CV32

HCDB-080602 Aircraft: H-6DU Badger - China H-6U Badger - China Il-78MKI - India Il-80 Maxdome - Russia Ships: SAM SLAMRAAM-ER Bty - Intl SAM Starstreak Team - Intl

A new version of the official Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) Database (HCDB-080602) is now available. Get the new DB in the Download section. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: H-6DU Badger - China H-6U Badger - China Il-78MKI - India Il-80 Maxdome - Russia Ships: SAM SLAMRAAM-ER Bty - Intl SAM Starstreak Team - Intl Enjoy.

Hehe, she might have been a security threat (eg. psy ops).

Sigh ... From BBC News Gun T-shirt 'was a security risk' A man wearing a T-shirt depicting a cartoon character holding a gun was stopped from boarding a flight by the security at Heathrow's Terminal 5. Brad Jayakody, from Bayswater, central London, said he was "stumped" at the objection to his Transformers T-shirt. Mr Jayakody said he had to change before boarding as security officers objected to the gun, held by the cartoon character. Airport operator BAA said it was investigating the incident. Mr Jayakody said the incident happened a few weeks ago, when he was challenged by an official during a pre-flight security check. "He says, 'we won't be able to let you through because your T-shirt has got a gun on it'," Mr Jayakody said. "I was like, 'What are you talking about?'. "[The official's] supervisor comes over and goes 'sorry we can't let you through and you've a gun on your T-shirt'," he said. Mr Jayakody said he had to strip and change his T-shirt there before he was allowed to board his flight. "I was just looking for someone with a bit of common sense," he said. It's a cartoon robot what threat is it to security or offensive to anyone at all." A BAA spokesman said there was no record of the incident and no "formal complaint" had been made. "If a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it, for example, a passenger may be asked to remove it," he said. "We are investigating what happened to see if it came under this category. "If it's offensive, we don't want other passengers upset."

From DefenseNews U.S. Navy's Ship Plans Don't Add Up Fed-Up Lawmakers May Impose Their Own Vision Part 2 of 2 By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS Published: 2 Jun 10:29 EDT (06:29 GMT) Five times this winter, Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations (CNO), had the opportunity to tell Congress why the U.S. Navy wants another $3 billion DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer. Five times congressional supporters grooved their questions to the CNO. Five times the CNO had little to say. "Would you explain where the DDG 1000 fits into the future of the surface Navy, and do you believe that this is the right ship?" asked Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, March 5. "What the DDG 1000 brings to our Navy," Roughead replied, "is an introduction of new technologies that will be very important to how we go forward." He didn't discuss how the ship fit into the Navy's maritime strategy nor why today's fleet or tomorrow's naval battles demand its special capabilities. Instead, he touched briefly on its 10 major technical advances, emphasizing that the most important is its small crew. "That is absolutely a critical step forward for us in the DDG 1000." Such limp performances didn't matter in the Senate, which voted to fund another DDG 1000 in the spring. But it failed to sway House lawmakers, who chose not to include a ship in their funding bill. Analysts now predict that the Zumwalts, at $3 billion per ship - $5 billion by some estimates - will be just a two-ship class. Even to lawmakers eager to fulfill its wishes, Navy leaders can't seem to express a clear vision for what ships they need and why they need them. Instead, powerful forces in the House advocate building cheaper, but smaller, DDG 51-class destroyers until the day when, they say, the Navy decides exactly what kind of new ship it really wants. Similar travails plague CG(X), the planned next cruiser; plans for more nuclear-powered vessels; and the question of the number of aircraft carriers the Navy in the fleet. Fed up with what they view as incomplete or uninspired answers, increasingly impatient lawmakers are trying to make up the Navy's mind themselves. The combination poses serious risks to a Navy that has been reeling in recent years from budget and personnel cuts, increasing demands to contribute to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and questions about the relevance of blue-water warships in those wars and the war against terrorism. Navy officials declined to be interviewed for this article. DDG 1000 Destroyer The Navy has never articulated a simple and forceful argument explaining the need for the Zumwalt-class ships, under development for more than a decade. Many officers remain confused about the destroyer's abilities and intended use. "I certainly haven't seen a vigorous defense mounted," said one veteran retired officer. "The position papers are out there to support the ship, but nobody's standing up for it." Former CNO Adm. Vern Clark - a surface warfare officer who was largely responsible for creating the new Littoral Combat Ship - generally described DDG 1000 as a technology driver for the fleet and a bridge to the CG(X) cruiser. Both of his successors, Adm. Mike Mullen and Roughead, who like Clark were surface officers, similarly offered only lukewarm support. "Roughead is killing the ship by not advocating its specific capabilities," the veteran officer declared. The DDG 1000 program manager, a captain, is trying to stir up support with a little-used, capabilities-based presentation dating from mid-2005. But he's getting little active support from the admirals - a fact noted on the Hill. "That effort should be coming from the requirements flag officers," said one senior congressional staffer. Some Navy officials say national-security concerns have made them reluctant to reveal details about the heavily classified ships. But observers dismissed that claim. "You've got to be able to make the argument in terms you can put out in public," said retired Capt. Jan van Tol, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and a former destroyer commander. "You may have all the good reasons in the world for having the ship, but if people don't know them, don't be surprised if you don't get funding." The Navy's insistence on calling these huge, expensive vessels "destroyers" also rankles critics, including likely Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. The former naval aviator has noted that the Zumwalts, intended to fight in coastal waters and pound ground targets with 155mm guns, have very different roles than existing destroyers - and certainly have un-destroyer-like price tags. "I've never heard of a $3 billion destroyer," McCain has said on several occasions. The current plan to build seven ships also works against the service, which originally wanted 32 new destroyers. "Seven of anything is nothing, not after you wanted 32," said House Seapower subcommittee chairman Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., following a hearing in March. "Seven tells me they don't want it." More DDG 51s Taylor's district includes the sprawling Northrop Grumman Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., which builds Navy destroyers and amphibious ships. He opposes further Zumwalt construction in favor of building more DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The Burkes are cheaper - $1.6 billion vs. $3 billion or more - and remain the world's most advanced warships, with the exception of the DDG 1000s. Some suggest new Burkes could replace early Flight I and II models, which don't have helicopter hangars, and could be built with open-architecture combat systems and extensive fiber-optic cabling and designed to be operated by smaller crews. The Navy says no. Officials say the price tag for new Burkes could reach $2 billion apiece because the production line already has begun to close down. And at such prices, the Navy says, the Zumwalts would be better fighting value. But half of every new ship class begun since the 1980s cost more than double its original unit cost. That's why analysts predict the Zumwalts will eventually cost closer to $5 billion, largely because they contain so much new technology that the risks and unknowns are higher. By contrast, the costs of building Burke destroyers are well understood. The Navy may be ready to yield on this debate. In March, service acquisition chief John Thackrah revealed the Navy is developing contingency plans to build more 51s. "What you're seeing," said one service official, "is the CNO, together with the secretary, taking control of the Navy program and making it viable." Nuclear-Powered Warships Navy testimony last year opened the door for nuclear-powered cruisers if oil prices surged above $70 a barrel. Oil recently touched $135 per barrel and is expected to rise further. Nuclear power provides virtually unlimited range and enough energy to fuel powerful radars and directed-energy weapons. Taylor and former subcommittee chairman Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., last year pushed through a provision to make all new major combat ships nuclear-powered unless the Navy asserts such a propulsion system is not in the national interest. But so far, the Navy has offered little resistance. Despite solid potential arguments for sticking with less-expensive gas turbines, service leaders have remained, in the words of one congressional source, "curiously passive." Now, in the absence of a clear position, Congress is poised to decide the issue. Taylor, who has wondered aloud if the Navy is taking the nuclear-power requirement seriously, has his provision in place to force the Navy's hand. And if the first CG(X) cruiser is to be built beginning in 2011, long-lead procurement of nuclear components would need to be funded in 2009. That's the budget now under consideration. The CG(X) Cruiser Taylor and his nuclear-power allies are already worried the Navy is trying to manipulate that decision. They worry that the service's inability to complete and release the analysis of alternatives for the new cruiser is a ploy to postpone a decision on nuclear power and avoid buying reactors in 2009. The study, in which the Navy is urging a panel of architects and engineers to choose the tumblehome hull form of the DDG 1000 for the cruiser, was to have been completed late last fall. But in November - only weeks after taking office - Roughead sent it back with more questions. Draft versions now are said to be circulating, but officially, the service is not forecasting a date for completing or releasing the study. Unease also persists in naval architecture circles about the stability of the Zumwalt's tumblehome hull, which is limited in the amount of growth it can absorb. 'Unfunded Programs' One of the more blatant contradictions in the Navy's public statements is the question of a tenth LPD 17 amphibious ship. Only nine LPDs are in the fleet plan, and the ninth was authorized for construction last year. The Marines adamantly want 11; another LPD was the No. 1 item on the Corps' last two annual unfunded programs list, a wish list provided each year at Congress's request. The Navy listed the ship first on its 2007 unfunded list and gave it a No. 2 priority in 2008 - yet service leaders rebuffed House efforts last year to buy it, saying they'd rather put the money elsewhere. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, has declared his strong intention to pay for the ship this year and the House, ignoring renewed Navy protests, added the ship to the 2009 budget. Credibility The Navy's No. 1 unfunded priority is "critical maritime patrol improvements" for aging P-3 patrol planes. A skeptic might ask: if something is truly critical, what is it doing on an unfunded requirements list? This is the kind of question analysts ask repeatedly about a range of issues affecting fleet readiness. Fleet sailors remain concerned over the viability of plans to staff Littoral Combat Ships with rotating crews. The Marine Corps questions whether the Navy really supports the ambitious and expensive Sea Base concept. The public, too, doubts the Navy's word on issues like the controversy over a proposed practice airstrip in North Carolina; the effects of sonars on marine mammals; and health issues and unexploded ammunition on the former bombing range on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques. And Congress - this year at least - adamantly turned back the Navy's request to allow a temporary reduction to 10 aircraft carriers next decade when the carrier Enterprise is retired before its replacement is ready. Although many analysts feel the Navy's request is logical, Taylor in March declared the idea "dead on arrival." Leadership Issues Jerry Cann, the Navy acquisition chief in the 1990s, said the problems run to all levels of Navy leadership, not just the admirals. "You can't separate the bluesuit Navy from the civilians. If you have strong civilian executives, you can help drive these things in the right direction," Cann said. The issue isn't that Navy leaders set out to deliberately deceive the public or the Congress. Rather, it is that with good intentions, they have failed to anticipate the results of their actions. "People weren't doing this out of malice and deception," van Tol said. "I cannot conceive of senior naval officers consciously acting deceptively. Certainly they can put spin on things or interpret things in a favorable light, but deliberate deception goes against the naval ethos. The vast majority of people behave honorably." But being honorable has nothing to do with being honest with oneself, he said. The trouble is, leaders have insisted all along they could manage their way out of the impending trouble. "The Navy needs to level with itself," van Tol said. "They've got problems. Once you've done that you can begin to deal with it." [CV32: Emphasis mine.]

Just two points ahead, hanging on in first place. If the playoffs are over tonite, I just might make it.

They've shelved the black helos, probably in response to my improved MANPADS capability. Now they're trying more insidious methods, like the computer AI gone mad. (I watched the movie Colossus: The Forbin Project yesterday ... )

I built the Firefox for Tony's FictDB for HCE. Not sure if Herman has added the Firefox to the PDB, but I'm sure he would if you were going to write a scenario for it. If you weren't looking to recreate the movie/novel storyline in a scenario, I suppose the sky's the limit.

Vista is one of the early tools used by SkyNet to slowly pacify the human race into accepting software that does not obey human commands.

I'd prefer NOE (nap of the earth). It succintly and adequately describes the desired capability without tying it directly to any particular system that we don't otherwise model, such as terrain following radar (TFR).

From ARES Blog Submerged IDAS Missile Firing is Milestone for Undersea Warfare Posted by Joris Janssen Lok at 5/30/2008 7:39 AM CDT A German navy submarine has achieved a major milestone in undersea warfare by successfully test firing a fiber-optically-guided IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for Submarines) missile from a submerged position yesterday. The test was performed by the U33, the third of Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems-built U 212 class of air-independent propulsion submarines, in the western part of the Baltic Sea May 29. IDAS, developed by a consortium of Diehl Defence [the missile], TKMS (HDW) [submarine integration] and Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace [u 212 command & control system integration], showed a "convincing performance" during all phases of the flight, a statement from Diehl says. "After updating the missile´s inertial system by the submarine's navigation system, the missile was ejected from the torpedo tube. Under water it spread its wings and rudders and started its engine to break through the water surface a few seconds later, ascending to a pre-planned altitude to move into a controlled flight stage," the statement says. The IDAS missile is about the same size as the ubiquitous AIM-9L Sidewinder from Raytheon (built under license by Diehl BGT Defence) and Diehl's IRIS-T missile. Differing from an operational scenario, the test was ended in a controlled glide flight. During the entire flight, data and images of a video camera were transmitted to the submarine via the fiber-optical wire. According to Diehl, the test firing proves that IDAS can be employed from a submerged submarine. "All mechanical interfaces proved reliable while data transmission via optical wave guide functioned smoothly," the company says. High-ranking Navy officers from several interested countries witnessed the event as observers on an accompanying vessel. With the test firing from a submerged submarine, the IDAS consortium, in a joint effort with the German Navy as well as the German defense procurement agency BWB, passed a further milestone in this program – nine months earlier than foreseen in the contract, Diehl says. The next steps in the IDAS project consist of "drawing up outstanding phase documents and initializing the international development program." IDAS is designed to allow a submerged submarine to attack an anti-submarine warfare helicopter (which is particularly vulnerable when it is deployed in a hover operating its active dipping sonar), or slow-flying maritime patrol aircraft. The missile, launched from standard torpedo tubes, is also suited to perform a precision attack against a pinpoint position on a surface ship (such as the bridge or a helicopter on deck) or against a target ashore. How should we rate this new capability and what will it mean to undersea and anti-submarine warfare in general and to the operation of active dipping sonar helicopters in particular?

From Aviation Week Development On Latest Upgraded AMRAAM Slips May 30, 2008 Amy Butler/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report The U.S. Air Force is again extending Raytheon’s contract to design and produce a significant upgrade to its radar-guided Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The AIM-120D – which adds a Global Positioning System receiver, conformal front-end antenna and a two-way datalink to the weapon – has recently encountered problems during the transition from design work into the production phase, according to program officials at the Air Armament Center, Fla. The improvements are expected to boost the missile’s accuracy and range, and are designed to be effective in an electronic attack environment. The new equipment will allow the D to receive targeting updates from its launch aircraft after deployment at wider angles than earlier AMRAAM designs. The D is designed to target the most advanced Russian and Chinese fighters now being fielded. Raytheon received a contract modification worth $9.7 million – 10 percent of the original contract cost – earlier this month to cover the cost of the AMRAAM D overrun. The development effort is expected to be complete in June 2009, nearly one year later than required in the most recent program restructuring. A delay in 2006 to the development of the AIM-120C7 contributed to an earlier slip in D program work as well. The C7, which is operational and designed for use by allies, incorporates smaller, more modern electronics, freeing up space in the weapon for the new equipment in the D program. As development on the D continues, the Air Force and Navy are buying more C7s. Hardware delays on the D, including what Air Force program officials call a “minor redesign” of circuit card assemblies for the missiles, were a driver for the delay in production of “proof of manufacture” units. Flight-test execution also has lagged, due in part to weather and delays in the availability of target aircraft. Last year’s temporary grounding of the F-15 following a midair breakup of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C also contributed to the testing slip. Initial operational capability was slated for the Navy’s F/A-18E/F in the first quarter of fiscal 2010, with the Air Force’s F-15 to follow in six months. It is unclear what the new availability dates of the missile will be given the most recent delay.

Must be on your end, SH. Still works fine for me.

Nice! Must have.

From Aviation Week's ARES Blog NGB Questions Posted by Bill Sweetman at 5/29/2008 10:38 AM CDT The $2.6 billion in black project money that fell into Northrop Grumman's lap in the first quarter of 2008 is almost certainly for the USAF's new bomber, for two reasons. First. the other two suspects, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, have stated flat-out that they didn't get any bomber money. Second, there is no way that a 2018 bomber is going to happen without some major investment between now and FY2011. A Northrop Grumman demo program, however, jump-starts NGB in two ways. Not only will it "de-risk" stealth and aerodynamic technology before 2011, but because it is probably related to the Navy's X-47B UCAS-D, it draws directly on work that's been under way since J-UCAS started in the early 2000s. But the USAF still has some important decisions to take and some problems to solve. One decision that's probably already been made is when the program will be taken out of the black. Doing that in advance of first flight would save money, because secure flight testing at Groom Lake incurs all sorts of restrictions and costs. That would mean that the big new hangar at Groom Lake is for something else, though. Also, the earlier the project is declassified, the less likely it is that Boeing and Lockheed Martin will see the contest as unbalanced, and either protest any decision or lobby against the entire program. Manned or unmanned? An unmanned bomber would cost less and have greater endurance. Some USAF people are nervous about a nuclear-capable unmanned bomber (but then, there's no pilot in a cruise missile) and are concerned that allies will not let a UAV carrying tons of bombs fly in their airspace. One compromise: the first aircraft are manned, and some subsequent blocks, including a reconnaissance version, are either unmanned or optionally piloted. An incidental benefit would be to forestall covert opposition from the pilot Maf... I mean community. How long will stealth assure survival? The new bomber will be ultra-stealthy, but it has to be designed to be survivable against the worst threats envisioned until 2050 and beyond. One possible answer: the design provides for new stealth technologies, or even is an early platform for a defensive directed-energy weapon to take out "leaker" threats. In case you didn't notice, Air Combat Command had put the J-UCAS in the same office as its DE weapons. The overarching challenge is risk and money. If JSF hits its IOC date of 2013 (which it may not) it will have taken 17 years from the point where NGB is now - a contract for a demonstrator - to the flightline. The bomber's trying to do it in ten years. And, absent a dramatic increase in the share of gross domestic product going to defense, or an increase in the USAF's share of the defense pie, how is the bomber going to be afforded when the USAF can't One answer to many of these questions is an ironclad commitment to spiral development, backed by a solid plan and resources, combined with a focus on efficient low-rate production (did someone mention Scaled Composites?). The result would be a manned 2018 "Block 10" with derivative engines and a lot of JSF avionics, but with a design that offers space for a DE weapon and has potential to exploit new engine technologies.

From Navy Times Kitty Hawk leaves Japan By Eric Talmadge - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday May 28, 2008 14:39:04 EDT YOKOSUKA, Japan — The oldest active ship in the Navy, the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, made its final departure from Japan on Wednesday to be decommissioned after nearly a half-century of service. The Kitty Hawk, with sailors lining its decks, pulled away from Yokosuka port just south of Tokyo to the cheers of hundreds of schoolchildren and the sounds of brass bands. It flew the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, which designates it as the oldest ship in the Navy. The Kitty Hawk, the last conventionally powered aircraft carrier in the Navy, is to be replaced later this summer by the nuclear-powered carrier George Washington. After leaving Japan, the Kitty Hawk will make a stop at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and then travel on to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash., to be decommissioned. The ship, commissioned in 1961, was assigned to Japan in 1998. It has since made 20 deployments in the western Pacific and participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Iraq. “Since it arrived in August 1998, the Kitty Hawk has been a visible symbol of strength in a rapidly changing world,” U.S. Ambassador to Tokyo Thomas Schieffer said. “Goodbye Kitty Hawk, hello George Washington.” The Kitty Hawk and its battle group are the centerpiece of the 7th Fleet, the largest in the Navy, with 40 to 50 ships, 120 aircraft and about 20,000 sailors and Marines. Roughly 21 of the ships are based in Japan and the Pacific island of Guam, while the others rotate out of ports in Hawaii and the U.S. West Coast. Along with the other 7th Fleet ships, the battle group in Yokosuka, once a major Imperial Japanese Navy hub, has a huge area of responsibility — covering 52 million square miles of the Pacific and Indian oceans, from the international date line to the east coast of Africa. Japan’s leadership strongly backs the U.S. military presence in the country, and says the more than 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan are a stabilizing force for all of Asia. However, the replacement of the Kitty Hawk by a nuclear-powered ship is controversial among some here because of fears of an accident. Navy officials have stressed that the ship is safe, and pointed out that nuclear-powered submarines have long transited Yokosuka with no problems. Concerns about the George Washington were raised again last week when a fire on the ship left one sailor with minor burns and 23 others with heat stress. Sailors extinguished the fire several hours after flames were spotted near the auxiliary boiler room and air conditioning and refrigeration space in the rear of the ship. The Navy said the fire spread through a passageway for cables.

From Aviation Week Northrop Apparently Lands NGB Prototype May 28, 2008 Bill Sweetman/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Northrop Grumman received contracts totaling more than $2.5 billion for secret aircraft programs in the first quarter of 2008, strongly supporting reports and indications that the company has won a U.S. Air Force contract to build a prototype for the Next Generation Bomber (NGB) program. First-quarter results issued April 26 state that Northrop Grumman “was awarded approximately $2.6 billion for restricted programs during this period.” The results showed a comparable increase in backlog for the company’s aircraft business, the Integrated Systems sector. The existence of a “black” demonstration program explains a number of anomalies in the Air Force’s planning for NGB. The unclassified budget shows no funding for the new bomber in 2008-2010, despite the fact that the service is planning initial operating capability (IOC) in 2018. Rivals Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced in late January that they were teaming on NGB, and Lockheed Martin Skunk Works leader Frank Cappuccio said at the time that Lockheed Martin had decided not to team with Northrop Grumman because of “openness issues.” Boeing and Lockheed Martin stated that they did not have any government funding. Northrop Grumman proposed building a bomber-sized demonstrator for the Air Force in 2005 as part of the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) program. Shortly afterward, the Pentagon decided to terminate J-UCAS and divide its funding between a Navy program – which Northrop Grumman won last year – and a classified Air Force project. Scaled Composites, acquired by Northrop Grumman last August, is likely to play a major role in the program. Northrop Grumman CEO Ron Sugar described the acquisition as “very important and very strategic to us, with respect to advanced aircraft programs we’ll be competing for in the near future.” The Air Force and other sources have indicated that a full-scale competition for NGB will start around 2010, suggesting that the demonstrator should be flying by then and validating the basic concepts behind the design, probably including a high level of stealth combined with advanced aerodynamics. The operational aircraft may be produced in unmanned and manned variants, and may take on a penetrating reconnaissance mission in addition to its bomber role. For more on this story, see Defense Technology International's feature this month, Ultra Stealth

From Defense Aerospace Royal Navy Submarine Declared Safe After Grounding Incident (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued May 27, 2008) The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Royal Navy submarine HMS Superb struck an underwater pinnacle whilst on dived passage through the northern Red Sea yesterday, Monday 26 May 2008. There were no casualties and the submarine remains watertight, is safe on the surface and able to operate under its own power. The submarine's nuclear reactor is completely unaffected, and there is no environmental impact. Notwithstanding this, from the initial assessment onboard the submarine, it is clear that there is some damage to her main sonar which prevents her conducting submerged operations. Consequently her programme is being re-considered. No other vessel, military or civil, was involved in the incident. An investigation into how the grounding occurred is underway and a full Board of Inquiry will be conducted in due course. The families of the crew are in the process of being informed. HMS Superb is a Swiftsure-class attack submarine displacing 5,200 tonnes submerged. She is 272ft long and has a complement of 112. Her armament includes spearfish torpedoes. She was built by Vickers Shipbuilding at Barrow and commissioned in 1976.

Undoubtedly this is the source of your troubles. Deleting entries invariably leads to chaos. Have you seen the HCE DB Editing Guide?

A link to AGSI's HCE Database Editing Guide, a useful tool if you choose to venture into editing a database: HCE Database Editing Guide

The HCDA is a follow-on adaptation of the official database, the HCDB. Many of the installations that appear in the HCDB (for example, Chinese bases) aren't needed for the HCDA. They are thus converted to 'donotuse' status until I can find a replacement for them in the HCDA. I've added the 'zdonotuse' nomenclature in the latest HCDA version, which does help to sort these entries. It absolutely is a legacy problem with the HCDB. It used to be that you had to add 'Red' and 'Blue' versions of each installation in the hard wired fashion. We eventually cracked that problem, and now you need only add one version when creating an Installation. The SE will let you add it as Red or Blue. However, as the HCDB caters to legacy scenarios, it must keep both versions of each Installation.

Not a problem. I post news articles (sometimes taken from, imho, dubious sources like RIA Novosti) simply for their value in provoking 'discussion'. (Not my place to tell you what you should read, hehe). Its not terribly successful, as can be seen from the large number of posts without replies, but lots of people read them anyway and sometimes we do get good discussion.

Of course. What did you expect them to say? (I was going to add my own comment, like, 'first you have to get within range of a carrier', but I refrained .. till now).

From RIA Novosti Russian 'killer of aircraft carriers' starts drills in Pacific 15:45 | 26/ 05/ 2008 VLADIVOSTOK, May 26 (RIA Novosti) - The Varyag, a Russian Slava-class missile cruiser dubbed 'the killer of aircraft carriers,' has started a series of live-firing exercises in the Pacific for the first time since a recent overhaul, a fleet spokesman said Monday. Varyag, the flagship of the Russian Pacific Fleet, was commissioned in Russia's Pacific Fleet in 1989 and re-entered service in early 2008 following a major refit that lasted almost a year. "The Varyag's crew is scheduled to conduct a series of live firing drills against ground, surface, and air targets," said Captain 1st Rank Roman Martov. He said the exercise was aimed at checking the performance of all on-board weapons systems. "The cruiser is equipped with a powerful array of missile systems, torpedoes and artillery systems," Martov said, adding that NATO experts had dubbed Russian combat ships of this class "the killer of aircraft carriers," as it can carry 1,000kg of high-explosives, or a tactical nuclear warhead out to a range of 300 nautical miles. The Slava-class missile cruiser was designed as a surface strike ship with some anti-air and ASW capability. The sixteen SS-N-12 Sandbox nuclear-capable supersonic anti-ship missiles are mounted in four pairs on either side of the superstructure, giving the ship a distinctive appearance. In addition, the cruiser reportedly carries 64 SA-N-6 Grumble long-range surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and 40 SA-N-4 Gecko short-range SAMs. Two other ships of this class, the Moskva and Marshal Ustinov, are in service with Russia's Black Sea Fleet and Northern Fleet, respectively.

A new version of the HCDA database, the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Americas' Database (HCDA-080523), is now available. It is available in the Downloads section of this website. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Ships/MLUs: Comodoro Py DD - Argentina SAM SLAMRAAM-ER Bty - Intl Installations: Barcelona - Venezuela Barinas - Venezuela Barquisimeto - Venezuela Charallave - Venezuela La Guaira - Venezuela Las Flecheras - Venezuela Maracaibo - Venezuela Mariscal Sucre - venezuela Miranda - Venezuela Palo Negro - Venezuela Porlamar - Venezuela Puerto Ayacucho - Venezuela Puerto Cabello - Venezuela Punto Fijo - Venezuela San Felipe - Venezuela Santa Domingo - Venezuela Tachira - Venezuela Tucupita - Venezuela Valencia - Venezuela Valle de la Pascua - Venezuela Zulia - Venezuela Enjoy.