CV32

You don't identify whether the planes in question are part of a mixed interceptor/bomber group, because that might play a factor. Otherwise, since all air-to-air guns are now equally ranged at 3.0 nm, I wonder if what you see is simply a matter of AI planes not having the endurance and speed to catch and kill the player's aircraft with the weapons they have (i.e. the guns).

Without looking at the specifics of the rules, I assume there is no issue and certainly no chance for catastrophe because you have 'separation' between launch aircraft and the weapon.

The biggest number that the PE will permit you to input there is 99,999. In most (if not all) other fields in the PE the max permissible is 65,535. I have never had any reason to play with a DP that large so I have no idea if it would the GE/SE would recognise it.

A new version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition World Wars Database (HCWW-091106) is now available. Get it in the Downloads section of the HarpGamer website. New additions include: Ships/MLUs: Adroit (1939/1) DD - France Adroit (1939/2) DD - France Aigle (1939/1) DL - France Aigle (1939/2) DL - France Aigle (1940/1) DL - France Aigle (1940/2) DL - France Aigle (1940/3) DL - France Baltimore CA - USA Bison (1940) DL - France Bourrasque (1939) DD - France Cassard (1940) DL - France Cassard (Dec 41) DL - France Chacal (1939) DL - France Colbert (1939) CA - France Duguay-Trouin (1939/1) CL - France Duguay-Trouin (1939/2) CL - France Duguay-Trouin (Feb 44) CL - France Dupleix (1939) CA - France Duquesne (1939) CA - France Duquesne (1943) CA - France Elan PG - France Emile Bertin (1939) CL - France Emile Bertin (Dec 43) CL - France Fantasque (1939) DL - France Fantasque (1943-44) CL - France Foch (1939) CA - France Galissonniere (1939) CL - France Galissonniere (1940) CL - France Galissonniere (1943) CL - France Gerfaut (1940) DL - France Guepard (1939) DL - France Hardi (1940) DD - France Hardi (1941) DD - France Jeanne d'Arc (1939) CL - France Jeanne d'Arc (1943) CL - France Leopard (Jul 40) DL - France Mogador (1939) DL - France Primauguet (1942) CL - France Sangamon (1942) CVE - USA Sangamon (1945) CVE - USA Suffren (1939) CA - France Suffren (1943) CA - France Tartu (Aug 41) DL - France Tornade (1939) DD - France Triomphant (Jun 40) - France Vauquelin (1939) DL - France Vauquelin (1940/1) DL - France Vauquelin (1940/2) DL - France Wichita CA - USA The HCWW now boasts 700 ship entries. Enjoy.

From Flight Global DATE: 05/11/09 SOURCE: Flight International South Africa cancels order for eight A400M transports By Craig Hoyle The EADS-led A400M airlifter has suffered its first orders blow since the programme ran into development difficulties, with South Africa having cancelled its order for eight of the aircraft. Confirmed on 5 November, South Africa's decision comes after deliveries of the Airbus Military product have fallen around three years behind schedule. The South African government says the decision was taken during a meeting in Cape Town on 4 November, and that its action was informed by an extensive review into the troubled acquisition. "The termination of the contract is due to extensive cost escalation and the supplier's failure to deliver the aircraft within the stipulated timeframes," the government says in a statement. "Cabinet believes that the interests of the South African taxpayer will be best served by not proceeding with the contract," it continues, adding that state-owned armaments company Armscor "will be instructed to terminate the programme as soon as possible". South Africa intends to claim R2.9 billion ($379 million) in compensation, it adds. South Africa ordered the A400M to replace its air force's aged fleet of eight Lockheed Martin C-130Bs. First delivery had been scheduled to take place in 2010. Airbus Military launched the A400M programme with an order for 180 aircraft from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and the UK. South Africa's cancellation decision slashes its export commitments for the type to four aircraft for Malaysia. "Airbus is surprised by the announcement by the government of South Africa to cancel its order for eight A400Ms," the company says. "We very much regret such an announcement, especially at a time where the programme is making very good progress towards first flight before the end of this year. Airbus Military is now studying the possible financial impact." Additional reporting by Max Kingsley-Jones in Toulouse

All standoff ASW missiles in the HCDB have a very high pH (which in this instance is the probability of getting the 'payload' into the target area). When delivering a torpedo payload, it usually means the torpedo is delivered very accurately and hence has a very good chance of acquiring the target. Whether it hits, of course, depends on the pH of the torpedo.

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2009/10/super...war-photos.html

A new version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition World Wars Database (HCWW-091102) is now available. Get it in the Downloads section of the HarpGamer website. New additions include: Ships/MLUs: A class (1939) DD - Great Britain Algerie (1939) CA - France Algerie (1940) CA - France Algerie (1941) CA - Vichy France Algerie (Aug 42) CA - Vichy France Athabaskan (1943) DD - Canada B class (1939) DD - Great Britain B class (1941/1) DD - Great Britain B class (1941/2) DD - Great Britain Bretagne BB - France C/D class (CA/39) DD - Canada Codrington (1939) DD - Great Britain Codrington (1940) DD - Great Britain Commandant Teste CVS - France Courbet (1939) BB - France D class (1939) DD - Great Britain Dunkerque BC - France E/F class (1939/1) DD - Great Britain E/F class (1939/2) DD - Great Britain E/F class (1940/1) DD - Great Britain E/F class (CA/43) DD - Canada Exmouth (1940) DD - Great Britain Faulknor (1940) DD - Great Britain Gascogne BB - France Joffre CV - France Keith (1939) DD - Great Britain Kootenay (1943) DD - Canada Lorraine (1939) BB - France Lorraine (May 43) BB - France Margaree (1940) DD - Canada Ontario (Swiftsure) CL - Canada Quebec (Uganda) CL - Canada Richelieu (1940) BB - France Richelieu (1943) BB - France Saguenay (1939) DD - Canada Saguenay (1941) DD - Canada Strasbourg BC - France Tribal (CA/42) DD - Canada V class (CA/44) DD - Canada Enjoy.

I expect this is because it is enemy submarines that are betraying the carrier's presence, rather than it being detected by airborne SS radar or by its own emissions. And, thus, why I was curious if anyone had been able to avoid getting shot at in the first place.

Heh, the things that become obvious the second time around. Especially since they've been declawed.

Good advice there which would apply to most any scenario. I am not so sure, however, that it is even possible for the player in either Breakout or BreakoutUK to keep their ships from being detected early on. Has anyone been able to keep the DF-21 ASBM from shooting?

As if there was any doubt ... From RIA Novosti Ahmadinejad links Iran's nuclear program to Israel MOSCOW, October 27 (RIA Novosti) - Iran will move forward with its nuclear program as long as Israel possesses nuclear weapons, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying on Tuesday. Ahmadenijad's comment came during a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "When an illegal regime possesses nuclear weapons, the other countries' rights for peaceful nuclear energy cannot be denied," he said. Israel does not admit having nuclear weapons. Four UN nuclear inspectors arrived in Iran on Sunday to inspect the country's second uranium enrichment facility, currently under construction. Iran is under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment. "The Zionist regime is a threat to all nations and it wants the region to be free of strong countries," Ahmadinejad reportedly told Erdogan. "Today we see that applying force in Gaza was not enough for them so they are attacking holy Jerusalem." Israeli authorities on Tuesday demolished two Palestinian homes on the outskirts of Arab East Jerusalem. The Islamic Republic has consistently denied it is seeking to make nuclear weapons, but has insisted on its right to a peaceful program aimed at generating electricity. Iran does not recognize Israel as a sovereign country.

Heh. Fortunately I get to escape liability because the "ASW super guns" are a code issue and not a DB issue.

My Enterprise is still alive, albeit with 58% damage from DF-21 hits, and although I have destroyed Fontanarossa, and hordes of aircraft and ships, I'm still being held back by the SA-21 sites (like Tony). Heh, I hadn't noticed that behavior. Guess it explains the 'instant' death JMS mentioned earlier.

From Guardian, 25 October 2009 Navy sacrifices fast-jet aircraft carrier amid £1bn budget overrun Defence chiefs aim to save £7bn on fewer joint strike fighters, with second in pair of carriers taking only drones and helicopters * Richard Norton-Taylor * guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 October 2009 21.44 GMT Defence chiefs are considering scrapping plans to have two large aircraft carriers equipped with fast jets, a move that could save billions of pounds, Whitehall officials said today. The idea would be to have just one carrier holding US-made joint strike fighters, with the second, more basic, ship, being used only as a platform for helicopters and possibly unmanned drones equipped with missiles and cameras. The two proposed carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, to follow in 2018, are already running £1bn over budget. The original estimated cost was £3.9bn. Consideration is being given to cutting the number of joint strike fighters to be flown from the carriers, from 138 to about 50, saving more than £7bn. The head of the Royal Navy last month conceded that the decision to build two large aircraft carriers could be overturned. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said that though contracts had been signed to build the carriers, next year's defence review could cause those plans to change. Stanhope said that the navy was bracing itself for cuts. "Alongside the other two services we will have to make some difficult decisions," he said, adding that a balance was needed between the number of ships the nation could afford and the range of capabilities they offered. George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, appeared to cast doubt on the Tories' commitment to build the carriers in September, saying he did not know what the "break clauses" were in the contracts. Army chiefs in particular doubt the relevance of large aircraft carriers equipped with fast jets when the main enemy for the foreseeable future is likely to consist of insurgent groups. MPs said this month that the number of aircrew being trained to land on carriers had been reduced. The Commons public accounts committee said a shortage of equipment had affected training, with the RAF having to "hibernate" some skills by cutting air crew trained for specific tasks, such as Harrier fighter pilots practising landing at night on carriers. Also this month a report criticised the Ministry of Defence's spending on weapons and equipment, saying the MoD's weapons procurement was "unaffordable on any likely projection of future budgets". That report, by the former ministerial adviser Bernard Gray, drew attention to failings in the air defence programme, noting that delays meant the UK could not have carried out a Falklands-style mission over the past 20 years without risking significant casualties and the costs of acquiring adequate equipment at short notice, "or the embarrassment of not fighting at all". The Gray report said: "Our blushes have in part been spared by the fact that we have not generally been called upon in recent years to fight the kind of campaigns that have required the services of some of our most expensive and delayed weapons systems." The new proposal to downgrade one carrier, modelling it on the existing commando and helicopter-carrying HMS Ocean, could be included in the government's defence review green paper in the spring. The MoD said today that no final decisions had been made.

From Sunday Times, 25 October 2009 Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle Michael Smith The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget. The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them. The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines. It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft. The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated. The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion. At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could rise to more than £100m. Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018. The decision to cut the number of JSF aircraft has been agreed by senior navy and air force commanders in discussions preparing for the strategic defence review. Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to conducting a strategic defence review after the general election, which must be held by the late spring. A senior Royal Navy officer said: “We always knew that the real cost of the carrier project is the JSF fleet to go on them. It would cost us at least £12 billion if we bought all the aircraft we originally asked for. We are waking up to the fact that all those planes are unaffordable. More than half of the £5 billion contracts to build the two new carriers have been contracted, so it is too late to get out of building the ships. This way at least we are covered when Ocean goes out of service.” Since both aircraft carriers will still be built, there are unlikely to be job losses at the Rosyth ship yards, close to Brown’s constituency. The JSF aircraft are being built in Fort Worth, Texas, with the involvement of BAE Systems. The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead. The Conservatives said any decision to axe a carrier would be “absolutely unacceptable” and typical of the government’s “chaotic, inconsistent and incompetent defence procurement policy”. Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the move exposed the government’s claim that it wanted a completely independent strategic defence review. “The government is saying it is fully committed to the carriers while at the same time forcing them to be cut,” he said. “It is confusing for the navy, it is confusing for industry and it is completely inconsistent with the whole concept of running an independent defence review.” The Ministry of Defence said Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, remained 100% committed to the carriers but “financial circumstances mean some difficult decisions will have to be taken to prioritise our forces’ efforts in Afghanistan”. The Royal Navy currently has three smaller 20,600-ton carriers: Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible. Illustrious is on a visit to Liverpool. Invincible has already been mothballed.

From Defense Aerospace Royal Navy Surrenders One New Aircraft Carrier In Budget Battle (excerpt) (Source: The Sunday Times; published Oct. 25, 2009) The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget. The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them. The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines. It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft. The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated. The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion. At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could rise to more than £100m. Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018. (end of excerpt)

From Aviation Week's Ares Blog Ships, I See No Ships Posted by Douglas Barrie at 10/26/2009 7:09 AM CDT Picture Credit Royal Navy/Crown Copyright With consummate ill-timing U.S. policy makers efforts to sustain a second-engine for the F-35 are met with claims that London is ready to ditch equipping its planned second carrier with the aircraft. The British government has been lobbying Washington to support the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 engine Britain’s “Sunday Times” claims the Royal Navy has “agreed to sacrifice” one of its two 65,000 ton aircraft carriers, instead saying the navy would use the ship only as a helicopter carrier. For good measure the story speculates only about 50 of the F-35 will be bought, to save on cost. With, however, around up to 18-months between now and the conclusion of a Strategic Defense Review – and the small issue of a general election in-between – agreeing to sacrifice anything this early appears at the very least dubious. When it gets to the meat of the debate during the actual SDR what will the navy have left in the locker to give up. The first of the two carriers is now anticipated to enter service in 2016-17, with the second to follow around a year later, though this timescale remains elastic. While the UK has signaled it will purchase up to 138 of the F-35 to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft requirement, there were always indications that the type would be bought in at least two batches. Whitehall officials had previously said an initial order for 80 aircraft could be anticipated. Given budgetary pressures cutting the initial number to 50 appears credible – it would provide enough aircraft to equip the first carrier with a strike wing, and also for training needs. The notion of having the second 65,000-ton carrier and using it only for helicopters seems far less so.

Nothing particularly special, just the Mk 54 LHT. I expect what you've discovered is that the ASW 'death ray' in this instance has much more to do with the manner of attack (or in this case, defense) than it does with the weapon. Torpedoes fired in 'counter-fire' mode (down the bearing of the incoming torpedo), as well as those dropped by standoff ASW missiles (e.g. ASROC), will almost always find their intended target, regardless of an area of uncertainty. It doesn't mean they always score a hit, and of course, the target must be in range, but they almost invariably get a shot at the engagement 'die roll'.

A new version of the official Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) Database (HCDB-091024) is now available. Get the new DB in the Download section. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: B-2A Spirit Blk10 - USA B-2A Spirit Blk20 - USA Mirage IIIO - Australia F-16AM/BM MLU - Jordan OV-1D Mohawk - Intl Sea King Mk 50 - Australia Ships: Meteoro (BAM) OPV - Spain Enjoy.

HCDB-091024 Aircraft: B-2A Spirit Blk10 - USA B-2A Spirit Blk20 - USA Mirage IIIO - Australia F-16AM/BM MLU - Jordan OV-1D Mohawk - Intl Sea King Mk 50 - Australia Ships: Meteoro (BAM) OPV - Spain

You're very welcome, Don. If there is anything that you can't locate, or you think needs to be added or expanded upon, let us know. And thank you for sharing your scenarios!

A new version of the HCDA database, the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Americas' Database (HCDA-091023), is now available. It is available in the Downloads section of this website. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: A109A-2 Hirundo - Venezuela Arava 201 - Venezuela AS-61D - Venezuela B-2A Spirit Blk10 - USA B-2A Spirit Blk20 - USA EMB-312 Tucano - Argentina Falcon 20C - Venezuela Mi-1 Hare - Cuba Mi-2 Hoplite - Cuba Mi-4 Hound - Cuba Mi-17V-5 Panare - Venezuela Mi-26T2 Pemon - Venezuela Mi-35M2 Caribe - Venezuela MiG-17F Fresco C - Cuba MiG-21F-13 Fishbed C - Cuba MiG-29 Fulcrum A - Cuba OV-1D Mohawk - Argentina T-2D Buckeye - Venezuela T-33 Shooting Star - Cuba Enjoy!

Okay, guess I totally missed the point of what you said. You certainly can build whole airfields in the matter you mention, and I have added the components for doing so in the HCDB. In the DB you will find separately modeled 'installations' such as hardened aircraft shelters (HAS), air traffic control towers, large structures and small structures, surface bunkers and underground bunkers, radars, air defense sites, ammo dumps, etc. The foundation would start with the basic 'airfield' (which, in effect, comprises the runways, taxiways and parking aprons) and then add the above components that you need, arranging them in their desired locations around the facility by using the Formation Editor. There are some limitations to this approach. For example, the smallest possible airfield built in this way would have a radius of 4 nm (1 nm if you only use the Main Body portion of the formation). Placements of individual units (the HAS, structures, etc) can also be cumbersome at times. And, bombing those individual components will in reality do nothing to affect the airfield's host aircraft (e.g. no aircraft actually sit inside the HAS). But in a very focused scenario, e.g. Alpha Strike or airfield attack mission, I think it could work.

I had a similar experience with 'BreakoutUK'. The DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile is one nasty piece of kit.