CV32

Which battleset are you using? The SouthAtlantic battleset found here should cover all of the relevant Argentine bases. Yah, noticed that myself. Will be fixed in the next update. Until then, its easy for you to manually change the location of the base in the SE. I'll look at it.

No idea. Probably long outdated data. Now that you've pointed it out, I'll overhaul it.

From Air Force Times NORAD marks 50th anniversary By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday May 13, 2008 8:24:44 EDT The thought that Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers could fly over the Arctic Circle loaded down with nukes was a pretty scary idea in 1958. So scary, in fact, that American and Canadian politicians came together to set up what’s now known as the North American Aerospace Defense Command. NORAD turned 50 on Monday, marking its anniversary with a Golden Jubilee Ball at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs, Colo. The celebration also includes the opening of the new NORAD-U.S. Northern Command Command Center at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., on Tuesday. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will join Canada’s defense minister, Peter Gordon MacKay, and NORAD commander Gen. Victor Renaurt for the ribbon-cutting ceremony of the command center, which is part of a plan to create more remote sites outside of NORAD’s operations center, which is dug into Cheyenne Mountain, NORAD spokesman Maj. Brian Martin said. Fifty years since an era when schoolchildren ducked under desks during nuclear drills, NORAD has changed to meet the current threat. Pointedly criticized for its inability to respond faster to al-Qaida’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, NORAD now tracks all air traffic, not just military traffic, and continues to adapt to the post-9/11 mission. Once the Russian military collapsed in the early 1990s, NORAD also adapted to help protect U.S. and Canadian borders from drug smugglers. NORAD also changed its name to include “aerospace” instead of “air” after intercontinental ballistic missiles became a threat in the 1960s; NORAD set up space-based radars to detect ICBM launches across the globe. The command stood up on Sept. 12, 1957, but the official agreement between the two countries wasn’t signed until May 12, 1958.

My favorite CSG. From Navy Times Reagan, strike group preparing to deploy Posted : Tuesday May 13, 2008 8:22:45 EDT SAN DIEGO — More than 7,000 sailors will leave home next week when the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group deploys from San Diego for a scheduled deployment to the Western Pacific and Persian Gulf regions. The seven-ship naval force, led by Rear Adm. James Wisecup, commander of Carrier Strike Group 7 in San Diego, will leave next Monday, Navy officials announced. “This deployment reinforces the Navy’s Maritime Strategy of limiting regional conflict with forward-deployed, decisive maritime power and fostering cooperative relationships in order to prevent and contain local disruptions before they impact the global system,” Navy officials said in a statement. Joining the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan on the deployment are the cruiser Chancellorsville, destroyers Decatur, Gridley and Howard, frigate Thach and fast combat support ship Rainier. Rainier, an ammunition ship, will depart from its home port in Bremerton, Wash. The strike group includes Destroyer Squadron 7 and Carrier Air Wing 14, which includes Strike Fighter Squadrons 22, 25, 113 and 115 from Lemoore Naval Air Station, Calif.; Airborne Early Warning Squadron 113 from Point Mugu in Ventura County, Calif.; Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 139 from Whidbey Island, Wash.; and Carrier Logistics Support 30 and Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 4, both from Naval Air Station North Island, Calif. The Nimitz-class Reagan is commanded by Capt. Kenneth Norton. The carrier deployed to the Persian Gulf during its maiden deployment in 2006 and last year was tapped for a surge deployment to the Western Pacific to fill in for the Japan-based aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk when it went into the shipyard for maintenance.

Yes, I noted the self-defense AAM armament, but a single hardpoint for offensive weaponry seems pretty sparse for an attack jet. But hey, its your idea.

Its not an office pool. Just a group of guys, some of whom obviously know very little about hockey. (I'm kidding, so much of a playoff pool is blind luck).

Yes, the Nighthawk has just the two hardpoints, but its obviously a very different aircraft from your Mach 1.4 plane.

Looking forward to it.

Datsyuk nets a hat trick, and I pull into the lead in the pool.

From Aviation Week China Appears To Regret Asat Test May 12, 2008 By Frank Morring, Jr. and Amy Butler/Washington China's leaders miscalculated the international reaction to the country's antisatellite (Asat) weapon test last year, and likely regret that they let their research-and-development bureaucracy carry it out, says a top U.S. expert on the Chinese space program. "The Chinese took very careful aim and shot themselves in the foot with that test," says Joan Johnson-Freese, chairman of the National Security Decision-Making Dept. at the U.S. Naval War College. "I think they now are now recognizing that the international condemnation due them was actually moderated." Testifying before the Senate Commerce space, aeronautics and related sciences subcommittee, Johnson-Freese said it is impossible to know exactly what motivated the test, given the layers of Chinese government secrecy. But she says an emerging consensus among China-watchers holds that it was the logical outcome of an Asat-weapon development program started in response to the U.S. program that tested an air-launched satellite interceptor against a defunct weather satellite. Military research and development is heavily "bureaucratized" and "very stovepiped," Johnson-Freese says, emphasizing that she is speaking for herself and not her government employers. "The engineers who were in charge of that technology development program put it forward as 'it's time to test,'" she says. "I think they severely underestimated international response. I think they now regret underestimating that response." While observers in Beijing believe that Chinese President Hu Jintao authorized the test, they doubt that he had a clear understanding of the threat it would signify for other spacecraft below the 537-mi. altitude of the target Feng Yun 1C spacecraft, which was also an outmoded weather satellite (AW&ST Jan. 22, 2007, p. 24; Feb. 12, 2007, p. 20). "They characterized the debris as an overall increase in debris rather than looking at it in terms of the risk to spacecraft," she says of the test, which was described as the worst satellite fragmentation event in the 50-year history of spaceflight. "It was a lot of bad decision-making on their part." Once the outcry started, government authorities there canceled a planned meeting in China on space-debris mitigation because they didn't want to face the "harsh" condemnation they expected and felt they deserved, Johnson-Freese says, suggesting "they are now deeply regretting the situation that they brought on themselves." A big element of that situation is the ammunition they have given to their military counterparts in the U.S. and elsewhere, who point to the test as evidence of China's aggressive military-space policies. Lt. Gen. Kevin Campbell, director of the U.S. Army's Space and Missile Defense Command, says he's concerned China may be able to declare its antisatellite system operational in the "near-term." Since the January 2007 test, the U.S. government, including the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, has been planning how to counter such a threat. A first step, say Campbell and a chorus of other military leaders, would be improved space situational awareness. The U.S. Air Force Space Command is forming a plan to field new ground-based space observation capabilities designed to catalogue the satellites in space. The command also intends to launch a new Space-Based Space Surveillance System in early 2009. Along with these initiatives, the Pentagon is trying to find a way to link the powerful sensor network operated by the Missile Defense Agency for anti-missile tests to the Air Force's operational systems designed to monitor spacecraft. The Air Force also hopes to field a program by 2011 that will provide enough warning of impending missile attacks to ground operators to allow them the time needed to maneuver a satellite around an interceptor. Air Force officials acknowledge that satellite maneuvering is an option of last resort--moving satellites in space eats up precious onboard fuel--but they contend that this capability is mandatory as a defensive option. Johnson-Freese says China's military-space efforts are just half of "a very deliberate, incremental, yet ambitious plan" for space operations that also includes a civil element. The upcoming launch of another Shenzhou spacecraft this fall (AW&ST May 5, p. 28) will likely lead to a small space laboratory and eventually a space station, she says, but not to a human landing on the Moon. Despite reports to the contrary, she points out, China has never said it plans to send humans to the Moon, and when it does, it will do so with an eye to moving beyond that satellite to gain the technology advantages that come from a cutting-edge space program. "I think their civil component is largely based on reading the Apollo playbook, and all the benefits that the United States got from it," she says. Although members of Congress have touted a growing space-race between the U.S. and China, Johnson-Freese says based on today's capabilities the U.S. remains the clear leader in spaceflight. "Personally I hate to see the U.S. and China's space programs characterized as competitive," she says. "They fly two manned space flights over a five-year period and are perceived as beating the U.S. space program. That's just wrong."

Thinking about fictional aircraft is always good fun. Why just the single missile payload for an attack aircraft?

Might take less time for him to tell you when he's not free.

I have three players left in the pool, Malkin, Datsyuk and Rafalski. They're keeping me alive, two points behind the leader.

Just a few short comments on this one: 1. Your choice of Benito and Basa as the BLUE and RED bases, respectively, worked very well. Here's why: You provided an AEW&C asset but limited its utility - I placed the E-3 at the northwest tip of Panay island and kept it there, just out of the reach of the Chinese Flankers but only providing minimal coverage over the US Navy SAG, ground forces and the enemy base at Basa. You did an equally good job at providing fighter coverage in the way of the F-16s (Block 30 and ADF variants) whose endurance permitted them to strike at Basa but not to loiter there for extended periods. The Predator UAV had limited utility given its basing at Benito but it wasn't a critical asset and I used it only to perform peripheral recon and patrol around Benito itself. Ditto with the UH-60s, although these could have been equipped for ferry and flown out to the Tarawa easily enough. 2. Limiting the strike and fighter assets worked very well. By providing only a handful of F-16s and F-111s I was forced to use the Vipers in the swing role (air defense and ground attack in the same mission). Likewise I held back the Aardvarks until I knew that the air defenses around Benito had been sufficiently reduced and there were F-16s available to perform escort for them. They were too precious to risk otherwise. 3. Chinese Flankers The Flankers are one of the few fighter types that have the range and endurance to leave the mainland and reach out into the Philippines, enough to threaten my operations there. Especially my helicopters. I lost a pair of SeaCobras to Flankers when they were caught returning to the Tarawa without any F-16s overhead. I did not send helos ashore again without timing their sorties with that of the F-16s. Good lesson. 4. Chinese submarines The use of biologicals in the subsurface arena forced me to deploy ASW helicopters to search out POSSUB (possible submarine) contacts. Even in the face of the Flanker threat. I had an enjoyable engagement between a Los Angeles class SSN and a Chinese Han that fortunately ended in my favour. 5. Chinese air strikes A flight of enemy Hind attack helicopters appeared almost immediately after scenario start, but these were ravaged by Avenger air defense systems. This was (unfortunately) the only air attack that threatened me for the entirety of the scenario. The Su-24 Fencers on the mainland never launched. Adding some of them to the formation patrol may cure this problem. However, I would suggest substituting the Fencers for a Su-30 variant (some of these have impressive endurance and weapons capabilities), because the Chinese have never operated the Su-24. You might also add a handful of H-6 Badger bombers or at least a chance of them appearing. 6. Enemy ground forces The enemy armor, artillery and air defense formations around Benito were thick and if I hadn’t softened up the 152mm tube artillery with Harriers and helicopters, they probably would have inflicted serious damage on my advancing ground units. In the event, I held them back until I could not see any more Red arty. After that, it was largely a mop up operation. I understand that the Red arty had variable start points, so perhaps I was lucky that they were a little exposed. Possible considerations include: moving the Red arty back behind the armor and air defense; or maybe adding a hidden Red arty (or multiple rocket launcher) battery further back.

Welcome welcome.

Are we ready to get back at it?

I opened up the latest version last night. The Ark Royal CVBG came under an almost immediate, vicious attack. I think you're on the right track now, Terry.

Did you decide to retain all eight Nimrods?

Closing in on finishing up your scenario, Terry, and though I know we've discussed it on IRC, I'll put up my comments here so that other prospective scenario designers can (hopefully) benefit: * I like the concept, UK vs France. Its different from the usual genre, and since the two countries have similar capabilities, it generally makes for a well balanced scenario. I did a 'campaign' of sorts for HC many moons ago called Channel War, which examined a very similar confrontation over the course of a series of scenarios. * You can complicate player SEAD/DEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses/destruction of enemy air defenses) efforts by adding SAM/AAA systems to an installation and use the various formation rings to place them on the map. This way they don't appear on the Group Map, which makes it more difficult to target them and also reduces map clutter. Note as well that you can attach a SAM/AAA system to one Installation, and then place it in the formation so that it geographically protects another nearby Installation. Sneaky! You can mix and match the two approaches, that is, some SAM/AAA systems placed outside Installation formations and some inside, if you want to add further layers to the IADS (integrated air defense system) onion. * AI controlled AEW&C (airborne early warning & control) assets have improved survivability when they can orbit behind their own protective IADS (combined SAM/AAA layers and combat air patrols). I usually recommend putting them into Installation formations that are 'behind' their home base and thus somewhat protected from player efforts at knocking them down. * You made good use of neutral shipping and air to simulate civilian traffic. It adds flavour (and difficulty, because nobody wants to sink or shoot down neutrals) that old versions of HC lacked. * The Charles de Gaulle CVBG was seriously hampered by its geographical position. Not by any fault of yours, but the AI controlled ships have a great deal of difficulty dealing with proximity to land. In many cases, they'll steer straight for an objective despite an intervening land mass. And while we don't see 'land ships' like we used to, the AI will inadvertently beach themselves because they can't maneuver around land masses. In this case, de Gaulle steered straight into the Brittany peninsula between Lorient and Brest and beached itself there from the start. I think perhaps if you position the de Gaulle group further west into the Atlantic, it won't have this problem. * If you're aiming for rigid realism, which I certainly do not believe is a prerequisite for an enjoyable scenario, then you should probably substitute some of the Patriot and Hawk systems. SAMP/T was the system I recommended for the French side. * There appears to be little variation in Blue aircraft loadouts. For example, the GR.4's are all loaded for SEAD. This was convenient for me, because that was my first priority strike wise. You might want to add some variety there to get the player thinking about his own priorities, and to add a time factor to ready any aircraft to meet those priorities. Anyway, some comments I hope you will find helpful. Scenario building is to be encouraged wherever and whenever possible, and I am always available to test and help out with those efforts.

A new version of the HCDA database, the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Americas' Database (HCDA-080505), is now available. It is available in the Downloads section of this website. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: HCD-Americas-080505 Aircraft: Harrier GR.3 - UK Lynx HAS.2 - UK T-34C-1 Turbo Mentor - Argentina Ships/MLUs: Ark Royal (1985) CVH - UK Ark Royal (2001) CVH - UK Illustrious (1982) CVH - UK Illustrious (1994) CVH - UK Illustrious (1999) CVH - UK Invincible (1983) CVH - UK Invincible (1989) CVH - UK Invincible (2000) CVH - UK Submarines: Echo II Mod2 (675MKV) SSGN - Russia Swiftsure (1982) SSN - UK Swiftsure (1992) SSN - UK Swiftsure (1998) SSN - UK Enjoy.

From Aviation Week Pentagon Revives Standoff Missile May 2, 2008 Bettina H. Chavanne The Pentagon certified a critical need for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) program May 2, following the program's breach of Nunn-McCurdy acquisition law. John Young, Pentagon acquisition chief, certified a restructured JASSM program in four categories, affirming that the program is essential to national security; there are no alternatives to the program that would provide "equal or greater military capability" for less money; new estimates for procurement are "reasonable" and the management structure for JASSM acquisition is "adequate" to manage and control cost. The U.S. Air Force negotiated an agreement for Lot 7 and Not to Exceed (NTE) price for Lot 8. The two lots are the next full-rate production contract options to be exercised. The Lot 7 contract will be awarded in June for approximately 115 JASSM missiles. Development and testing activities for the JASSM-extended range (ER) increment are scheduled to resume in June with a Milestone C production decision scheduled for fiscal 2010. The start of the development of a Maritime Interdiction/Anti-Surface Warfare version of JASSM also is scheduled for FY 10. In early 2007, the U.S. Air Force informed Congress the JASSM program was expected to far exceed its $5.8 billion estimate, and that reliability had dipped to 58 percent in flight tests (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 2, 2007). The Pentagon decided to defer its decision on the missile until flight and ground tests could validate improvements.

Welcome, ACE003. Its always great to have long time players join the cause. Make sure you've applied with AGSI detailed above. Regarding photos, keep in mind that we have to respect copyright.

Lets try to keep in mind - in the back of our minds, at least - that a Cold War era Soviet invasion of Norway was supposed to be a nasty affair. Me likem nasty Fulcrum.

Onward, ever onward ... At least one of your wishes came true, Sean ... San Jose goes down after a hard fought battle. As for the other wish, well, I expect it will not occur (if at all) until the finals.

None of them will ever hold a candle to these guys ...