of the proven A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT). To date 28 aircraft have been ordered by four U.S. allies. The MRTT has transferred more than 265,000 lbs. of fuel to a range of military aircraft – from F-16 and F/A-18 fighters to the E-3 AWACS – using the same refueling systems offered on the KC-45. “Our aircraft has demonstrated its unparalleled capability by refueling a variety of military aircraft utilizing both boom and hose and drogue systems, as well as by operating in the receiving position. That’s a statement our competition can’t make,” said Crosby. The Royal Australian Air Force will receive the first A330 MRTTs later this year. Additional aircraft are in production or undergoing mission-equipment outfitting for the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. “We’re progressing forward in discussions to expand the ranks of our nearly 200 current U.S. suppliers, some of which are joining us for today’s announcement,” continued O’Keefe. At the heart of the KC-45 is the most capable aerial refueling system operating today. The aircraft’s fly-by-wire Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) has a demonstrated fuel offload rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute – the only system which meets the U.S. Air Force’s requirements without further modification. The system’s proven all-electric fly-by-wire technology ensures enhanced controllability and safety that greatly aids the boom operator and receiver aircraft's pilot. The KC-45 also carries an all-digital hose and drogue system for probe-equipped aircraft. The under-wing refueling pods are the most modern in service today, with the capability to deliver up to 420 gallons of fuel per minute through 90-ft.-long hoses at refueling speeds from 180 to 325 knots. The KC-45 will also feature a modern fuselage refueling unit, common with that of allied MRTT users such as the United Kingdom. EADS North America is the North American operation of EADS, a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. As a leader in all sectors of defense and homeland security, EADS North America and its parent company, EADS, contribute over $11 billion to the U.S. economy annually and support more than 200,000 American jobs through its network of suppliers and services. Operating in 17 states, EADS North America offers a broad array of advanced solutions to its customers in the commercial, homeland security, aerospace and defense markets. (ends) (EDITOR’S NOTE: Speaking to reporters in Paris, EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois said on Wednesday that finding a major industrial partner in the U.S. to make certain, classified parts of the tanker, and to install them, “is an indispensable element” of the company’s bid. “We are talking with certain companies to play this role of partner,” he said, but EADS would remain the prime contractor.) ** EADS Plans to Bid for Tanker Contract (Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; issued April 20, 2010) The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company has relaunched its bid to supply the US Air Force with new aerial refueling tankers. Rival Boeing says a win by EADS will cost Americans jobs. European aerospace giant EADS plans to compete with American rival Boeing to bid on a $35 billion (26.1 billion euro) deal to supply the US Air Force with new aerial refueling tankers. "This is a hell of an opportunity," said Ralph Crosby, chairman of EADS North America, at a press conference in Washington DC on Tuesday. Crosby said EADS felt "almost compelled" to enter the competition to offer its A330-based tanker, which it feels is superior to Boeing's 767-based tanker. "When you've got the best, you've got to offer it," he said. EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) will now bid as the prime contractor for the project. Its US partner Northrop Grumman dropped out six weeks ago, amid complaints that Washington was engaging in protectionism that favored Boeing. Northrop and EADS won a previous US tanker contract in 2008, but the Pentagon canceled the deal after government auditors upheld a protest by Boeing that said errors were made in the bid process. Bidding reopened earlier this year, and the competing companies now have until July 9 to submit their bids. Boeing backers Boeing supporters in Congress criticized the Pentagon for extending the deadline, despite a recent report from the World Trade Organization that pointed out that EADS benefited from government subsidies for its airplanes. "It means we are bending over backwards to include a company that has broken the rules of fair play," said Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, where Boeing would build the 179 airplanes. Critics also said an EADS contract would end up costing more, both in terms of maintenance costs for the aircraft and American jobs. Crosby, however, stressed that EADS remained committed to building the planes in the United States, creating tens of thousands of jobs across the country. He added that they were working with its more than 200 suppliers to lower the maintenance costs. The Pentagon welcomed the renewed competition for the tanker replacement program, and said it expected to decide on a winner by "early fall." ** Boeing Statement on EADS' Decision to Enter KC-X Tanker Competition (Source: Boeing Co.; issued April 20, 2010) ST. LOUIS --- The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), parent company of Airbus, today announced that it will re-enter the competition for the U.S. Air Force KC-X Tanker contract through its subsidiary, EADS North America. The Air Force has said that EADS' announcement of intent will extend the proposal deadline by 60 days, from May 10 to July 9. The Boeing Company responded with the following statement: "From the outset, Boeing has been 100 percent focused on responding to the needs of our Air Force customer and preparing a competitive proposal. Only Boeing can produce a tanker that will meet the Air Force's 372 requirements and promise delivery of a combat-ready, safe and survivable tanker that is the most capable for the warfighter, the lowest cost for the taxpayer, and backed by Boeing's proven U.S. work force. We are confident in the superior value and capabilities of our NewGen Tanker and intend to present a compelling case for it in our proposal. "While we are disappointed in the bid submission delay, we hope for a fair and transparent competition free of any additional changes intended to accommodate a non-U.S. prime contractor. "We also remain deeply concerned about the ability of a heavily subsidized Airbus/EADS to accept levels of financial risk that a commercial company such as Boeing cannot. We regret that these concerns will not be addressed in the bid evaluation, even when the U.S. government has proven in a world court that those subsidies are illegal and directly distort competition between Airbus and Boeing." The Boeing NewGen Tanker will meet all 372 requirements set forth by the Air Force in its search for a medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135 fleet. It will be a widebody, multi-mission aircraft based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial aircraft, updated with the latest and most advanced technology. And it will provide more fuel and more cargo to more warfighters in combat. Boeing will build the NewGen Tanker with a low-risk approach to manufacturing that relies on existing Boeing facilities in Washington state and Kansas as well as U.S. suppliers throughout the nation, with decades of experience delivering dependable military tanker and derivative aircraft. Nationwide, the NewGen Tanker program will support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs with Boeing and more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states. The Boeing NewGen Tanker also will save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it is 24 percent more fuel-efficient than the Airbus A330. It will cost 15 to 20 percent less to maintain, saving hundreds of millions of dollars over its service life. More information on Boeing's NewGen Tanker, including video clips and an interactive tour of the aircraft, is available at www.UnitedStatesTanker.com.

It depends on the version of Maverick (there are several), but the EO and IIR versions do not fall under the ambit of Rules 5.3.9 and 5.3.10. (This isn't spelled out very well in the rules). They are 'launch and leave' or 'fire and forget' weapons and have no datalink with the launching aircraft, and thus no need (or mechanism) for operator control. I guess in H4 terms they go direct to terminal guidance mode without passing Go and without collecting $200. The pilot uses the weapon seeker to select a target, centers the crosshairs, locks the target and shoots the missile. No further intervention required. So, in theory, the A-10 could shoot Mavericks as quickly as he can find, choose and fire on targets. The only Maverick version where ground forces might become involved in the process would be the laser guided AGM-65E. Since there is no active 'control' of the actual missile, they would simply be involved in laser designating a target for the missile. (Note that the AGM-65E is a USMC weapon). This is the AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny system. Its essentially the same as a marked target seeker without the built in laser rangefinder. See page 4-18. (This is the tool for finding and attacking those targets marked by laser by other forces, such as the ground forces above). Doesn't the GAU-8 have a relatively low ATA rating compared to traditional air-to-air guns like the M61 Vulcan?

From DefenseNews S. Korea Leader Vows Resolute Response to Sinking By JUN KWANWOO, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 19 Apr 2010 13:23 SEOUL - South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak vowed April 19 a "resolute" response to the sinking of a warship last month after North Korea broke weeks of silence to angrily deny involvement in the disaster. However, efforts to salvage the still-submerged bow of the ship hit a snag when one of the chains lifting it from the Yellow Sea snapped because of high waves and strong currents, the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. South Korean officials say an external explosion caused the March 26 sinking of the 1,200-ton corvette, which killed 46 sailors in the nation's deadliest peacetime naval tragedy. "I, as president, will find out the cause of the Cheonan's sinking in full and in detail," Lee said in an emotional speech on public radio. "I will deal with the results in an unwavering and resolute way, and make sure that such an incident will never recur." Tearfully reciting the names of all the perished sailors, Lee said: "Your fatherland, which you loved, will never forget you." South Korea has not directly blamed the communist North for the sinking near their tense maritime border. But on April 18, Foreign Minister Yu Myung-Hwan said the UN Security Council could become involved if Pyongyang is found to have played a role. Defense Minister Kim Tae-Young has raised the possibility that a mine or torpedo may have hit the Cheonan. But after weeks of silence, the North's official news agency KCNA said April 17 "the South's puppet military and right-wing conservative politicians are now making a foolish attempt to link the tragedy to us". "The reason that the South's puppets are claiming the North's involvement is also linked to their foolish efforts to put pressure on us, even by stirring up international opinion in favor of sanctions," KCNA said. Yoon Duk-Yong, co-head of the South's investigation team, said April 16 that the warship appeared to have received a powerful impact on the port side, where steel plate was curved inwards. He ruled out an onboard blast or a shipwreck. Seoul has launched an international investigation involving U.S., Australian and Swedish experts in a bid to ensure the eventual findings cannot be disputed. Navy officials said the investigators were at a naval base south of Seoul, looking into the Cheonan's recovered stern and debris for more clues. "Up to now, no other debris - except the warship wreckage - have been found," Seoul's defense ministry spokesman Won Tae-Jae said April 19. However, salvage operations were hampered when one of three chains around the bow of the ship snapped April 18, officials said. "It appears the chain could not withstand the tension from high waves," naval officer Park Sung-woo said. An expanded 12-strong U.S. team of experts led by Rear Adm. Thomas J. Eccles were joining the investigation at the naval base in Pyeongtake, 70 kilometers (40 miles) south of Seoul, the defense ministry said. It said the U.S. team included three experts who had investigated the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole destroyer in Yemen. Analysts have said the incident could harm diplomatic efforts aimed at persuading North Korea back to six-party nuclear disarmament talks that the communist state quit a year ago. The Yellow Sea border was the scene of deadly naval clashes between the North and South in 1999 and 2002 and of a firefight last November that left a North Korean patrol boat in flames.

Alleged S-300 SAM system paraded at Iran's Army Day parade on April 19, 2010. Apparently faked by oil drums welded together atop a Babr series tank carrier. Stealth aircraft concept: And, not to be outdone by SAMs and stealth fighters, here are some high mobility anti-armor assault teams :

From BBC News Page last updated at 06:14 GMT, Saturday, 17 April 2010 07:14 UK North Korea denies sinking South's warship North Korea has denied sinking a South Korean warship near their disputed maritime border last month. "As South Korea can't identify the cause of the accident, they are using the media to attribute it to us," said a statement carried by state media. It is the first official comment by Pyongyang on the incident, in which more than 40 sailors were killed. South Korean media has has pinned the blame on the North, but official statements have been more circumspect. There has been speculation in the South that the naval vessel was hit by a North Korean torpedo. South Korean officials have also previously suggested the ship could have struck an old mine left over from the 1950-1953 Korean War. North Korea accused the South of "a foolish attempt" to link the incident to Pyongyang, said an official statement published by the Korean Central News Agency. Fifty-eight crew survived, but 46 sailors died in the incident on 26 March. Salvage workers found 36 bodies in the shattered hull of the Cheonan, a 1,200-tonne navy gunboat. Two more bodies were recovered earlier, and another eight sailors remain unaccounted for. The bow section of the vessel is due to be raised in about a week's time. The Cheonan sank close to the sea border which marks North and South Korean territorial waters. The North does not accept the maritime border, known as the Northern Limit Line, which was drawn unilaterally by the US-led United Nations Command at the end of the Korean War. The sea border has been the scene of deadly clashes between the navies of the two Koreas in the past.

From Korea Times 04-15-2010 17:15 External Impact Likely Cause of Ship Sinking By Lee Tae-hoon Staff Reporter Experts said Thursday a powerful external explosion is the likely cause of the sinking of the naval ship Cheonan in the West Sea as the broken section of its stern part appears to have been ripped apart and the severed edges appear badly damaged. They said the explosion seems to have occurred underwater, below the 1,200-ton warship, as the upper metal structure of the warship was bent upward by a ``bubble jet`` effect. They said the possibility of a metal fatigue fracture or an implosion is slim, claiming that the ship appears to have been torn into two parts as a result of a torpedo or a sea mine exploding underwater. Analysts agreed that an internal blast is an unlikely cause, given that most of the weapons on the frigate, including 76mm and 40mm guns under which ammunition is stored, remain intact. Military authorities say they are keeping all options open and have also ruled out the possibility of a metal fatigue fracture, saying if that were the cause, the vessel would have split more evenly in two, rather than been torn apart. . Military officials have urged people not to make rash judgments as a joint investigation team of civilian, military and multinational experts are analyzing the wreck to verify the exact cause of the tragedy. Navy ships equipped with sonar and underwater camera systems have been searching for debris from the Cheonan and shrapnel from the explosion to identify the type of weapons detonated. International experts ― eight from the United States and three from Australia ― have arrived to contribute to the investigations to ensure transparency and objectivity. As the possibility of an external explosion is high, the hypothesis of Pyongyang's involvement in the maritime disaster is gaining momentum. Earlier, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said in a National Assembly session that a torpedo could have caused the blast, though all possibilities needed to be considered. Some say an explosion from a mine placed either by South or North Korea during the 1950-53 Korean War or one that floated down from the North could also have been the cause. The communist North has made no official comment on the incident.

Military Capabilities for Hybrid War: Insights from the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon and Gaza (PDF)

Bummer.

From CNN South Korea raises sunken naval ship By the CNN Wire Staff April 15, 2010 1:32 p.m. EDT Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- South Korea raised a naval ship from the floor of the Yellow Sea that sank under mysterious circumstances last month, Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Thursday. The bodies of at least 25 of the 45 missing sailors believed to be in the hull of the navy corvette Cheonan were found in the hours after it was raised, Yonhap reported. Officials hope the wreckage will provide clues to what caused the ship to break in two after an explosion near the maritime border with North Korea on March 26. The recovery operation was carried live by South Korean television. A crane lifted the ship from the water and place it on a barge, where officials began their search for the missing sailors. The ship will be taken to a naval base for investigation. Soon after the ship sank, 58 men were rescued. But a weeklong search for dozens of missing sailors was called off on April 3 after family members asked the navy to focus on raising the ship. Naval experts quoted in Korean media had surmised that men trapped underwater could only remain alive for 60 to 70 hours, but many hoped some sailors would still be alive. One of the navy's most experienced divers died while attempting to enter the wreck in the hours after the ship sank. Navy Chief Master Sgt. Han Joo-ho, 53, fell unconscious after reportedly exceeding recommended times and depths under water. Two other divers were hospitalized on the same day. It is unclear whether intense public pressure contributed to the divers taking excessive risks. Family members of the missing have consistently criticized the navy for what they consider an inadequate response to the disaster. The media are rife with speculation over what caused the explosion. One theory is the ship struck a mine left from the Korean War in the 1950s. But South Korea has backed away from casting blame on North Korea. [CV32: The damage appears to be much further forward than I would have expected, given what we knew up to now (which, admittedly, wasn't much).]

I'm flexible, or at least, I am willing to be contorted to fit other folks' schedules.

If there are particular platforms you'd like to see - because you have a scenario idea, for example - then I could start work on those, and maybe push the new DB out the door sooner. In due course, I will add a thread for requests.