CV32

For the game currently underway? Or the bigger one later?

Afraid U-571 doesn't do it for me. I expect a Hollywood movie to take some liberties with facts and storyline to create a workable piece of 'entertainment', but this one probably goes a little too far in that respect. Again, just imho.

Thanks, Patrick! I look forward to checking this (and the Red version) out.

Quite the opposite. The Standard ARM which appears in the Thanh Hoa scenario was developed precisely because the Shrike suffered from a short range. So, in fact, rather than deviating from it, Harpoon seeks to model real life. Again, just a fact of life.

Absolutely, because that truly captures what one could expect from life aboard a submarine. Best sub film of all time, imho.

Yes, IMHO, the Sea Moron Society were in fact committing piracy, or 'eco terrorism', or whatever moniker suits their ilk. And, moreover, it is my understanding that the Japanese are permitted under IWC rules (entirely voluntary and non-binding rules, I might add) to harvest whales for "scientific research purposes" and are not permitted to allow the whale meat to be wasted.

Obviously, I'd like to accommodate your requests, Mark, because you've been such a prolific scenario creator over the years and very supportive of the game. That said, none of these countries really meet the criteria (such as it is) that I've been trying to keep for the HCDA. Are there any that you would prefer over another, or where you can show a real political or military link that might be grounds for including them? Israel, I think, is probably most easily established in that respect, and I see it at the top of your list. Are there any others?

Of course. There is a point at which laying sonobuoys or dipping your sonar would be a meaningless exercise.

Remember the Soviet Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS)? Classic Cold War era 'hide under your school desk and kiss your butt goodbye' stuff. Detailed article at Air Power Australia.

I suppose it would make sense to either tackle the side closest to you (i.e. in order to establish the barrier rapidly) or, alternatively, the one furthest away (i.e. so that you know the sub is at least somewhere you and the distant barrier).

Been there, done that too many times to count. I hate the 'cascade' button. I'd be happy enough if we got rid of it or replaced it with some other useful feature, like the 'window lock' you mention.

It would be more accurate to say that finding submarines is a problem, period.

Actually, I'd have to disagree and say that Harpoon does a pretty decent job of modeling the early Iron Hand or Wild Weasel missions. This was, for the most part, 'reactive' SEAD. In other words, you go out on a mission actually looking to get shot at, and when the enemy exposes himself by shooting, you respond in kind. The SAMs were fairly simple, and so were the ARMs and bombs. Since those days, SEAD has become a lot more complex. Nowadays an air defence gun or missile crew might simply refuse to engage, or else decide to engage only when they have an excellent chance of success (or survival). Distributed sensor nets and command posts make it a much more multi-layered affair, and often no longer just a matter of smacking the local SAM site with a cluster bomb and/or its nearby radar with a Shrike. In fact, its often no longer just a kinetic exchange (ie. putting iron on target) or brute force jamming, but a real electronic dance. Micro management - even extra micro management on occasion - is simply a fact of life in HC/HCE. If this troubles a player, there's always Fleet Command.

Sounds like you're advocating a barrier line of sonobuoys to start. But which of the four sides of the uncertainty zone would the aircraft tackle first? Torpedo seeker acquisition zones are much shorter ranged than that of the typical sonobuoy or dipping sonar. Dropping a torpedo without a definite, localized contact would serve no purpose. Even with better modeling of search patterns.

My favorite, for a submarine movie is Das Boot, hands down. Others include Run Silent, Run Deep and The Enemy Below. In the modern era, Crimson Tide and of course The Hunt for Red October. This post might make for a better thread in the Shore Leave forum.

A PDF document comparing 2008 defense spending between the USA and Europe (courtesy of the EDA): http://www.eda.europa.eu/WebUtils/download...aspx?fileid=828

Excerpts of interest from Navy Times 2010 lookahead: What’s ahead in the new year Staff report Posted : Monday Jan 4, 2010 6:13:39 EST CARRIERS & STRIKE GROUPS • The Dwight D. Eisenhower is scheduled to deploy in January. [CV32: The Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group left Norfolk on 2 January, to be followed by the Carrier Air Wing Seven, the destroyers McFaul, Carney, and Farragut, and the cruiser Hue City. The strike group is headed to the Indian Ocean] • The Harry S. Truman will follow a couple of months later, marking its second eight-month deployment in as many years. • Enterprise, late coming out of the yard, will be back in action to prepare for its final deployment next year. • Carl Vinson will move to San Diego in the early part of the year. • Nimitz is scheduled to return to San Diego in March after an eight-month deployment. • Abraham Lincoln is a likely candidate to replace Nimitz, but Navy officials will not comment on future deployments. While Lincoln and John C. Stennis are in Bremerton, Wash., for maintenance and workups, Stennis has been out twice since 2007, including a 2009 deployment. Lincoln hasn’t gone since 2008. And don’t add the Ronald Reagan into that equation — the carrier is at Naval Air Station North Island, Calif., for maintenance following four deployments in as many years. • The George Washington is forward-deployed at Yokosuka, Japan. • The George H.W. Bush is beginning its operational life, and will spend the year completing quals and evals. • The Theodore Roosevelt entered the yard in mid-2009 for its major refueling and overhaul, which should take roughly three years. In addition, the decision as to which carrier will move to Mayport, Fla., is expected to be part of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. OP TEMPO Carrier strike groups saw eight-month tours in 2009. Attack subs were out eight to 13 months. And with sailors being a key part of the Afghanistan push, overall op tempo doesn’t look to let up in 2010. The Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman carrier strike groups will pull eight-month tours in 2010. The extensions were caused by problems with the 48-year-old Enterprise, which was four months late in getting out of its 16-month overhaul. But whether longer deployments are the exception, or the new normal, remains to be seen. As for the ground force in Afghanistan, there are already 3,700 sailors on the ground, mostly explosive ordnance disposal, Seabees and medical personnel. Another 208 are building schools and roads. In January, another force of 1,100 Seabees will begin rotating into the war zone. SHIP NAMES Navy Secretary Ray Mabus will likely name seven ships in 2010, said his spokeswoman, Capt. Beci Brenton: • The Zumwalt-class destroyer DDG 1002. • Three littoral combat ships: LCS 5, LCS 6, LCS 7 • One Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo and ammunition ship: T-AKE 14 • One Virginia-class attack submarine: SSN 786 • One joint high-speed vessel: JHSV 4 SHIP COMMISSIONINGS • Jan. 16: Littoral combat ship Independence, Mobile, Ala. • March 6: Destroyer Dewey, Seal Beach, Calif. • June: Missile range instrumentation ship Howard O. Lorenzen, Pascagoula, Miss. • July 24: Submarine Missouri, Groton, Conn. • July: Destroyer Jason Dunham, Bath, Maine. • September: Destroyer Gravely, Pascagoula, Miss. • To be determined: Submarine New Mexico, Newport News, Va. LCS FUTURE The Navy is expected to decide in the first half of the year which of its two littoral combat ship designs will go into full production. It doesn’t get much bigger: Billions of dollars and 51 ships — a major portion of tomorrow’s planned surface fleet — are at stake. The Navy will choose either a conventional steel and aluminum ship built by a contractor group led by Lockheed Martin, or an all-aluminum trimaran built by a General Dynamics contractor group. THE FIGHTER GAP Congress added nine F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets into the annual budget last year for a total of 18, but that won’t resolve concerns about the looming shortage of tactical aircraft. The F-35 Lightning II is on its way, but Hornets are wearing out faster than planners predicted. The Navy expects the shortfall to be 200 to 300 aircraft, peaking about 2015. And now that Washington has resolved other key aviation issues — ending the Air Force’s F-22 program and the overpriced presidential helicopter program — the Navy’s fighter gap may draw more attention from lawmakers and lobbyists. THE FUTURE OF AIR Key advancements coming for naval aviation: • The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System demonstrator will have its first test flight during the first quarter of 2010. • The F-35C, which is the carrier variant of the Lightning II, will continue testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., with a target ready date of 2015. • The first EA-18G Growler squadron, Electronic Attack Squadron 132, known as the Scorpions, will deploy for the first time in 2010. BMD PLANNING The Navy has one year left to come up with the ships, sailors and plans to guard Europe from Middle Eastern ballistic missiles, a mission the service was given with apparently little internal notice. The Navy and the Missile Defense Agency will spend 2010 figuring out how to coordinate ships, deployments, numbers of missile interceptors and the other essential elements of providing a BMD cover for Europe by 2011, when the U.S. has committed itself to defending the continent from the sea. With an operational tempo that fleet officials say is already high, the Navy will have to apportion additional ships for the Euro-BMD mission.

From Navy Times Fleet scrambles to meet BMD ship demand By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Monday Jan 4, 2010 8:17:17 EST No sooner did the Aegis ballistic missile defense system become operational in 2008 than combatant commanders started asking for BMD-equipped ships to begin patrolling their areas. U.S. Central Command needed a “shooter” in the northern Persian Gulf. European Command wanted one in the eastern Mediterranean. Pacific Command already had Aegis ships with limited BMD capabilities on guard around Japan for a potential launch from North Korea. The demand for BMD ships is expected to increase, driven in part by rising concerns about Iran’s intentions and the U.S. decision in September to cancel an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic and rely instead on Aegis. But the Navy has a relatively small number of such ships, and those destroyers and cruisers are designed to carry out a wide range of war-fighting tasks. As a result, while Navy commanders are pleased with the expanding capabilities of their Aegis ships, they’re also somewhat guarded about trumpeting the advances. “We can’t constrain assets to one mission,” a senior officer said last month. “They need to do a variety of other missions.” Worries that valuable Aegis ships might be locked into the BMD mission were discussed in December at a two-day seminar at the National Defense University in Washington. Reporters were allowed to quote comments made at the seminar under the condition that no speaker be identified. “Sea-based ballistic missile defense is a necessary component of any theater defense,” the senior officer said. “We need to find ways to get folks to use the ships in ways consistent with their being a ship — to realize they are not a point-defense asset.” One analyst added, “The demand signal is ahead of the pot of ships.” Navy spokesman Lt. Tommy Buck said the service is working to manage the demand. “Combatant commanders need to understand BMD-capable ships are multimission-capable. BMD is one available asset,” Buck said Dec. 18. The Navy is also working on how to respond, said Vice Adm. Samuel Locklear, director of the Navy Staff. “We have a small Navy today — the smallest since 1916 — yet we have a growing global demand for maritime forces, maritime security operations. And now we have a growing demand for maritime ballistic missile defense. Our ships and our crews and our systems are up to the challenge, but it’s a capacity issue for us,” Locklear said to a reporter during the NDU seminar. “As the capacity grows faster than we can grow the number of ships we have — which is always difficult, particularly in the demanding fiscal environment we’re in — we have to look at ways to deploy these ships so that we can get the job done and still have a reasonable expectation that we can take care of the ship and the crew. So we’re looking at a lot of different options as to how we’ll do that as this demand grows. But we are limited in capacity.” Locklear said that despite meeting demands from joint commanders, the Navy has “to some degree preserve the command and control. Navy component commanders still command and control these ships.” But, he added, “What we’ve had to do is to spread these multimission platforms more thinly across a growing number of demands globally.” The demand has already affected deployments. Early in 2009, for example, the Florida-based destroyer The Sullivans, on deployment with a carrier group, moved to Japan for a few weeks to pick up the exercise schedule of a Japan-based BMD destroyer that was called on by Central Command to guard the northern Persian Gulf. The exercise did not require BMD capability; The Sullivans completed its Aegis BMD upgrade in September, after returning from deployment. This fall, the San Diego-based destroyer Higgins deployed to the eastern Mediterranean to provide BMD defense for European Command and take part in exercises. Both moves are unusual, as it’s rare for an Atlantic Fleet ship to visit Japan or for a Pacific ship to patrol the Mediterranean. Such cross-deployments require more coordination by fleet planners. “Effective global force management requires global visibility on requirements,” Buck said. “U.S. Fleet Forces Command [headquartered in Norfolk, Va.] and Pacific Fleet [headquartered in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii] collaborate, coordinate and communicate to have more complete knowledge of location and status of fleet capabilities and work to best employ those capabilities to meet global combatant commander requirements to include BMD.” The senior officer said one way to manage demand is to encourage combatant commanders to give “sufficient warning to have ships on station. We need to remind [combatant commanders] that these are multimission ships.” 27 BMD ships by 2013 Twenty cruisers and destroyers have been upgraded with the Aegis ballistic missile defense capability, with the cruiser Monterey set to receive the upgrade in March. Six more destroyers are to receive the upgrade in 2012 and 2013. The Navy’s missile defense ships and their home ports: Norfolk, Va.: Destroyers Ramage and Stout; cruiser Vella Gulf. Mayport, Fla.: Destroyer The Sullivans. San Diego: Destroyers Decatur, Benfold, Milius, Higgins and John Paul Jones. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Cruisers Lake Erie and Port Royal; destroyers Russell, O’Kane, Paul Hamilton and Hopper. Yokosuka, Japan: Cruiser Shiloh; destroyers Stethem, Curtis Wilbur, John S. McCain and Fitzgerald.

SPIR = Shipboard Passive Infra-Red (e.g. Thales SIRIUS). This doesn't presently have any function in the code, being supplanted by the platform flags 'IR' and 'Low level light'. 'Airborne radar' is forward hemisphere only (Tony might have the exact coverage arc in degrees). 'AS (360-degree)' is an air search radar with 360 degrees coverage.

That's why they say HCE is easy to learn, but difficult to master. I'm sure you will have lots of fun in the process.

You're not wrong, I just haven't progressed that far yet. If you want to make a list, I will give them priority.

Due to the formation patrol. Anti-ship ballistic missile.

I had no particular trouble with Red air, including the Su-35s, but keeping my carrier from getting hit by ASBM is another matter.

The K-100 is certainly possible but I would want to see firmer proof of service entry before adding it, because it will necessarily require creating or adjusting a loadout entry. Since it is not currently possible in the existing code to shoot SAMs from submerged submarines, IDAS is not likely to appear. I use the latest Harpoon4 annex data for weapon ranges. That won't be changing. Thanks.

A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all the gang! Have a good one.