CV32

Some good summer reading there, Pete. I'm still awaiting my copy of Shattered Sword, which is supposedly enroute somewhere.

That's very telling. We may have a code issue here. Try and get a savegame if possible.

I noticed this in a recent test scenario. Are the Red aircraft attacking air-to-air?

Excellent.

The last 'empty' entry in your DB's Weapons Annex probably refers to a Weapon Type 'Nuke'. Don't use this entry but skip to the next. Your first step, then, after entering a Weapon Name, should be to select Type. Follow?

From Aviation Week Tanker Teams Start Posturing for USAF Competition Jun 19, 2009 Amy Butler/Paris Both teams vying for a massive U.S. Air Force contract to build refueling tankers appear to be taking on a more collegial tenor as they await release of the Pentagon's requirements next month, but this newfound spirit could be the calm before the storm in a third attempt for the service to select a new design. Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS North America engaged in a volley of assaults about their designs during the past two years, and last year Boeing was on the offensive against the U.S. Air Force customer after it selected the Airbus A330-tanker based design. Yet, last week both said they are open to a so-called "dual buy" of KC-135 replacements. This would call for parallel development of both platforms and a guaranteed minimum order. KC-X was originally proposed to procure 179 aircraft. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, is adamant that he wants a single winner, primarily to avoid paying for two developments, logistics and training efforts. The Air Force's decision to award a $1.5-billion contract to the Northrop team was found by government auditors to be flawed after Boeing protested; this prompted the Pentagon's failed attempt last year to conduct a new duel between the companies. Gates halted the procurement in September and called for a "cooling off." While both teams clearly took great pains to present a cool exterior in their media briefings here last week, neither was willing to commit to a protest-free process. In the last round, both contractors engaged in attempting to shape the request for proposals (RFP) that would drive metrics for the competition, and both at times threatened not to bid if the RFP wasn't favorable to their design. The challenge is for the Pentagon to craft metrics to judge the attributes of dissimilar commercial platforms modified for military use. Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, unveiled the 7A7 concept during a briefing here last week. This leaves the door open to a large 777-200ER tanker or a smaller one derived from the 767 family. The "A" stands for "advanced," according to Dave Bowman, vice president of Boeing's tanker programs. The intent, he says, was to show the Air Force that the team would be flexible based on service needs. "We are not in a position to tell our customer what they want. . . . We are not RFP shaping at all." A new twist in Boeing's team was the appearance at the media briefing of Pat Shanahan, who oversees commercial aircraft programs; during the last competition, critics said Boeing's civil and military sectors weren't in lockstep on the tanker proposal. Shanahan, who is shepherding the delayed 787, says, "While the 787 may be the biggest program we have in commercial, tanker is equally important." It hasn't been decided whether a tanker would be built on the commercial line, with minor defense-specific modifications to follow, or if the commercial sector would simply hand over green aircraft to the military side. Despite poor performance on the 767-based tanker programs for Japan and Italy, Bowman points to lessons from efficiencies in the Navy's P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, a modified 737, as a model. The challenge for Boeing will be to select the right platform and propose a plausible development plan based on a to-be-determined platform. The Northrop team, by contrast, is left to defend the merits of the A330-based option, which sits in the middle of the size spectrum of options. Just how much development work has been done on these options is highly proprietary. The 777-based design could be delivered in "not exactly the same time [as a 767 design], but similar," Bowman says; company officials say they have not conducted wind tunnel tests of a 777 design. Boeing was previously docked for development risk because its design was based on components of various 767 aircraft wrapped into a single, new-designation aircraft. Meanwhile, Boeing officials are eager to deliver to Italy its first 767-based tanker, which is late. "We have disappointed a very important customer," Bowman said. Northrop Grumman's team, by contrast, is expected to stick with its A330-based proposal. Australia is the first customer, and the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the U.K. each have placed orders. Northrop Grumman is not the prime contractor in those deals. Ralph Crosby, CEO of EADS North America, is rejecting a notion to conduct a "low-price, technically acceptable" (LPTA) competition; this calls for both entrants to qualify for threshold requirements and then engage in a price shoot-out. The larger A330 would be at a disadvantage. This LPTA model was proposed by outgoing Pentagon acquisition czar John Young last year; it is unclear whether the strategy has gained traction with his replacement, Ashton Carter. "That works for pencils and tablets [but] it is a flawed concept" for a military system, Crosby said during a June 13 briefing here. "The issue is what credit does one get for capability above the threshold?" he said. It would "be both injurious to the defense acquisition process and a damn bad thing for the . . . armed services." Boeing officials support an LPTA competition, which could favor a smaller platform. "We don't know what it means," says Paul Meyer, Northrop's vice president for mobility system, noting price could refer simply to development pricing, procurement, life cycle or some combination. He says 90-100 aircraft are needed in a dual-buy scenario to justify construction of an Airbus final assembly facility in Mobile, Ala., for the A330 platforms and a nearby Northrop Grumman plant to add the mission systems. The Airbus facility could also produce A330-200Fs and, at some point, assemble A350XWBs. EADS is continuing testing on the first A330-200-based tanker for Australia, and Northrop Grumman is also testing components of the design it previously proposed to USAF in a ground-based systems integration laboratory.

HCDB-090620 Aircraft: EA-3B Skywarrior - USA Ships/MLUs: Kresta I (1134) CG - Russia Kresta I mod (1134) CG - Russia Tsibar (Tripartite) MCMV - Bulgaria

A new version of the official Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) Database (HCDB-090620) is now available. Get the new DB in the Download section. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: EA-3B Skywarrior - USA Ships/MLUs: Kresta I (1134) CG - Russia Kresta I mod (1134) CG - Russia Tsibar (Tripartite) MCMV - Bulgaria Enjoy.

From Navy Times Sources: Navy was tracking Chinese sub By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer Posted : Friday Jun 19, 2009 12:10:00 EDT Two defense officials have confirmed that the crew aboard the destroyer John S. McCain was tracking the submarine that struck its towed sonar array June 10 in the South China Sea off the Philippines. The officials, who are familiar with the incident but were not authorized to speak on the subject, confirmed the array, which trailed up to a mile behind the ship, was hit by a Chinese navy submarine, although it was not sighted on the surface. Days after the incident, Chinese officials acknowledged that the submarine was theirs. The McCain crew was able to retrieve the sonar array, which was damaged, although it’s not clear whether it was retrieved intact, the defense officials said. A mishap investigation is ongoing. The destroyer, based in Yokosuka, Japan, pulled into port in Sasebo after the incident but soon went back to sea. The officials would not specify whether the submarine was an attack boat or a ballistic-missile sub, and they were unsure of the time of the incident, which occurred in “international waters” south of Subic Bay. The Associated Press reported that the collision took place 144 miles from Subic Bay, potentially placing it in the Mindoro Strait. The collision has been described as “inadvertent” by defense officials. Beyond that, little has been revealed about the circumstances. The Navy by practice does not discuss operations that could reveal force capabilities, but observers have been looking for answers in this case because of the proximity of the submarine to a U.S. warship. Towed sonar arrays are dragged on a cable about a mile long, with the sensors placed toward the end of the line to avoid absorbing sound from the host ship. Other incidents The collision follows recent incidents in the region in which Chinese vessels harassed two U.S. surveillance ships that specialize in undersea listening, using hefty towed sonar. Chinese submarines are based and operate in the area. News reports at the time said the harassing vessels were trying to snag the trailing U.S. sensor gear. No officials have said that the most recent incident with the McCain was another case of a Chinese vessel harassing a U.S. ship or that the sub was trying to sever the sonar line, although there is precedent for such behaviors. As recounted in the bestseller “Blind Man’s Bluff,” in October 1983 in the Atlantic, a Soviet sub accidentally snagged a sonar array being towed by a U.S. frigate, detached the cable, got tangled in it and was forced to surface. “No sub skipper in his right mind would use his sub to damage a towed array,” said Jan van Tol, a former destroyer captain who hunted subs in the South China Sea. “It’s extremely unlikely to be deliberate. You don’t want an array caught in your screw.” He said those waters are very noisy, making antisubmarine warfare particularly dicey. “It’s possible it was a blind/blind situation and both sides were surprised,” he said. Most observers resist putting this incident — or accident — into a pattern of what are thought to be calibrated displays of growing Chinese military prowess, such as the 2006 detection of a Chinese sub in torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group. More likely, the sub’s intent was to stalk the McCain, test its detection abilities, get proof of its proximity and slink away unseen and unheard, said John Arquilla, author and professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. To have pulled that off would have been a “perfect success,” he said. Instead, they got caught. “We should hear alarm bells go off every time we have incidents of this sort,” Arquilla said. “What I see in this pattern of incidents is a growing capability of the Chinese to use stealthy navy assets to get close to our larger and more visible ships.” Because of competing economic and strategic interests in the region, differing interpretations of international demarcations and a growing Chinese fleet, such incidents are inevitable, said Bonnie Glaser, a China security expert and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “We increasingly operate in close proximity to each other, and the Chinese do not accept the U.S. presence, especially in their [Exclusive Economic Zone], as legitimate,” she said. “They seem increasingly confident and willing to push back.” Glaser points to the U.S. Navy’s reputation for safety, professionalism and caution. And although she doesn’t believe the Chinese submarine meant to hit the sonar, it’s indicative of that government’s desire to test U.S. responses as well as its differing military style. “I don’t think you can apply our own standards of behavior to the Chinese,” she said. “They seem to have a higher tolerance for risk.”

Right on, clear datum toward the target.

Wrong thread, but duly noted. When the AAM-4 entry was made, there was little information available, and in fact, the missile was still undergoing testing as late as 2008 (so 1999 would not have been IOC date). Now I have some better H4 data, so the entry will be updated in due course.

A new version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition World Wars Database (HCWW-090618) is available. Get it in the Downloads section of the HarpGamer website. New additions include: Aircraft: F4F-3 Wildcat - USA F4F-4 Wildcat - USA F4F-7 Wildcat - USA Gladiator I - Great Britain Gladiator II - Great Britain Halifax B.I Series I/II - Great Britain Halifax B.II Series I - Great Britain Halifax B.II Series IA - Great Britain Halifax GR. II/V - Great Britain Halifax B.III - Great Britain Halifax B.V Series IA - Great Britain Halifax B.VI - Great Britain Halifax B.VII - Great Britain Hellcat I - Great Britain Hellcat II - Great Britain Hellcat NF.II - Great Britain Hudson I/II - Great Britain Hudson III - Great Britain Hurricane I - Great Britain Hurricane IIA - Great Britain Hurricane IIB - Great Britain Hurricane IIC - Great Britain Hurricane IID - Great Britain Hurricane IV - Great Britain Lancaster B.I - Great Britain Lancaster B.II - Great Britain Lancaster B.III - Great Britain Lancaster B.I (Spc) - Great Britain Lancaster B.III (Spc) - Great Britain Liberator II - Great Britain Liberator B.IIIA - Great Britain Liberator GR.I - Great Britain Liberator GR.V - Great Britain Martlet I - Great Britain Martlet II - Great Britain Martlet IV/V - Great Britain Mosquito B.IV - Great Britain Mosquito B.IX - Great Britain Mosquito B.XVI - Great Britain Mosquito FB.VI2 - Great Britain Mosquito FB.XVIII - Great Britain Mosquito NF.30 - Great Britain Mosquito NF.II - Great Britain Mosquito NF.XII - Great Britain Mosquito NF.XIII - Great Britain Mosquito NF.XVII - Great Britain Mosquito NF.XIX - Great Britain Mosquito PR.34 - Great Britain Mosquito PR.I - Great Britain Mosquito PR.IX - Great Britain Mosquito PR.XVI - Great Britain Seafox - Great Britain Sea Gladiator - Great Britain Sea Hurricane IB - Great Britain Sea Hurricane IC - Great Britain Sea Hurricane IIB - Great Britain Sea Hurricane IIc - Great Britain Spitfire IA - Great Britain Spitfire IB - Great Britain Spitfire IIA - Great Britain Spitfire IIB - Great Britain Spitfire PR.IV - Great Britain Spitfire PR.XI - Great Britain Spitfire PR.XIX - Great Britain Spitfire Va - Great Britain Spitfire Vb - Great Britain Spitfire Vc - Great Britain Spitfire VIII - Great Britain Spitfire IXb - Great Britain Spitfire IXc - Great Britain Spitfire IXe - Great Britain Spitfire XII - Great Britain Spitfire XIV - Great Britain Spitfire XVIb - Great Britain Spitfire XVIc - Great Britain Spitfire XVIe - Great Britain Stirling I - Great Britain Stirling III - Great Britain Sunderland III - Great Britain Sunderland V - Great Britain Swordfish I - Great Britain Swordfish II - Great Britain Swordfish III - Great Britain Tempest II - Great Britain Tempest V - Great Britain Tomahawk IIA - Great Britain Tomahawk IIB - Great Britain Typhoon I - Great Britain Vengeance I-III - Great Britain Vengeance IV - Great Britain Ventura GR.V - Great Britain Vildebeest IV - Great Britain Warwick GR.V - Great Britain Wellington IC - Great Britain Wellington III - Great Britain Wellington GR.VIII - Great Britain Ships: Bearn CV - France Installations: RAF Acklington - Great Britain RAF Ayr - Great Britain RAF Biggin Hill - Great Britain RAF Castletown - Great Britain RAF Coltishall - Great Britain RAF Croydon - Great Britain RAF Detling - Great Britain RAF Digby - Great Britain RAF Harrowbeer - Great Britain RAF Hawkinge - Great Britain RAF Hunsdon - Great Britain RAF Kenley - Great Britain RAF Ludham - Great Britain RAF Lympne - Great Britain RAF Manston - Great Britain RAF Martlesham Heath - Great Britain RAF Middle Wallop - Great Britain RAF Northolt - Great Britain RAF North Weald - Great Britain RAF Redhill - Great Britain RAF Scampton - Great Britain RAF Stapleford - Great Britain RAF Tangmere - Great Britain RAF Turnhouse - Great Britain RAF Wick - Great Britain Enjoy.

I have seen this behavior, but I have also seen the missiles go dumb and self-destruct, which is what you would ordinarily expect. This leads me to believe that the addition of the 'Radar Guided' flag is not the issue, but I have never tested it. There is a paucity of documentation for DB editing. Other than the basics, what is contained in the DB Editing Guide, there simply isn't any full and complete explanation of what the flags (for example) mean. It remains on the "To Do List", and we're still looking for help with that rather daunting task.

I thought this report was interesting ... From Flight Global DATE: 17/06/09 SOURCE: Flight Daily News PARIS AIR SHOW: MBDA advances hypersonic missile work with Russian deal By Craig Hoyle MBDA France has signed a deal with Russia's Rosoboronexport leading to a 2013-15 campaign of test firings with the LEA air-breathing hypersonic air vehicle, under study since 2003. Each 4.2m (13.8ft) vehicle will be released from a Tupolev Tu-22 bomber before being taken to a speed of between Mach 2 and 8 using a Raduga-supplied booster rocket, says Francois Falempin, responsible for advanced propulsion with MBDA France.

Its a side note, but this seems an error. Maybe they're referring to the F-22 in particular? For example, Scramble reports fighter types (F-15s, F-2s, F-4s) operating from airbases around the country.

From Aviation Week MORE F-22S AND EXPORTS TOO Posted by David A. Fulghum at 6/18/2009 12:08 PM CDT Japanese defense officials are beginning to get wobbly about an early decision on the F-X because it appears now that the F-22 will stay in productions and studies are underway to determine what’s needed – or perhaps not needed – for an export version of the Raptor. Japanese Air Force officials told AW&ST that they need F-22’s speed and altitude in order to cover the western approaches to Japan. The JASDF has only one runway capable of handling fighters and that is in Naha, Okinawa. Yet their area of responsibility extends to within 125-150 mi. of China. They are concerned about China’s new advanced fighters like the Su-30MKK and a brand new air-launched cruise missile. Today, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii said that Congress is going to reassert its oversight of the military and to expect at least “a couple of dozen more” F-22s to be funded. He predicted that Congress will “turn the thumbscrews” on Defense Sec. Robert Gates and force the Pentagon to spend money that has been appropriated for the stealth fighter. He swore to stop the “continuing destruction of the F-22 program” by Gates. “Congress cannot back down and let the executive run roughshod” over Congresses wishes. There may be discussions about the exact numbers and where the money comes from to pay for them, but there will be additional F-22 production, he says. Abercrombie also say data in the Quadrennial Defense Review in not valuable or reliable and dubbed it a “PR stunt.” It harms the budget process by stalling it and doesn’t offer a definitive pathway to a better military force. The effort to create an exportable F-22 will proceed once Sen. Dan Inoue, D-Hawaii, comes up with a Senate consensus view of how to proceed. The advantage of such sales will be that it brings down the cost of F-22’s for the U.S. he says.

Thats actually excellent news. I was starting to think that Tony might crack the whip and I would have to do real work instead of playing around with databases and scenarios.

Good point. (And they were carried internally in the Sixth Battle hypothetical, btw).

Sweet. They only had 16 AMRAAMs apiece in Sixth Battle.

More on this topic here: The Russian Navy revitalized, an article by Milan Vego (a well known name in Harpoon circles) in the May 2009 issue of Armed Forces Journal.

A shameless plug for Darkest Hour, a mod for Red Orchestra, another game (an FPS) that I enjoy very much and which you should definitely check out: Beta 3.0 now available for download on Steam Link to !

Meanwhile ... From Flight Global DATE: 16/06/09 SOURCE: Flight Daily News PARIS AIR SHOW: Northrop/EADS rules out A330-200F for KC-X By Stephen Trimble The Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team has eliminated the pure freighter version of the Airbus A330-200 airliner as a competitor for the US Air Force KC-X contract. Northrop based its original proposal for the USAF's KC-135 replacement contract on the passenger to freighter conversion model of the A330-200. Since forming the original bid, Airbus has launched the A330-200F, which is expected to fly by the end of this year. Despite its potential availability, Northrop has ruled out the freighter model as too costly, too heavy and wrong for the USAF's requirement, says Paul Meyer, Northrop vice-president and general manager for advanced programmes. According to Airbus, the pure A330-200F is at least 8-10t heavier than the baseline passenger model. That extra weight would require a corresponding decrease in fuel load, Meyer says. Moreover, "the freighter didn't find itself being necessary," Meyer adds, because the USAF requirements shifted away from employing the tanker as a supplementary airlifter. But "the biggest driver was the cost", Meyer says. Northrop is awaiting the release of a draft request for proposals by the US Air Force for KC-X. It expects the document to be released in late August, followed by the final RFP release in late October or early November. A final contract award could be signed in March 2010, Meyer says.

From Flight Global DATE: 16/06/09 SOURCE: Flight Daily News PARIS AIR SHOW: Boeing considering GEnx for KC-X tanker By Stephen Trimble Boeing confirms the General Electric GEnx engine family is among the propulsion systems it will consider for a new KC-X tanker proposal based on either the 767- or 777-series airliners. The surprise inclusion of GEnx, which powers the 787 and 747-8, among its engine choices signals a new level of flexibility for Boeing's approach to both propulsion suppliers and platforms to fulfil the US Air Force's still undecided requirements for a KC-135 tanker replacement. If Boeing's previous tanker campaign was characterised by a single-minded advocacy for a 767-200LRF powered by a Pratt & Whitney PW4062, its third attempt to win the KC-X contract is being carefully shaped to preserve its flexibility to the USAF's requirements. "It's not about us," says Chris Raymond, Boeing's vice-president for business development. "It's about what they decide to put in their requirements." The dramatic change in tone comes after USAF officials briefed Boeing on what things the company should change about its approach to the competition, says Dave Bowman, Boeing's vice-president for tanker programmes. "And we listened to what they told us," he adds. The USAF plans to release a draft request for proposals in July or August, which should provide their first glimpse of the requirements that will shape Boeing's response. Bowman says Boeing's 7A7 tanker concept encompasses all of its aircraft models, but his comments singled out the 767 family and the 777-200ER, in particular. Sharply departing from claims in the previous competition, Bowman says a KC-777 can be developed on a similar timeline and budget as a KC-767. The 777 option should offer Boeing a size advantage over the smaller A330-200 being proposed by the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team. Bowman notes, however, that if the USAF prefers more flexibility, a 767 model could be the best fit. "It's an interesting fact that bigger isn't always better," Bowman says. Meanwhile, GE confirms that GEnx-1B and -2B are in the correct size class for the tanker competition, but adds that there has been no official agreement with a manufacturer.

From DefenseNews Boeing Pitches 777 Tanker; Labels New USAF Bid 7A7 By karen walker Published: 15 Jun 2009 19:05 PARIS - Boeing is preparing to offer either the 777 or the 767 airframes when it rebids the U.S. tanker contest, the company said June 15. Speaking at the Paris Air Show, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) president and CEO Jim Albaugh said he expected to see a request for proposals (RFP) this summer for the new U.S. Air Force tanker competition. "I expect it will not have nearly as many requirements as the last one," he said. Boeing lost out on the last hotly competed tanker contest to a joint bid by Northrop Grumman and EADS that was based on the Airbus A330 airframe. But Boeing protested that contest, and the following Government Accountability Office report lambasted the Air Force for how it ran the contest. As a result, the order was cancelled and a new competition is being run between the rival manufacturers. Albaugh said that Boeing would decide which aircraft to bid once it had seen the RFP. Meanwhile, it has renamed its tanker program the KC-7A7. Asked what the 'A' stood for, he was vague, but said that if the media wanted to pick a word, they could use "advanced."

Running away fast is always risky. You could go deep and slow (or deep and not so slow), or maybe stay close to the surface if the weather is bad and hope to get lost in the 'clutter'.