CV32

From DefenseNews U.S. Mulls Maritime Interdiction Off Iran By barbara opall-rome Published: 1 March 2010 TEL AVIV - The Obama administration is considering using maritime levers to ratchet up pressure on Iran, from a modest expansion of existing international interdiction initiatives to the more extreme or less likely blockade of the Arabian Sea mouth and the Gulf of Aden. Implemented unilaterally or as part of an upcoming United Nations Security Council Resolution, such moves would complement the diplomatic drive to roll back Iran's nuclear program through sanctions. A senior U.S. government official said Washington was not willing to consider - "at least at this stage" - what he termed "tripwire-type military challenges" to Tehran. Nevertheless, he confirmed that U.S.-proposed sanctions are likely to expand maneuvering room to board, inspect and interdict shipping to and from Iran. "When there's a next U.N. resolution, we're going to want to see consideration for empowering rights already provided for under international maritime laws and the PSI," or Proliferation Security Initiative, the official said Feb. 25. The official said the U.S. State Department is also intensifying efforts to conclude ship-boarding agreements with flag-of-convenience countries, another part of the effort to keep Iran from importing nonconventional, weapon-related materials and technologies or exporting missiles and other arms to its regional proxies. In addition to the PSI, a 2003 pact meant to keep weapons of mass destruction and related goods from terrorists and countries of concern, the official cited a 2005 amendment to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts (SUA) that bolstered the legal basis for acting against violators. "We're always looking to expand the interpretation and application of international law to persuade countries to exercise their rights and obligations in ways we think they should be used," the official said. When asked whether DoD was planning for heightened maritime operations in the region, a senior U.S. defense official said "we don't talk about military contingency plans, but I will tell you what you're describing sounds far fetched." For months, Israel and some Arabian Gulf states have been lobbying for more U.S. military muscle-flexing to back up the proposed sanctions, saying Tehran will change its behavior only if presented with a compelling show of force to back up diplomatic steps. "If we don't underscore our intent with some kind of serious measure, up to and including the physical cordoning of the coasts of Iran, we will have a war," said Sami Al Faraj, a retired Kuwaiti military officer and former government adviser who now consults internationally on crisis management. "There's no way for a new layer of sanctions to be imposed effectively without some sort of blockade imposed in the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman." Al Faraj, a retired special forces officer and former president of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies, said others in the Gulf have communicated similar views in various levels of intensity to Washington. "If the question is whether the Gulf Cooperation Council will come out tomorrow or even next month with public calls for blockade, the answer is no," he said. "But if you put the question to many officials and laymen in the gulf, the consensus would support such a measure as the only way for sanctions to have a chance of succeeding." Would a blockade be a casus belli or a trigger for the "grave unintended consequences" that Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, is trying to prevent? "A blockade is not a declaration of war. It is considered a belligerent act that falls just short of war," Al Faraj said. "And when you're facing a nation that doesn't abide by any rules, this is the only language Iran is going to understand." In Feb. 25-26 meetings in Washington, an Israeli source said Defense Minister Ehud Barak was less definitive, but no less resolute, in the need to bolster sanctions with manifestations of military intent. It could not be confirmed by press time whether Barak, in his Pentagon meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, specified a naval blockade as one of Israel's preferred muscle-flexing options. However, a member of the Israeli cabinet said Feb. 26 that "the issue of using the U.S. military to prevent critical imports to and exports from Iran is prominent on our agenda." The political official acknowledged internal discussions of a blockade, but could not confirm whether Barak or members of his delegation "would go as far as to spell this out for our American friends." He said, "Significant gaps remain in our positions, but we hope the latest Washington meetings and the upcoming visit of [u.S. Vice President Joseph] Biden over here will serve to narrow our differences. ... The real issue is will we have time, or will it be a matter of too little, too late." At Barak's Pentagon meeting with Gates, Mullen and other senior U.S. officials, the defense minister stressed Iran's undeterred pursuit of nuclear weapons and a unified strategic front with Syria, Lebanese-based Hizbollah and the Hamas leadership in Gaza, according to an Israeli post-meeting statement. Barak also presented updated threat assessments of Iran's nuclear and missile-related activities as well as its rearming, military training and funding of regional proxies. "At this stage, it's important to impose sharp and crippling sanctions on Iran to prevent its process toward nuclear weapons," the statement said. According to sources, in the Gates meeting as well as in a follow-on, one-on-one meeting with Mullen, Barak noted a Feb. 25 meeting in Damascus by Syrian President Bashar el-Assad, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. In televised remarks at the three-way summit in Damascus, Ahmadinejad described a "new Middle East without Zionists and without colonialists." John Bolton, the Bush administration's U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and author of the PSI, said Feb. 26 that sanctions without meaningful maritime interdiction will fail to halt or even slow Iran's nuclear weapon drive. "Given Iran's repeated and blatant violations of their legal obligations, the United States has an inherent right to self-defense," Bolton said. "This right, under the circumstances, allows us to calibrate PSI in ways that allow us, in a targeted, selected way, to achieve many of the practical effects of a blockade without actually imposing a blockade. "There's two possible outcomes: Either Iran gets nuclear weapons or somebody uses force to prevent that. Israel has given the Obama administration as much time as they could. But diplomatic outreach failed, predictably, and sanctions will also fail, predictably, and every day that passes makes it more difficult for Israel to take the decision needed to ensure its survival."

It certainly didn't look like he was going to make it.

So, who watched the 2010 Winter Olympics? I am of course happy with how it turned out for Canada, especially the men's hockey win. Great game! (Very glad it did not end in a shootout ... Miller would probably have been the death of us). Now, just a matter of paying the huge bill that goes along with these events.

Yes, we did uncover an error like that in Scenario 11 'Hot Rocks'. PAK has uploaded a revised scenario to the Issue Tracker if you would like to double check. Thanks for helping with this!

To be clear, the reference to a 'kamikaze' issue has to do with changes to permit aircraft to effectively engage with their guns, and really nothing to do with trying to model the 'kamikazes' of WWII. They are not the same.

There are probably a handful of scenarios out there set during that period, such as Thanh Hoa Bridge, but in large part that conflict (and era) has not yet been exploited. It is something I plan to remedy within the next few months.

Both are already present in the HCDB.

Unlikely in the short term.

Simply put, the principal advantages of ANW over HCE are related to its greater overall level of sophistication (though there are still some things that HCE does which ANW cannot) and the availability of multiplayer.

We're glad you are enjoying it. You can find out more about adding photos here: FAQ - adding graphics to the DB The only obstacles to adding more pictures to the official database (DB) are: 1. Securing copyright privileges with respect to the photos. 2. Finding time to edit and add them, when there is so much more needing to be done. There are no specific plans to do this, but it certainly qualifies as a 'wish list' item. (I am not sure if anyone has added this as a 'wish list' item already). More on the wish list here: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showforum=35

They should just put the wives in charge of it. They were already going to spend a fortune, anyway ...

I would have said something like "low hanging fruit".

Heh, that would be the explanation if the Mk 45 shell was set that way (which it should be) in the DB. Thanks.

We need to keep in mind that the manner in which weapons are ordered in a ship's Mounts (within the DB) will also affect which weapons fire firstly. Because of the way this works, it is my habit to put the longest ranged, most capable air defense weapons into the ship's Mounts first. In your example, the Anzac ASMD's Mounts have the 8 cell Mk 41 VLS placed firstly, so correctly the longest ranged, most capable RIM-162 ESSMs fire first. I am not sure why the 5 inch Mk 45 Mod 2 gun (which appears next in the Mounts and has better range than Mistral), did not engage next but I'm guessing it lacked sufficient range at the time the ship's Mounts were queried by the GE. There is no DB reason why the 5 inch should not have engaged. I am guessing that you ran out of time during the engagement?

Better nip this one in the bud. Changing the 'Auto' field from '0' to '1' will have no effect. Apparently the info is passed to the Game Engine (GE), but the GE doesn't utilize this data.

AvWeek has provided a PDF of a PowerPoint presentation for the final request for proposals: Tanker final RFP

I'm as flexible as players need to be. I am thinking two weeks per phase, but that potentially could be longer. There would be no "day to day" demand on your time as such.

As if you have ever been discouraged from speaking your own mind around these parts. Well, there is no 'product' as such being sold, but I think I get your point. While I have more than a sneaking suspicion that people are very busy and do not wish to make commitments they cannot keep (a look into the HCE beta testing forum will tell you that much is true), perhaps more detail is in order. Team Composition I am envisioning two teams: Team USA (aka the proverbial BLUFOR) and Team USSR (aka REDFOR), each comprised of four (4) players: 1. Player One - controls all ICBM forces 2. Player Two - controls all SLBM forces 3. Player Three - controls all strategic bomber forces 4. Player Four - the National Command Authority For each team, Players 1-3 would together control the strategic nuclear triad for their team (nation). They would also collectively make decisions about conventional force and non-strategic deployments, and more importantly, global posture. These three players would have their own subforum where they would receive their order of battle (OOB) and intelligence, and make their command decisions. Another, separate forum is for Player 4, the national command authority. This player would not have direct access to the rest of his team's deliberations, but rather he would receive a 'brief' from them. This brief would be a summary of their deliberations and a set of recommendations. The NCA would use the brief as the basis for making 'directives' to be delivered back to his team. Directives would be focused on overall national defense posture and policy rather than specific control of forces. A third type of forum would be what I call the 'Hotline'. This is where the NCA on each team can have access to his opponent opposite, with no access possible by other members of the teams and where communications between respective NCAs are 'filtered' rather than being direct communications. The 'Hotline' forum would thus contain a running record of the 'filtered' conversations between the respective NCAs, which only the NCAs and the umpires could access. NCAs would in turn pass information gained within the 'Hotline' back to their own teams through their respective 'directives'. Phases of Game Progress I have envisioned four (4) phases of game progress, encompassing the following: Phase 1: 1. Teams are given a basic set of information about their OOB, both strategic and conventional, in a broad sense. 2. Teams develop a nuclear strategy based on their own values. In other words, they 'value' their own assets (strategic forces, conventional forces, national infrastructure, cities, etc) and decide what should be targeted on their opponent's side of the equation (i.e. counter-force, counter-value, etc). They do not know for sure what their opponent 'values'. 3. Teams are offered the opportunity to pour R&D efforts in developing certain 'secret weapons', only one of which will (or rather, may) remain secret, and the other will become immediately apparent to your opponent. This might be a special strategic weapon, anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capability, better early warning, etc. Phase 2: 1. Teams receive a complete list of what strategic weapons they have at their disposal and likewise, that of their opponent (to the best of their knowledge). 2. A more detailed list of potential strategic targets is delivered to each team. 3. Working from what they know of their opponent's 'stated' nuclear strategy, which may or may not actually be accurate, teams develop an early strategic nuclear targeting plan against their opponent. Phase 3: 1. Teams receive updated, latest available information (strategic level intelligence) about their opponent's strategic forces and posture. One of the two secret programs chosen earlier by their opponent is now revealed. 2. Teams further refine their strategic nuclear targeting plan and posture based on what they have learned. Phase 4: 1. Teams adjust their conventional forces posture and in response to their opponent's own moves. The remaining secret program chosen by their opponent is revealed or not (by a die roll). 2. The main event. A crisis of global proportions pushes both sides to the brink of global thermonuclear war. All the while these phases are progressing, the timeline is advancing from 1975, with intelligence and 'news' fed to each of the teams (filtered as necessary) to influence strategic tensions and their perception of their opponent's intentions.

I would love to have more flexibility in the way ocean depths are modeled. To recap, the depths are reflected as follows: Surfaced Periscope (1-50 m) Shallow (50 m to the Layer) Intermediate (Layer to 300 m) Deep (300 to 600 m) Very deep (600+ m) For me, however, its not so much that VDeep should be further away (though this is obviously preferable in some shallow areas like the Persian Gulf, for example), but that you should be able to get a submarine (and a ship, for that matter) much closer to land than you currently are able. This would greatly improve navigability in confined waters and within archipelagos. I would like to see the depth rating 'Periscope' pushed right up to the beach. Unfortunately, modifying the depth model is a large undertaking and for now remains a "Wish List" feature.

Yes, and much, much more!

So, are you folks ... 1. Not interested in these MBX kind of wargames 2. Not interested in the subject matter 3. Need more details about this one 4. Too busy with other things in life 5. Too busy ducking and covering

From BBC News 18:53 GMT, Monday, 22 February 2010 Drilling for oil begins off the Falkland Islands A British company has begun drilling for oil in the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands, despite strong opposition from Argentina. The platform has been towed to a point 100km (62 miles) north of the UK territory in the South Atlantic. Argentina claims sovereignty over what it calls the Islas Malvinas and has imposed shipping restrictions. UK Defence Minister Bill Rammell said the government had a "legitimate right" to build an oil industry in its waters. Desire Petroleum, which is overseeing the operation, said drilling had started on the Liz 14/19-A exploration well at 1415 GMT. In a statement to the London Stock Exchange, it said: "The well is being drilled to an estimated target depth of circa 3,500 metres (11,480 feet). "Drilling operations are expected to take approximately 30 days and a further announcement will be made once drilling is completed." Mr Rammell told the House of Commons the government would take "whatever steps [were] necessary" to protect the islands and that it had made Argentina "aware of that". Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said "no amount of intimidation" from Buenos Aires could alter what was a "fundamental issue of self-determination". Argentina has threatened to take "adequate measures" to stop British oil exploration in contested waters around the islands, and is seeking support from Latin American countries at a regional meeting in Mexico. It wants its neighbours also to impose restrictions on shipping in the area. Argentina can already count on support from President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who said Britain was being irrational and had to realise the "time for empires was over". Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has called for "Britain to return the territory of the Malvinas to its real owners - to return it to Argentina" on Venezuelan Telesur television. Argentina has long claimed the islands. It invaded the Falklands in 1982, before a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel. But it has ruled out military action and is trying to pressure Britain into negotiations on sovereignty. Last year Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by the UK. It is due to raise the issue at the UN later this week. Desire Petroleum spokesman David Willie said: "Desire is an oil company and it's exploring for oil and not getting involved in what Argentina is saying about going to the UN. The rig is sitting firmly inside UK waters." He added that Argentina was beginning its own oil exploration programme in the waters west of the islands. Mr Willie said oil exploration in the Falklands was at an early stage, and even if commercially viable amounts were found it would be many years before the oil would start to flow. The platform, the Ocean Guardian, has been towed 8,000 miles from the Cromarty Firth in Scotland. Last week the Falklands Legislative Assembly, which sold the licence to explore for oil to Desire, said it had "every right" to develop "legitimate business" in hydrocarbons. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said British oil exploration in the area was "completely in accordance with international law". UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown also said the government had "made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland islanders are properly protected".

Yeah, the gun arcs of fire do not work and have not for a long time now.

From The Province Argentina rallied regional support at a summit in Mexico on Monday as a British oil rig began drilling in the disputed seas around the Falkland Islands. After losing a short but bloody war over the south Atlantic islands with Britain in 1982, Argentina is furious over the British oil-drilling operations in the potentially rich seabed around the archipelago. Leaders from Latin American and Caribbean nations at the two-day summit in the Mexican resort of Cancun were expected to sign up for a resolution backing Argentina, the country's officials said here. Argentine foreign ministry spokesman, Javier Porta, said that all 32 countries participating in the summit, due to end today, had offered their support. Earlier Monday, Desire Petroleum said in London that exploration drilling had begun off the Falklands. "The well is being drilled to an estimated target depth of circa 3,500 metres," Desire said in a statement to the London Stock Exchange. "Drilling operations are expected to take approximately 30 days and a further announcement will be made once drilling is completed." Desire's drilling platform Ocean Guardian was towed some 12,900 kilometres from Scotland to the Falklands.

Its the Mowj (also given as Moudge or Mowdge) class vessel Jamaran. I hesitate to call it a destroyer, cuz its only 1,400 tons and not very heavily armed. More akin to a corvette or a light frigate, perhaps. Main armament is a reverse engineered 76mm Compact, 4x C-802 anti-ship missiles and, possibly, a quad Yazahra (Chinese HQ-7) SAM launcher. Some light AA guns aft too, maybe 37mm. Sensors are pretty sparse, but are believed to include an Italian RTN-10X and a couple or three other radars.