CV32

I am always trying to work around game limitations, you know that. You're steadily making the list shorter, though! When I say salvo here, I am talking about modeling the entire pod of rockets in a single shot. (As was the case in the HCDB.) Let's say it is a 19 tube Hydra 70 pod of 19x 70mm rockets. As a salvo, it might have 38 DP and pH 60%. This mandates firing the entire load (salvo) of rockets against each individual target, whether that target is a lone truck (in which case the entire pod of rockets is very likely to be overkill) or an airfield (in which case it is not). Not really a satisfactory solution. Also, with that salvo model, pH is applied across the board to the entire pod of rockets. Either they all hit, or they all miss. Both probabilities are not terribly realistic. It is far more likely (in reality) that some would hit, while some would not. Modeling individual rockets is preferable, but it also has drawbacks. Using the same example, our rocket pod might have 19x rockets, each with 2 DP and pH 60%. A player controlled helicopter might find this set up extremely useful, because he can 'plink' a target with as many rockets as necessary to inflict the desired damage. Especially if there are multiple targets with low DP, e.g. a convoy of trucks. It also works well realism wise, because that helo can hover at distance and fire away at leisure. An AI controlled fixed wing aircraft, however, might dump a significant portion of its rockets at the first truck in the convoy or dump its entire load of rockets on a high DP installation (e.g. airfield), causing little damage, while ignoring the nearby truck convoy that would have made a much more useful target. A fixed wing aircraft is also more likely (in real life) to launch many more rockets at a time (I hesitate to use the term salvo, to avoid confusion with the earlier discussion, but that is what it is) in a single pass by virtue of its speed, orientation, exposure to counter-fire, etc. One option is to employ a mixed model - both salvo and individual - but that means more complexity and work for me. Right now I am leaning towards the individual rocket (some folks will already have noticed this in the HCDB2) and see what happens.

I'd suggest reading the Shakedown series on ASW firstly, and then the game mechanics.

In the fixed wing context, especially, I expect the aircraft will dump its entire load of rockets on a single, large DP target (e.g. an airfield) in a single pass. So typically something like 80x 2 DP rockets in one go. I would have to dumb down the pH to make the total DP inflicted more palatable.

#11011 Helix A will be going away. Don't use it. #8395 H-6G Badger 15 has been fixed. Thanks. Yes, and I will move it up in the queue.

Thanks, I will check it out. Sounds like it is reversed.

Thanks for responding, Enrique. I will add that rockets were modeled in the HCDB this way, i.e. only a proportion of the total DP that may have been inflicted by the entire pod of rockets fired in a single salvo. Typically 33% of that total possible DP. This tried to take into account the fact that some rockets will go astray or malfunction, and that some would fall outside the target such as not to inflict any real damage. The pH of individual rockets in WWII and the post war era is not of much help here, because we already model two or three variations of a single bomb or rocket entry (which you will usually see depicted as v1, v2 and v3) in order to reflect varying accuracy when the weapon is fired from a different platform.

A new version of the HCDB2 or Harpoon Commander's Edition Database 2 (HCDB2-170218) is now available. New additions include: Aircraft: AP-3C Orion 02 - Australia AP-3C Orion 04 - Australia AP-3C Orion 07 - Australia EP-3J Orion 92 - Japan EP-3C Iron Clad 87 - USA EP-3E Aries I 80 - USA EP-3E Aries II 92 - USA F-4C C.12 80 - Spain F-4C Phantom II 80 - USA F-4C Phantom II 87 - USA F-4D Phantom II 80 - Iran F-4D Phantom II 80 - South Korea F-4D Phantom II 87 - South Korea F-4D Phantom II 81 - USA F-4D Phantom II 86 - USA F-4E Phantom II 80 - Egypt F-4E Phantom II 83 - Egypt F-4E1 Phantom II 84 - Greece F-4E2 Phantom II 84 - Greece F-4E Phantom AUP 04 - Greece F-4E Phantom II 80 - Iran F-4E Phantom II 97 - Iran F-4E Phantom II 14 - Iran F-4E1 Kurnass 80 - Israel F-4E2 Kurnass 80 - Israel F-4E Kurnass 83 - Israel F-4E Kurnass 93 - Israel F-4E Kurnass 2000 91 - Israel F-4EJ Phantom II 80 - Japan F-4EJ Kai 90 - Japan F-4EJ Kai 96 - Japan F-4E Phantom II 80 - ROK F-4E Phantom II 88 - ROK F-4E Phantom II 02 - ROK F-4E Phantom II 80 - Turkey F-4E Phantom II 83 - Turkey F-4E Terminator 00 - Turkey F-4E Terminator 08 - Turkey F-4E Terminator 12 - Turkey F-4E Terminator 15 - Turkey F-4E Phantom II 81 - USA F-4E Phantom II 83 - USA F-4E Phantom II 86 - USA F-4E(S) Shablool 80 - Israel Ka-25Ts Hormone B 84 - Bulgaria Ka-25BSh Hormone A 81 - India Ka-25BSh Hormone A 92 - Russia Ka-25PS Hormone C 92 - Russia Ka-25Ts Hormone B 92 - Russia Ka-25BSh Hormone A 92 - Ukraine Ka-25Ts Hormone B 92 - Ukraine Ka-25BSh Hormone A 80 - USSR Ka-25PS Hormone C 80 - USSR Ka-25Ts Hormone B 80 - USSR Ka-27PL Helix A 85 - India Ka-27M Helix A 17 - Russia Ka-27PL Helix A 92 - Russia Ka-27PS Helix D 92 - Russia Ka-27PL Helix A 92 - Ukraine Ka-27PL Helix A 81 - USSR Ka-27PS Helix D 82 - USSR Ka-29RLD Helix E 95 - Russia Ka-31 Helix E 10 - China Ka-31 Helix E 02 - India MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - Algeria MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - Bulgaria MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - Cuba MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - Czechoslovakia MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - Ethiopia MiG-23BN Flogger H 81 - GDR MiG-23BN Vijay 81 - India MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - Iraq MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - Libya MiG-23BN Flogger H 92 - Russia MiG-23BN Flogger H 87 - Sudan MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - Syria MiG-23BN Flogger H 80 - USSR MiG-23M Flogger B 92 - Russia MiG-23M Flogger B 81 - Ukraine MiG-23M Flogger B 92 - USSR MiG-23MF Flogger B 81 - Bulgaria MiG-23MF Flogger B 84 - Cuba MiG-23MF Flogger B 82 - Czechoslovakia MiG-23MF Flogger B 81 - GDR MiG-23MF Flogger B 81 - Hungary MiG-23MF Rakshak 83 - India MiG-23MF Flogger B 81 - Libya MiG-23MF Flogger B 81 - Poland MiG-23MF Flogger B 81 - Romania MiG-23MF Flogger B 81 - Syria MiG-23MS Flogger E 80 - Algeria MiG-23MS Flogger E 80 - Iraq MiG-23MS Flogger E 80 - Libya MiG-23MS Flogger E 80 - Syria MiG-23ML Flogger G 98 - Angola MiG-23ML Flogger G 85 - Cuba MiG-23ML Flogger G 85 - GDR MiG-23ML Flogger G 84 - Iraq MiG-23ML Flogger G 86 - Iraq MiG-23ML Flogger G 85 - North Korea MiG-23ML Flogger G 92 - Russia MiG-23ML Flogger G 82 - Syria MiG-23ML Flogger G 80 - USSR MiG-23ML Flogger G 85 - USSR MiG-23MLA Flogger G 85 - Angola MiG-23-98 Flogger G 06 - Angola MiG-23PD Flogger G 92 - Ukraine MiG-23P Flogger G 81 - USSR MiG-23P Flogger G 88 - USSR MiG-23MLD Flogger K 92 - Russia MiG-23MLD Flogger K 83 - Syria MiG-23MLD Flogger K 92 - Ukraine MiG-23MLD Flogger K 84 - USSR MiG-23MLD Flogger K 87 - USSR P-3B Orion 97 - Argentina P-3B Orion 80 - Australia P-3C-II Orion 80 - Australia P-3C-II Orion 82 - Australia P-3C-II Orion 86 - Australia P-3C-II Orion 95 - Australia P-3W Orion 84 - Australia P-3W Orion 95 - Australia P-3AM Orion 11 - Brazil P-3A Orion 93 - Chile P-3ACH Orion 97 - Chile P-3C CUP 06 - Germany P-3B Orion 96 - Greece P-3F Orion 80 - Iran P-3C-II Orion 82 - Japan P-3C-II Orion 84 - Japan P-3C-II Orion 92 - Japan P-3C-III Orion 89 - Japan P-3C-II Orion 82 - Netherlands P-3C-II Orion 98 - Netherlands P-3C-II CUP 02 - Netherlands P-3B Orion 80 - New Zealand P-3K Orion 86 - New Zealand P-3K2 Orion 11 - New Zealand P-3B Orion 80 - Norway P-3B Orion 82 - Norway P-3C-III Orion 89 - Norway P-3C-III Orion 91 - Norway P-3C Orion UIP 01 - Norway P-3N Orion 91 - Norway P-3C-I Orion 07 - Pakistan P-3C-II Orion 99 - Pakistan P-3P Orion 89 - Portugal P-3P Orion 91 - Portugal P-3C-III+ Orion 95 - South Korea P-3C-III+ Orion 00 - South Korea P-3C-III+ Orion 08 - South Korea P-3A Orion 80 - Spain P-3A Orion 91 - Spain P-3B Orion 88 - Spain P-3M Orion 03 - Spain P-3C-III Orion 12 - Taiwan P-3T Orion 95 - Thailand P-3(RP) Reef Point 86 - USA P-3AEW 87 - USA P-3B Orion 80 - USA P-3C-I Orion 80 - USA P-3C-II Orion 80 - USA P-3C-II Orion 82 - USA P-3C-II Orion 85 - USA P-3C-II Orion 91 - USA P-3C-III Orion 86 - USA P-3C-III Orion 91 - USA P-3C-III Orion 97 - USA P-3C Orion AIP 98 - USA P-3C Orion AIP 05 - USA P-3C BMUP 02 - USA P-3C BMUP+ 06 - USA RF-4C Phantom II 90 - South Korea RF-4C CR.12 80 - Spain RF-4C CR.12 99 - Spain RF-4C Phantom II 80 - USA RF-4E Phantom II 82 - FRG RF-4E Phantom II 90 - Germany RF-4E Phantom II 80 - Greece RF-4E Phantom II 94 - Greece RF-4E Phantom II 80 - Iran RF-4E Oref 80 - Israel RF-4E Oref 82 - Israel RF-4EJ Kai 92 - Japan RF-4EJ1 Phantom II 80 - Japan RF-4EJ2 Phantom II 92 - Japan RF-4ET1 Phantom II 80 - Turkey RF-4ET2 Phantom II 93 - Turkey RF-4ETM Isik 10 - Turkey Su-30MKA Flanker G 09 - Algeria Su-30MK Flanker G 17 - Angola Su-30MKK Flanker G 01 - China Su-30MK2 Flanker G 05 - China Su-30MK2 Flanker G 09 - China Su-30MK Flanker G 97 - India Su-30MKI Flanker H 02 - India Su-30MKI Flanker H 16 - India Su-30MKI3 Flanker H 16 - India Su-30MK2 Flanker G 10 - Indonesia Su-30MKM Flanker G 07 - Malaysia Su-30MKM Flanker G 14 - Malaysia Su-30M2 Flanker G 11 - Russia Su-30SM Flanker G 13 - Russia Su-30MK2V Flanker G 07 - Venezuela Su-30MK2V Flanker G 05 - Vietnam Enjoy.

Modeling unguided rockets in the HCDB2: Up until now, unguided rockets (e.g. 70mm CRV7) have been usually modeled as a single-salvo piece of ordnance (much like a bomb). This has both advantages and disadvantages. I have been toying with the idea of modeling the individual rockets (e.g. a 19 tube pod of CRV7 would become 19 individual shots, each rocket with their own pK and DP values), but this also has pros and cons. Another option would be to model the weapon as a number of salvoes, e.g. the 19 tube CRV7 pod becomes 4x 5 round salvoes (with rounding), but of course, this also may not be ideal (the necessity of rounding being an obvious one). A further option would be to use a mixture of methods. For example: 1. Single or multiple salvo modeling for unguided rockets fired from fixed wing aircraft (with the line of reasoning that fixed wing air would probably only make or two passes on a target, and with the realization that the GE will likely have the aircraft dump the entire thing on large DP targets in a single engagement) 2. Individual rocket modeling for unguided rockets fired from helicopters (with the line of reasoning that helos might be more picky about targeting, and might often be found engaging larger numbers of smaller DP targets) Unsurprisingly, this also has pros and cons. Not the least of which being the complexity of the model and the need for multiple versions of the same weapon in the Weapons Annex. Thoughts?

A friendly reminder that it is appreciated (and polite!) when you offer feedback to a scenario author when you reap the fruits of his hard work in offering up a scenario for your enjoyment. It doesn't have to be a full-fledged after action report (AAR) but a few comments about your experience can be very helpful to the scenario author, whether experienced or new to writing scenarios for Harpoon.

This further exemplifies the shortcomings of the rule as currently written or explained. I see very little practical difference - as far as this rule is concerned - between 'pure SARH' and 'inertial/SARH' or 'inertial/midcourse/SARH'. All that the inertial and midcourse guidance phases are going to do, as Larry points out, is to put the missile into the basket so that it is oriented correctly for the terminal phase of the engagement.

The rule is giving the 50% range advantage to purely SARH guided missiles because they are most efficient against non-maneuvering targets. Because they are receiving constant updates as to target position, they can take the most direct path to the target. I obviously realize the rule clearly says "pure SARH", but it does not explain why command guided weapons (like the radar command guided SA-N-4) would not also get the same advantage. In fact, it mentions command guided weapons as NOT having the tail chase problem. (Worth nothing here that SARH is simply a variation of command guidance. In fact, if you read the simplified description within the rule for how SARH guidance works, it is exactly the same as how radar command guidance works. The exception being the passive receiver in the SARH missile, not mentioned there.) Any other interpretation of the rule means that pure SARH guided missiles actually have twice the range quoted in the annex, except against maneuvering targets, in which case the value should be discounted by 50%. That may actually be the best application of the intended effect.

New video of the small boat attack on the Al Madinah frigate.

I will get to the SPY series radar in the next iteration. I have been emphasizing aircraft so heavily in the recent versions because aircraft (and especially loadouts) have such a serious effect on the viability of scenario building and scenario integrity from version to version.

Yes, purely SARH guided missiles. SA-N-4 is radar command guided. (You will see some variation in opinion on this; for example, and I think you are a CMANO player, where you will find the SA-N-4 to be treated as SARH.) If you read the rule, however, it offers an explanation for the rule which raises somewhat of a grey area. More particularly, the rule exists because controlling the missile during the midcourse phase allows for the most efficient intercept course rather than chasing the target. The rule goes on to say: In any event, it did not come into play.

Undoubtedly, either way.

A new version of the HCDB2 or Harpoon Commander's Edition Database 2 (HCDB2-170207) is now available. Another whopper. New additions include: Aircraft: A-4AR Fightinghawk 98 - Argentina A-4B Caza (A-4P) 80 - Argentina A-4C Skyhawk 80 - Argentina A-4Q Skyhawk 80 - Argentina A-4G Skyhawk 80 - Australia AF-1 Falcao (A-4KU) 99 - Brazil AF-1M Falcao (A-4KU) 15 - Brazil A-4H Ahit 80 - Israel A-4H Ahit 82 - Israel A-4N Ahit 80 - Israel A-4N Ahit 82 - Israel A-4KU Skyhawk - Kuwait A-4PTM Skyhawk 86 - Malaysia A-4K Skyhawk 80 - New Zealand A-4K Kahu 89 - New Zealand A-4S Skyhawk 80 - Singapore A-4S1 Skyhawk 88 - Singapore A-4SU Skyhawk 92 - Singapore A-4M Skyhawk 80 - USA OA-4M Skyhawk 80 - USA A-6E Intruder USMC80 - USA A-6E Intruder USN80 - USA A-6E Intruder USMC81 - USA A-6E Intruder USN81 - USA A-6E Intruder USMC82 - USA A-6E Intruder USN82 - USA A-6E Intruder USMC85 - USA A-6E Intruder USN85 - USA A-6E Intruder USMC85 - USA A-6E Intruder USN87 - USA A-6E Intruder USMC87 - USA A-6E Intruder USN89 - USA A-6E Intruder USMC89 - USA A-6E Intruder USN91 - USA A-6E Intruder USMC91 - USA A-6E Intruder USN93 - USA JAS39CZ Gripen 05 - Czech Republic JAS39CZ Gripen 07 - Czech Republic JAS39HU Gripen 09 - Hungary JAS39C Gripen 08 - South Africa JAS39C Gripen 12 - South Africa JAS39C Gripen 16 - South Africa JAS39A Gripen 97 - Sweden JAS39A Gripen 99 - Sweden JAS39A Gripen 02 - Sweden JAS39A Gripen 09 - Sweden JAS39C Gripen 02 - Sweden JAS39C Gripen 07 - Sweden JAS39C Gripen 09 - Sweden JAS39C Gripen 16 - Sweden JAS39C Gripen 18 - Sweden JAS39C Gripen 11 - Thailand Merlin ASaC.1 18 - UK Merlin HC.3 01 - UK Merlin HC.3 05 - UK Merlin HC.3A 07 - UK Merlin HC.4 17 - UK Merlin HM.1 00 - UK Merlin HM.1 04 - UK Merlin HM.1 06 - UK Merlin HM.1 DAS 09 - UK Merlin HM.1 09 - UK Merlin HM.2 14 - UK MiG-25PD Foxbat E 80 - Algeria MiG-25PDS Foxbat E 97 - Algeria MiG-25RB Foxbat B 81 - Algeria MiG-25RB Foxbat B 83 - India MiG-25PD Foxbat E 81 - Iraq MiG-25PD Foxbat E 86 - Iraq MiG-25RB Foxbat B 81 - Iraq MiG-25RBT Foxbat B 85 - Iraq MiG-25PD Foxbat E 80 - Libya MiG-25RBK Foxbat B 81 - Libya MiG-25BM Foxbat F 92 - Russia MiG-25PDS Foxbat E 92 - Russia MiG-25RB Foxbat B 92 - Russia MiG-25RBS Foxbat B 92 - Russia MiG-25RBT Foxbat B 92 - Russia MiG-25BM Foxbat F 82 - USSR MiG-25P Foxbat A 80 - USSR MiG-25PD Foxbat E 80 - USSR MiG-25PD Foxbat E 83 - USSR MiG-25PDS Foxbat E 80 - USSR MiG-25RB Foxbat B 80 - USSR MiG-25RBF Foxbat D 81 - USSR MiG-25RBK Foxbat D 80 - USSR MiG-25RBS Foxbat D 80 - USSR MiG-25RBSh Foxbat D 81 - USSR MiG-25RBT Foxbat B 80 - USSR MiG-25P Foxbat A 80 - Syria MiG-25RB Foxbat B 82 - Syria MiG-25PD Foxbat E 92 - Ukraine MiG-25PDS Foxbat E 92 - Ukraine MiG-25RBS Foxbat D 92 - Ukraine MiG-25RBT Foxbat D 92 - Ukraine MiG-27M Bahadur 86 - India MiG-27M Bahadur 99 - India MiG-27ML Bahadur 05 - India MiG-27 Flogger D 92 - Russia MiG-27K Flogger J 92 - Russia MiG-27M Flogger J 92 - Russia MiG-27 Flogger D 80 - USSR MiG-27 Flogger D 85 - USSR MiG-27K Flogger J 80 - USSR MiG-27K Flogger J 85 - USSR MiG-29S Fulcrum C 99 - Algeria MiG-29S Fulcrum C 92 - Belarus MiG-29BM Fulcrum 05 - Belarus MiG-29 Fulcrum A 89 - Cuba MiG-29 Fulcrum A 88 - GDR MiG-29G Fulcrum 91 - Germany MiG-29 Baaz 85 - India MiG-29UPG Baaz 12 - India MiG-29K Fulcrum D 14 - India MiG-29KUB Fulcrum D 14 - India MiG-29 Fulcrum A 90 - Iran MiG-29 Fulcrum A 86 - Iraq MiG-29 Fulcrum A 95 - Iraq MiG-29N Fulcrum 95 - Malaysia MiG-29N Fulcrum 99 - Malaysia MiG-29 Fulcrum A 99 - North Korea MiG-29S Fulcrum C 97 - Peru MiG-29SMP Fulcrum 12 - Peru MiG-29 Fulcrum A 89 - Poland MiG-29 Fulcrum A 90 - Romania MiG-29 Fulcrum A 92 - Russia MiG-29S Fulcrum C 92 - Russia MiG-29KR Fulcrum D 15 - Russia MiG-29SMT Fulcrum 09 - Russia MiG-29UB Fulcrum B 92 - Russia MiG-29 Fulcrum A 92 - Serbia MiG-29 Fulcrum A 84 - USSR MiG-29 Fulcrum A 87 - USSR MiG-29S Fulcrum C 86 - USSR MiG-29SE Fulcrum C 03 - Sudan MiG-29 Fulcrum A 88 - Syria MiG-29SM Fulcrum 10 - Syria MiG-29 Fulcrum A 92 - Ukraine MiG-29S Fulcrum C 92 - Ukraine MiG-29MU1 Fulcrum 13 - Ukraine MiG-29 Fulcrum A 94 - Yemen MiG-29SMT Fulcrum F 05 - Yemen MiG-29 Fulcrum A 87 - Yugoslavia MiG-35 Fulcrum F 18 - Russia MiG-31 Foxhound A 92 - Russia MiG-31B Foxhound 99 - Russia MiG-31BM Foxhound 13 - Russia MiG-31BM Foxhound 15 - Russia MiG-31 Foxhound A 82 - USSR MiG-31 Foxhound A 89 - USSR MRH-90 Taipan 10 - Australia NH90 NFH 12 - Belgium NH90 TTH 13 - Belgium NH90 TTH 08 - Finland Caiman TTH 12 - France Caiman NFH 13 - France NH90 TTH 08 - Germany Sea Lion NFH 19 - Germany UH-90A TTH 08 - Italy SH-90A NFH 13 - Italy NH90 NFH 13 - Netherlands NH90 TTH 13 - New Zealand NH90 CG NFH 12 - Norway NH90 NFH 13 - Norway NH90 TTH 14 - Spain Hkp-14E TTH 10 - Sweden Hkp-14F TTH 16 - Sweden Ships: Minas Gerais 81 CV - Brazil Minas Gerais 84 CV - Brazil Minas Gerais 94 CV - Brazil Sao Paolo 01 CV - Brazil Ve de Mayo 80 CV - Argentina Ve de Mayo 85 CV - Argentina Enjoy.

Its easy to get bogged down here, but let me say once again that Ladnyy was never intending to defend Stoykiy in its position. Engaging any anticipated "leakers" was primarily intended to defend the merchants. That said ... At 1608, the incoming Harpoons are 13.4 nm from Stoykiy and 15.8 nm from Ladnyy. (The ships are 2.4 nm apart.) SA-N-7s are already enroute to engage them. It is important to note that Ladnyy's SA-N-4b Geckos can reach to 13.0 nm against these Harpoons (as non-maneuvering targets). At 1609.5, there are four Harpoons still incoming. They are 9.8 nm from Stoykiy and 12.4 nm from Ladnyy (i.e. now within SA-N-4b range). (The ships are now 2.6 nm apart.) There are still more SA-N-7s in the air about to engage them. All of the Harpoons are destroyed prior to 1610. There is no need for Ladnyy to join the defence of Stoykiy, but it clearly could have done so had it been necessary.

Has China Been Practicing Preemptive Missile Strikes Against U.S. Bases? (War on the Rocks)

Noticing a lot of recycled material, especially at National Interest, as of late.

Rule 6.4.1.10 would only pose a problem for attacking antiship missiles arriving at the Stoykiy at the same time as Ladniy's Geckos attempting to shoot them down. All other possibilities, including those passing the Stoykiy and/or attacking the merchies, would be fair game. Any Geckos fired on those Harpoons and missing, would go stupid and fall into the drink.

Images reveal mock-up of Chinese carrier-borne AEW&C aircraft (Jane's) An Early Warning Aircraft for China's Carriers? (The Diplomat)

True enough, though experience generally dictates that you are either playing with a noob or haven't played it in such a long time that you need to learn it all over again.

Rule 6.2.3 governs Weapons Danger Space. Gunfire has the +/-10 deg bearing and +/-10% range rules, for examples. For missiles, we refer in turn to Rule 5.3.13, relevant to terminal guidance capable antiship missiles. This would not have any bearing on the command/SARH guided SA-N-4b Gecko. SA-N-4b missiles that missed their Harpoon targets would go stupid instead of engaging the Sovremennyy.

Funny stuff. I should point out that the scenario did not require the Soviets (Red) to offer any warning prior to defending themselves against hostile action, or even how that hostile action might be defined or interpreted. The radio calls we offered were purely politeness on our part, lol. In any event, I think it is clear (and fairly defensible, as you seem to yourself admit) that, in the context of the rising tensions, missile craft approaching at 30 knots is pretty hostile behaviour.

Could America Win a War Against Russia and China at the Same Time? (National Interest)