CV32

The RF-5S didn't lose any of its attack/air defense capability when it was adapted for recon; just had a reconfigured nose to house the camera and IR linescan gear. This is reflected in the Flags and Loadouts. It would probably be easier (and better) for me to try and see if I can add the ROKAF (perhaps Intl) RF-5.

Adding an electronic warfare model to surface ships is a very recent development for HCE, and in some ways 'completes' the EW model for the sim. That being the case, I've started to add more offensive and defensive EW gear to ships and aircraft, and you should start noticing this in subsequent updates of the HCDB. Its a slow but steady process, as always. Whether one fighter type is 'superior' to another is always a matter for some debate, and I note that in your example, F-22 vs Rafale, only the latter has actually seen any combat to date. I don't agree at all that the F-22 is 'totally outclassed' by the Rafale in HCE, but if you think the Rafale's RCS should be larger to reduce any perceived advantage you think it has, then I can only suggest that you try it out. Doing so may work to your satisfaction. Keep in mind that the RCS value field rules the day in this respect, rather than assigning the aircraft as "Large" or "Small".

What happened to moderating new posts? The HarpGamer Forums are no longer fully moderated. This means that your post will now appear on the board immediately. We do reserve the right to edit and/or delete inappropriate submissions after their posting to the forums, and we encourage you to ensure your post is compliant with the Forum Guidelines. I have built a scenario for Harpoon Commander's Edition, and I'd like some feedback. What to do? New scenarios are always welcome, encouraged, and even sought after. You will find a helpful, knowledgeable, and encouraging environment at HarpGamer for new scenario writers. All the major databases for HCE are found here, as well as a large library of scenarios. If you're looking for scenario ideas, help with building a scenario you're working on, some helpful feedback about where your scenario might be improved, or just some feedback about how your scenario was enjoyed by others (or how it kicked their butt, hehe), you'll find it here. There's a dedicated sub-forum for Scenario Design & Discussion that you will find here. Because scenario files are (thankfully) quite small, you can zip up your 'scenario in progress' file and attach it directly to your post in the above noted forum. I have built a scenario for Harpoon Commander's Edition, and I'd like to share it. What to do? HarpGamer has a dedicated Downloads section for HCE scenarios. The scenarios are organized by BattleSet, so simply find the BattleSet to which your new scenario belongs, and upload your zipped file there. We'll approve the upload as soon as possible. You should add a little commentary that tells what your scenario is about, or what the player might expect. Be sure to advise which database you used to create your scenario. The actual zipped file should contain three individual files: (1) the actual scenario file, which are automatically identified by their filename extension (as explained here). (2) a file containing a set of orders for the BLUE side (3) a file containing set of orders for the RED side You should use the Orders Writer to create BLUE and RED orders. If the scenario is intended for play by one side only, say BLUE, you should still add some basic information in the other (RED) tab, if only wording to the effect that "This scenario is intended for play by the BLUE side only". I have a request for a new platform in a database, or I think an entry might need fixing. Where should I post my request? Database designers generally welcome requests for new platforms, weapons, sensors, etc, especially if you intend to use that platform in a new scenario that you hope to share with other players. Each database has its own design guidelines, so if your request is in keeping with those guidelines, it stands a good chance of inclusion. Database designers are equally appreciative of notes and reminders that a certain entry might contain an error, typographical or otherwise. Keep in mind that any database is always a 'work in progress' and its a huge undertaking to try and maintain one database. Many designers around here maintain several! Also, there may be a legitimate difference of opinion about whether a certain entry is 'accurate' or 'realistic'. While a designer will probably be very happy to hear you out, you should also appreciate that the final decision belongs to the designer, of course, and he may have his own reasons for deciding to take the database in any given direction. There's a dedicated sub-forum for Database Design & Discussion that you will find here. There's a specific thread for HCDB requests in that sub-forum that we'd ask that you use, in order to streamline tracking of such requests and subsequent changes to the DB. How do I add a Youtube video to my post? This is a standard Youtube link: h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms6dXiIDofE Where the video code is the following portion ms6dXiIDofE. The proper tags for Youtube videos are therefore [youtube*] insert video code here [/youtube*], without the asterisks of course. The end result is a video window in your post that readers can click and play. Updated 7 February 2012

Nothing in the way of fixed wing, if thats what you're wondering. Some H4.1 relevant info for the Ulyanovsk: In class: 0 + 1 + 1 In service date: 1994? Size class: Large Displacement: 60,000 std Acoustic countermeasures: None ECM: Gen 3 jammers and decoys ESM: Gen 3 Propulsion: Nuclear Speed: 30 kt Crew: 3800 Signature: Large/loud Weapons 12 x P-700 (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) SSM launchers 6 x quadruple Kynshal (SA-N-9 Gauntlet) SAM (48 missiles) (4 Cross Sword) 8 x Kashtan (CADS-N-1) CIWS (32 Kortik SAM and 15 x 30mm bursts) (8 Hot Flash) 8 x 30mm/54 AK-630 CIWS (15 bursts) (8 Hot Flash) 10 x twin RPK-5 Liven (RBU 12 000) Sensors Fregat-M (Top Plate) 3 x MR-320 Volga (Palm Frond) 2 x Podkat (Strut Pair) Polinom (Horse Jaw) Aircraft 27 Su-33 Flanker D, 10 Su-25 Frogfoot, 4 Yak-44 AEW (under construction), 18 Ka-29PL Helix A, 2 Ka-27PS Helix C (three deck-edge elevators and two catapults) Notes Project 1143.7 class. 12 deg ski-jump, angled flight deck with two catapults. First unit Ulyanovsk canceled in 1991 with work 40-45 percent complete. Broken up and sold for scrap in 1992. Above in-service date assumes ship was completed. Second unit never laid down but possibly could have entered service in about 1997.

The Sixth Battle is a great book but I would be hesitant to draw database information from a novel. This, from the October 2003 issue of the Journal of Electronic Defense: The P-1000 Vulkan was one of the most mysterious missiles in Soviet service. It was also the last Russian missile that required a submarine to surface for launch. Its existence was never discovered by NATO, despite the fact it was operational on 5 submarines. It was generally similar to P-500 but had titanium armor, and many of its steel parts were replaced by titanium ones. This enabled a significant decrease in launch weight. At the same time, a more powerful booster and a more powerful and more fuel efficient sustainer turbojet was employed. This increased the range to about 700 km. Its development was initiated in May 1979, and it underwent tests in the mid 1980s. The P-1000 was introduced into service in about 1987. In the late 1980s, 5 Echo II class submarines were modernized to accommodate the new P-1000 Vulkan system, but all 5 were withdrawn from service in the mid 1990s. Thus, it was in front line service for only about 7 or 8 years (unless it has, in fact, been installed on the Varyag).

Yup. Westpac and anything in the way of newer battlesets, such as the custom ones.

Analysis from the supreme emperor of hockey broadcasting, Hockey Night in Canada ... From CBC Sports The Second Round Hockey Night In Canada analyst Scott Morrison breaks down the second-round matchups in the East Last Updated Wed., Apr. 23, 2008 Scott Morrison, CBC Sports EASTERN CONFERENCE MONTREAL (1) vs. PHILADELPHIA (6) Montreal: STRENGTHS: In many ways being forced to seven games by the Bruins showed the Canadiens' strength of character. They saw how rookie goaltender Carey Price could deal with pressure and adversity. They saw their big players, such as Saku Koivu and Alex Kovalev, lead the way in Game 7. While Price struggled at times, he is the real deal. Canadiens got production from a variety of sources, including their checking line. Mike Komasarik played well at the back end and the penalty killing was solid. WEAKNESSES: The best power play during the regular season became the worst in the playoffs. The Canadiens had gaps in their offence, meaning the likes of Kovalev and the brothers Kostitsyn had a bookend series, good the first and last games. Price proved beatable. As good as he was, he faltered late in a couple of games and they allowed a limited Boston offence to at times put up big numbers, though Price posted two shutouts. For stretches, the Habs were outplayed by the Bruins and had major defensive breakdowns. As coach Guy Carbonneau put it, he had veteran players making big-time mistakes and his best players weren't his best players on some nights. KEY PLAYER: Koivu. He truly is the leader of that team. He provides another dimension, improves their work in the faceoff circle and allows Christopher Higgins to be comfortable back on the wing. Philadelphia: STRENGTHS: The Flyers, in large part, proved in the Washington series that they can shut down the dangerous snipers. Kimmo Timmonen and Braydon Coburn were really good and goalie Martin Biron erased some doubts about himself, especially playing back-to-back games to finish the series. Mike Richards looks like he deserves every year in his contract and how can the Flyers not find a way to sign Jeff Carter? Coach John Stevens did a nice job of assembling a game plan to best neutralize a very dangerous Washington team and those same plans will be needed against Montreal. More good news for the Flyers is that Daniel Briere had a good series and will be inspired against Montreal and their angry fans. WEAKNESSES: The power play produced at times, but not often enough, especially if the Canadiens find a way to solve their issues. Holding leads proved a problem in the first and sixth games against the Capitals and could have cost them a chance of advancing. The loss of Mike Knuble to injury will continue to hurt the team. They also relied on a small handful of players to provide the bulk of their offence. KEY PLAYER: Carter. He has the opportunity to slide in the door and be effective in a shutdown role, but also contribute to the offence. This is the chance for him to attach zeroes to his next contract. PITTSBURGH (2) vs. NEW YORK (5) Pittsburgh: STRENGTHS: They are obviously well-balanced offensively with Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Marian Hossa, Ryan Malone and Peter Sykora among others. Like we've said before, not too many teams have two great offensive lines. And they have lots of sandpaper beyond that. Sergei Gonchar has been a rock on defence and Marc-Andre Fleury was terrific in net, giving up just five goals. Special teams were also outstanding and when they had the Senators down, they put them out of their misery, another good sign. They showed plenty of poise against Ottawa and a willingness to rough it up when necessary. WEAKNESSES: There weren't many against the Senators, though at times they proved vulnerable in their own end. The biggest factor looking ahead is that because they took care of business so quickly in the first round, sweeping Ottawa, they will have an extended layoff and may lose the edge, at least to start their series. On the plus side, of course, Crosby has had more time to heal, as has Gary Roberts. KEY PLAYER: Roberts. He is very much the leader of this team and established the physical presence early in the Ottawa series. New York : STRENGTHS: Their overall defensive play is tremendous and Henrik Lundqvist was great in goal against New Jersey. When the Rangers struggled early, coughing up the puck and being uncharacteristically sloppy in their own end, Lundqvist gave them a chance and the Rangers proved opportunistic. Jaromir Jagr looked like his old self, as did Scott Gomez, whose speed was a difference maker. Sean Avery, love him or not, makes an impact on games and makes big-time plays. He is a key to this team's success. They also showed they have great depth, can play it tight if necessary, but have a better attack than what we saw during the regular season. The layoff is just about right. WEAKNESSES: They had moments when they were sloppy in their own end far too often against the Devils, but beyond that there wasn't too much to dislike about their game. KEY PLAYER: Avery. He scores key goals, bugs the opposition and influences games. If he doesn't cross the line he is a very effective player, whose finger prints are usually all over a series. And from CBC Sports The Second Round Hockey Night In Canada analyst Scott Morrison breaks down the second-round matchups in the West Last Updated Wed., Apr. 23, 2008 Scott Morrison, CBC Sports WESTERN CONFERENCE DETROIT (1) vs. COLORADO (6) Detroit: STRENGTHS: The Red Wings pretty much played to form in the first round, pushed by Nashville, but finding a way to prevail. They looked good, not great and battled through terrific Nashville goaltending. In the end the likes of Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, Nicklas Lidstrom and Brian Rafalski fueled the offence, but their depth proved to be significant, too. Their penalty killing was excellent and while Dominik Hasek struggled, they still had a Stanley Cup winner to turn to in Chris Osgood to get the job done. Again, good depth. Niklas Kronwall had a good series and was a physical presence. WEAKNESSES: The power play, which was third-best during the regular season, struggled mightily against the Predators. Hasek was very average in goal, but like we said, Osgood is a good alternative. They may have to ride two goaltenders this spring, but it's still early. Losing twice in Nashville allowed for some element of doubt to creep in, but for whatever reason the Red Wings are a team that is always doubted, or under appreciated. The question still remains about how they will fare against an opponent that has better offence, though again they were great defensively during the regular season. KEY PLAYER: Osgood. If we have seen the last of Hasek, then Osgood is going to have to be consistently very good for the Red Wings to go deep. Colorado: STRENGTHS: This certainly wouldn't have been said a year ago, but goaltender Jose Theodore is a definitive strength. He was nothing short of brilliant in the first round against Minnesota and had to be. The likes of Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg and Milan Hejduk up front, along with Andrew Brunette and Wojtek Wolski were stellar against the Wild. Adam Foote and Ruslan Salei and Kurt Sauer were great at the back end. Foote, especially, was the shutdown guy, consistently frustrating Marian Gaborik. Even though they gave up a lot of shots and chances, the fact that the Avalanche were able to shut down the Wild's big gunners was encouraging. The penalty killing was also good. WEAKNESSES: The Avs had a terrible time protecting leads, though for the longest time they didn't allow the Wild to score until the third period or overtime. But blowing leads is troubling. They also gave up far too many shots and relied too heavily on Theodore. The power play wasn't good and allowed two shorthanded goals. For much of the series young Paul Stastny struggled. They need him to be better. KEY PLAYER: Theodore. As good as Foote was especially, the real shutdown guy was Theodore. Anything less than he delivered in the first round and the Avs are done. SAN JOSE (2) vs. DALLAS (5) San Jose : STRENGTHS: Just like the Stars, the team they will face, the Sharks are playing monkey-free. Well, sort of. A second-round loss is probably only slightly better than a first-round exit, but being pushed by the Flames to the limit should help. In the end, the Sharks responded in the seventh game with Evgeni Nabokov solid in goal, Joe Thornton showing the grit everyone has wondered about and Patrick Marleau good from start to finish. We all know how good this team can be, so maybe now they can relax and be that good, although Dallas will be a difficult opponent. And if you think it won't be nasty, rewind the tapes of the final meeting of the season. But if Thornton chimes in with timely points, Marleau continues to shine and they get production from deep in the lineup from the likes of Ryan Clowe, the Sharks will be happy. WEAKNESSES: Well, that psyche we talked about as a potential strength is still probably quite fragile. Nabokov was good in the Calgary series, but seemed a tad wobbly in the final game, but he did get the job done. If Kyle McLaren is gone, that hurts the blue-line. Despite out shooting the Flames by a wide margin, they were hard pressed to get that wide margin on the scoreboard and Marty Turco will be every bit as tough to beat. Ron Wilson will also have to resist the temptation to tinker with a winning lineup, as he did in the Calgary series. KEY PLAYER: Marleau. This kid sucks it up and plays hard. He has endured criticism, he has been the poster boy for their failures, but he had a great first round and this is his playoff to shine. Dallas : STRENGTHS: They are no longer playing with a monkey on their backs. Remember, the Stars hadn't won a playoff round since 2003 and had taken on the reputation of being post-season underachievers. But that is now behind them, along with the defending champions. Against Anaheim, the Stars played with discipline and good defence, their power play punished the undisciplined Ducks. All facets of their game were good, with the Stars looking more like they did in February than in March. Brad Richards proved again he is a big-time playoff performer. Brendan Morrow had a strong series, as did defenceman Stephane Robidas, who really stepped up and played well despite taking a puck in the face. Indeed, the Stars survived quite nicely despite missing defencemen Sergei Zubov and Phillippe Boucher, though you don't want that to be a long-term proposition. WEAKNESSES: Not a lot of weaknesses showed up against the Ducks, though you could argue the penalty killing could still improve slightly, it was working at 79 per cent efficiency. The injuries on the blue-line could eventually become a factor. And we wonder if there is enough scoring to prevail, though that only becomes an issue if the defensive play goes south, and there are no signs of that happening. Meantime, they got production from a lot of different sources. KEY PLAYER: Richards. He is the guy who has gone the distance in the playoffs and played well in the first round. He earned points, but even more significant is he was a plus two, this on the heels of being minus 27 during the regular season.

And two more teams bite the dust .. the field narrows.

From Northrop Grumman news release U.S. Navy Awards $1.16 Billion BAMS UAS Contract to Northrop Grumman LOS ANGELES - April 22, 2008 - The U.S. Navy has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) an 89-month, $1.16 billion contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) of the service's new Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) program. The BAMS UAS will provide the U.S. Navy with a persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system to protect the fleet and provide a capability to detect, track, classify, and identify maritime and littoral targets. "We are honored that the Navy selected our team to provide this critical advanced capability to help fulfill its mission to protect our warfighters, our nation and its allies from maritime threats," said Ronald D. Sugar, Northrop Grumman chairman and chief executive officer. "We believe our approach, based on the proven capabilities of the Global Hawk, delivers the best value to the Navy and the American taxpayer, further supporting the National Maritime Strategy and the Global War on Terrorism." Northrop Grumman's RQ-4N, a marinized version of the RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned air vehicle, will be the platform for the BAMS UAS suite of maritime surveillance sensors and communications systems. "This BAMS UAS contract highlights Northrop Grumman's leadership in unmanned aerial systems and its legacy of using engineering innovation to fulfill critical customer system requirements," said Gary W. Ervin, corporate vice president and president of Northrop Grumman's Integrated Systems sector. "We're looking forward to being the Navy's partner in developing this vital capability for the service's Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Forces." The Northrop Grumman BAMS UAS is a multi-mission maritime ISR system that will support a variety of missions while operating independently or in direct collaboration with fleet assets. The RQ-4N will be able to provide a continuous on-station presence while conducting open-ocean and littoral surveillance of targets. When operational, BAMS will play a key role in providing commanders with a persistent, reliable picture of surface threats, covering vast areas of open ocean and littoral regions, minimizing the need to utilize other manned assets to execute surveillance and reconnaissance tasks. "Northrop Grumman was chosen for the BAMS UAS SDD contract based upon a deliberate and meticulous source selection process designed to make a best value determination on behalf of the Navy," said Captain Robert Dishman, program manager, PMA-262. "With Northrop Grumman as our industry partner, we are ready to begin SDD and take the next step towards delivering a persistent maritime ISR capability to the Fleet and warfighter." In addition to serving as the Navy's BAMS prime contractor and unmanned aerial vehicle supplier, Northrop Grumman has developed the BAMS Multi-Function Active Sensor active electronically scanned array radar at its Norwalk, Conn., facility. Other RQ-4N BAMS team members include: Raytheon, which will support the Mission Control System segment and provide the electro-optical/infrared sensor; L-3 Communications, which will provide communications integration; Aurora Flight Sciences, which will provide the V-tail assembly and other composite structures; Rolls-Royce Corporation, which will provide the aircraft engine; Sierra Nevada Corporation, which will provide the Electronic Support Measures system; and Vought Aircraft Industries, which will supply the wing. Northrop Grumman performs Global Hawk sub-assembly work at its Unmanned Systems Center, Moss Point, Miss. The company anticipates performing final assembly at its St. Augustine, Fla. Manufacturing Center. The RQ-4N is the latest addition to a growing family of unmanned systems developed by Northrop Grumman. The BAMS system builds on the company's extensive experience with autonomous flight control that includes thousands of flight hours by the combat-proven RQ-4 Global Hawk, the MQ-5B Hunter, the MQ-8 Fire Scout vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tactical unmanned system -- the first completely autonomous VTOL aircraft to land aboard a Navy vessel underway -- and the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System -- the first unmanned air vehicle scheduled to perform carrier landings. Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $32 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide. [CV32: Another kick in the guts for Boeing].

I'm in favour of forced surfacing after 75% damage, but I like Josef's idea that this should not be always guaranteed. I would be in favour of a middle of the road approach where, after incurring 75% percent damage, there's a chance (say 50/50 or some such) of the boat being forced to surface. This based on the theory that some sub commanders will try and save the boat and their crew, while other, blood lust crazed skippers will take the fight to the bitter end.

I should be available late in the afternoon or evening on Saturday.

Courtesy of Craig Paffhausen: F-14E Super Tomcat 21 Name and designation unoffical. Applied to a minimum of three and as many as 12 different studies to follow on from the F-14D and replace A-6/A-12 and NATF (Naval Advanced Technology Fighter) Key factors for all versions: -Reduced RCS (on rebuilt aircraft, RCS was to be reduced by 50% and on new built aircraft RCS could be as small as the F-22 in all aspects except from the rear). -Sensor/avionics redesign. Increased situational awareness and thus DATA. -Aft shift in Center of Gravity requiring FBW control system. Mechanical system removed (saving several thousand pounds and increasing reliability/mantainability); also increases DATA -Either F110-GE-429 (GE-129 engines with F-14 Mods) or F119-GE-401 (failed engine from F-22 program) -Redesigned avionics suite, would include Sniper EO LD/IIR system mounted in front of Phoenix Pallets; new radar (APG-71(V)2 AESA or another new radar); under-nose IRST and TCS would be replaced by modern ones. -Phoenix Pallets would be of a new, permanent design (F-14 is MORE agile with Phoenix carried than when only carrying Sparrows without the Pallets!), only removable for maintenance. New Pallet would have several new substations/Hardpoints added. This would increase bomb load in NUMBER to 20 Mk82 (8 on Slant 4 set up MERs under wing and 12 on Pallet) -Phoenix Replacement Missile (AIM-152 AAM or S-255 Meteor) Phoenix while supported by this aircraft was to still decommission circa 2006; 4 or 6 on new Fuselage Pallet and up to 2 underwing. Phoenix would still be carried in the 4/2 loadout as before. This F-14 can LAND with 6 Phoenix however. -AIM-120 AMRAAM integration along with new radar and the AIM-152/S-255 missile the AIM-120 would be integrated max loadout (depending on S-255 or AIM-152) would be 10 or 12 missiles. 10 with AIM-152 and 12 with S-255. 10 is more likely. -Drop tank size increased to 345 USG. -One design concept has drop tank pylons being useable to carry more munitions. Air to ground only and only 760 lb or lighter weaps. (Clearance more than weight is the issue.) Also no EO/CCD/IIR guided weapons as the nose will receive a lot of FOD from takeoff/landing. Now onto the exact versions: F-14E Super Tomcat (Also called F-14DUPG): simple upgrade of F-14D (new built F-14Ds only); updated avionics, updated engine, deleted wing strakes and wing glove of new design. Adds 1100 kg fuel. Receives Laser designator/navigation "pods" and new Phoenix Replacement Missile Pallets. Radar is SOFTWARE updated to include an ISAR mode for Air to Ground use. F-14E Super Tomcat 21. As above except new radar, new engines, gains AGM-84/158/88 capabilities (AGM-136 if program is not canceled). Radar is AESA (first production AESA aircraft in world). IOC would have been 1997-99. F/A-14E Advanced Strike Tomcat 21. New built aircraft. New construction technique dramatically reduces RCS (almost F-117 level in foward arc!) Some drawings show Phoenix pallet replaced by full nacelle length weapons bay. Weapons bay versions would have considerably different loadouts. Commonality (airframe) less than 10% to a F-14D, avionics about 45% and performance about 88%. ATA remains same as F-14A/B/D. Loadouts: F-14E Super Tomcat: As F-14D, add AMRAAM in lieu of Sparrow and increase fuel. Bomb load would change to larger quantities. I have already stated max Mk82 loadout... Realistic loadout would probably be less. F-14E Super Tomcat 21: As above except add AGM loadouts. Max of each is: AGM-84 4, AGM-88 8, AGM-158 4. AGM-136 in theory up to 14 (one per non MER mounted Mk82 bomb (same size)) AGM-84/88/158 have one under each wing, rest are under fuselage. Can carry 2 AGM-88 when carrying any other AGM on the fuselage. F-14E Advanced Strike Tomcat 21: NO BAY (As Super Tomcat 21 above) Range dramatically increased (2800nm unrefueled!) F-14E AST 21: With internal weapons bay. Wing pylons only carry AAMs. Bay can carry ZERO Phoenix, 6 AIM-152/S-255 AAMs or 8 AIM-120 AMRAAMs or 4 Mk84 class bombs (all of them) or 6 Mk82/83 class bombs (all mods) or ETC. Cannot carry SLAM versions of AGM-84. Can still carry 2 AGM-158/84 or 4 AGM-88 HARM.

A big sigh of relief from the Bell Center. Phew!

This scenario has now been released.

File Name: The Origin of Storms File Submitter: CV32 File Submitted: 21 Apr 2008 File Category: GIUK DB Used: HCDB Authors: Brad Leyte Battleset-GIUK: .scm - EC2003 - EC2003 The Origin of Storms A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for the EC2003 GIUK Gap battleset. This scenario is designed for play by the BLUE side. Environmental terrorists have disabled the world's first floating nuclear power plant, the massive Russian Rosenergoatom-Sevmash platform in the Barents Sea, inadvertently triggering a meltdown of one of the two reactors and a resultant environmental catastrophe. The eco terrorists are a previously unknown group, going by the name Desdenova, and with apparent links to Norway. The Norwegians were opposed to the floating nuclear power plant from the outset, and Russia now blames Oslo for having masterminded the attack, claiming an attempt to grab oil and gas reserves in the region. The Royal Norwegian Navy is moving to protect its territorial integrity and to attempt to contain the contamination, but the Russians have declared an absolute exclusion zone in the Barents and have prohibited all foreign entities from entering the area. A Royal Navy carrier group is caught in the storm. Click here to download this file

From Aviation Week Flight-Test Program Accelerates for U.S. Navy''s E-2D Apr 20, 2008 By David A. Fulghum Within three years, the U.S. Navy's fleet will have fielded the technology for precisely locating small, flying targets. The target set embraces some of the Navy's latest nightmares, including the next-generation of stealthy - sometimes supersonic - cruise missiles. Moreover, with the introduction of space-time adaptive processing (STAP) software, the hybrid APY-9 electronically scanned array (ESA) radar on board the new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye will be able to pick those elusive flying targets out of a background of rough terrain and urban sprawl, a far different mission than the overwater detection capability of earlier Navy airborne early-warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft. The advanced radar capability on the 75 new E-2Ds will be parked 25,000 ft. above forward-deployed fleets so that those advanced enemy missiles can be detected at ranges great enough to allow for organization of an effective defense. From that overhead perch, flying at an artificially slow cruise speed to maximize target observation time, the E-2D will be able to collect airborne target and electronic emitter data from well beyond the radar horizon of surface ships. The E-2D can then feed it to fighter aircraft, shipboard missile defenses and the newly emerging Global Information Grid. "A big reason the E-2D is happening is to be able to detect these [small] targets over land," says James Culmo, Northrop Grumman vice president and program manager for AEW&C and battle management command-and-control networks. Therefore, "It is significant in that the first time we flew [the radar], we detected targets over water and land out to ranges [still classified, that] we expected." Navy officials also are intentionally vague - often refusing comment - about the ranges, types and sizes of targets that can be spotted with the new, 360-deg. ESA radar the E-2D carries. They point out that the radar cross-sections of various targets will be analyzed by other specialized aircraft like the EP-X, with its massive AESA radar and advanced electronic surveillance arrays or even the carrier-based F-35B/C Joint Strike Fighter. The E-2D will be there to detect and precisely locate those small targets first, often using information gathered from a variety of intelligence sources. To that end, the aircraft's radar was designed with a mix of technologies. The element that gives small-target detection is the ESA antenna. But the array has a limited field of view - 60-90 deg. or less. The solution for providing total coverage was to affix it to a second, mechanical array that rotates in a full circle. "Our aircraft is not going to have the role of analyzing the signatures of aircraft," says Navy Capt. Randy Mahr, E-2D program manager. "But I will be able to use multi-sensor data from other platforms. I know where the target is. Somebody else may know what it is. I can put those pieces together. Sometimes it's going to be an aircraft that can see the target best. Other times it's going to be a ship or a ground unit." The goal is "one piece of metal, one track," Mahr says. "That means everyone is looking at a single picture. I'm going to have server capability on the E-2D that can maintain some historical piece of the picture. Other parts are going to be resident in ships and with ground forces. I am the central airborne piece." When cued by other intelligence sources, the ESA begins looking ahead and behind the mechanical scan so it can focus on a given piece of airspace to pick out small objects. "I can track a fast target," Mahr says. "Whether I can acquire any other object is just a matter of how much [radar energy] I put on that particular target" and for how long. New technologies always bring with them unexpected problems and occasionally an unanticipated solution. The E-2D is no exception. On the plus side, processor technology is shrinking, which has kept weight at least 1,500 lb. below predictions while producing excess processing capability. But there may be concerns in future. "I may need to see more things [outside the range of the new radar]," Mahr says. "As we move into the world of unmanned and remote vehicles, we're going to have a large amount of sensor data available. How we're going to operate with those unmanned vehicles is not fully understood. In some way, every airborne platform will be integrated. That challenge is coming at us." Certainly, some problems have already been identified. In the E-2D's early radar flights, the tracker was creating a new file for each target on each sweep, instead of tracking and building a history of the object. Target accuracy was good, but the tracks were not unambiguous. A software fix in the mission computer was required. The radar's prototype power supply was also a problem early on, but it appears to be working smoothly now. There were malfunctioning circulators in the radar that let it power up and down. The two aircraft haven't accumulated enough flying time yet to produce reliability issues. The second test aircraft, AA-2, was producing an unusual sound in the left wing. A pair of hydraulic lines were found to be rubbing. All hydraulics and wiring were inspected and rebundled to ensure there was no chafing, which set back the radar flight-test program about three weeks. Now Mahr is accelerating the schedule by increasing flight tests up to 4.6 hr. from 2.5 hr. "We're doing well, flying missions and we're now within weeks of our original plan," he says. Between now and the end of summer, "we'll be testing the radar and its systems to get ready for [an] operational assessment," Culmo says. "We haven't tested the [electronic steering] modes of the radar. The first thing we want to do is make sure the mechanical scan works. We won't be testing the full ESA [capability] until late this year or early 2009. But the outputs of the radar are such that we're sure we can electronically steer it." Culmo also notes that "the same thing that allows us to do electronic scanning, allows us to do STAP. Basically, [it's the product of] being able to control the amplitude and phase of each of the antenna elements. That allows the cancellation of a lot of electromagnetic interference," particularly from radar signals reflecting off of terrain and buildings. A few details have drifted out of the aerospace industry about the capability. So far, the Advanced Hawkeye's radar has operated at only half power. Yet the radar's range already equals that of the E-2C's conventional radar and the volume of airspace it can monitor has tripled. Even a layman's extrapolation would put the new E-2D's range at least at 250 mi. More likely it's limited only by the aircraft's radar horizon. Mahr will only say that, "The test team is seeing E-2C equivalent performance in the E-2D testing completed so far. There are no plans or requirements to do more extravagant things yet." Electronic and network attack, for example, are not part of the Advanced Hawkeye's portfolio. "Electronic attack is like [the E-2D] carrying bombs; there's no reason for it," Mahr says. "Other elements in the network do that." A primary attraction of AESA radars is 2-3 times longer range than single aperture radars. They are also able to focus an array's energy on enemy sensors and antennas for jamming, placing false targets and even serving as a conduit for the digital attack of integrated communications networks. So far, at least, the E-2D won't be operated with those missions in mind, but there are still some interesting electronic warfare applications. "From an electronic attack perspective, one of the benefits of E-2D is that it has a UHF radar, which is different from most of the other [L, S and X-band] radars that we're going to be up against in our environment," Mahr says. "[That] adds a dimension to the [jamming] problem for any foe. It [also] gives the U.S. another dimension to work in. The more complicated we can make the electronic problem for somebody else, the better off we'll be." Data links for pushing information off and on the E-2D are still being explored. "The pipes aren't finalized yet," Mahr says. "Right now, I have the E-2C's data links as a threshold capability. But the Defense Dept. is still maturing the next generation of network radios. Whatever that is in [about] 10 years, the plane's open architecture will be able to make it compatible with our weapons system. That radio and the open architecture is the touchstone." Program members have been jumpstarting the process of tying "into the giant network in the sky" with tests conducted from specially modified E-2Cs involving intra-battlegroup wireless networking. "I look at broadband capabilities and waveforms on new radios that aren't in the fleet yet to move large pieces of data, whether that is imagery or an air tasking order," Mahr says. "We have talked to an F-18, AWACS and F-15, but it's not an operational capability. When it [is available], we'll be ready." The team also is using the mission computer and communications system from an E-2C to build a core open architecture. That will make it easier to do in the E-2D, and make both aircraft compatible nodes on the network. "Once I get the radars' final transmitter pieces and rig them out, I'll move them to the aircraft," Mahr says. "That's the end of the hardware stairstep. This summer, we'll get the transmitter operation in both aircraft. By the end of the summer, we'll turn the aircraft over to the commander of operational test force so that test squadron VX-1 can do an operational assessment." That's the last hurdle before a low-rate initial production decision next spring. The aircraft will move to NAS Patuxent River, Md., this year. Aircraft carrier qualifications are scheduled for late 2009, followed by initial operational capability in 2013.

Its about failing to seize the initiative.

Thanks, Ralf. Send the save game to HC3@harpgamer.com

From Stratfor Chinese Geopolitics and the Significance of Tibet April 15, 2008 By George Friedman China is an island. We do not mean it is surrounded by water; we mean China is surrounded by territory that is difficult to traverse. Therefore, China is hard to invade; given its size and population, it is even harder to occupy. This also makes it hard for the Chinese to invade others; not utterly impossible, but quite difficult. Containing a fifth of the world’s population, China can wall itself off from the world, as it did prior to the United Kingdom’s forced entry in the 19th century and under Mao Zedong. All of this means China is a great power, but one that has to behave very differently than other great powers. Analyzing Chinese Geography Let’s begin simply by analyzing Chinese geography, looking at two maps. The first represents the physical geography of China. The second shows the population density not only of China, but also of the surrounding countries. China’s geography is roughly divided into two parts: a mountainous, arid western part and a coastal plain that becomes hilly at its westward end. The overwhelming majority of China’s population is concentrated in that coastal plain. The majority of China’s territory — the area west of this coastal plain — is lightly inhabited, however. This eastern region is the Chinese heartland that must be defended at all cost. China as island is surrounded by impassable barriers — barriers that are difficult to pass or areas that essentially are wastelands with minimal population. To the east is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and northwest are the Siberian and Mongolian regions, sparsely populated and difficult to move through. To the south, there are the hills, mountains and jungles that separate China from Southeast Asia; to visualize this terrain, just remember the incredible effort that went into building the Burma Road during World War II. To the southwest lie the Himalayas. In the northwest are Kazakhstan and the vast steppes of Central Asia. Only in the far northeast, with the Russian maritime provinces and the Yalu River separating China from Korea, are there traversable points of contacts. But the balance of military power is heavily in China’s favor at these points. Strategically, China has two problems, both pivoting around the question of defending the coastal region. First, China must prevent attacks from the sea. This is what the Japanese did in the 1930s, first invading Manchuria in the northeast and then moving south into the heart of China. It is also what the British and other European powers did on a lesser scale in the 19th century. China’s defense against such attacks is size and population. It draws invaders in and then wears them out, with China suffering massive casualties and economic losses in the process. The second threat to China comes from powers moving in through the underpopulated portion of the west, establishing bases and moving east, or coming out of the underpopulated regions around China and invading. This is what happened during the Mongol invasion from the northwest. But that invasion was aided by tremendous Chinese disunity, as were the European and Japanese incursions. Beijing’s Three Imperatives Beijing therefore has three geopolitical imperatives: 1. Maintain internal unity so that far powers can’t weaken the ability of the central government to defend China. 2. Maintain a strong coastal defense to prevent an incursion from the Pacific. 3. Secure China’s periphery by anchoring the country’s frontiers on impassable geographical features; in other words, hold its current borders. In short, China’s strategy is to establish an island, defend its frontiers efficiently using its geographical isolation as a force multiplier, and, above all, maintain the power of the central government over the country, preventing regionalism and factionalism. We see Beijing struggling to maintain control over China. Its vast security apparatus and interlocking economic system are intended to achieve that. We see Beijing building coastal defenses in the Pacific, including missiles that can reach deep into the Pacific, in the long run trying to force the U.S. Navy on the defensive. And we see Beijing working to retain control over two key regions: Xinjiang and Tibet. Xinjiang is Muslim. This means at one point it was invaded by Islamic forces. It also means that it can be invaded and become a highway into the Chinese heartland. Defense of the Chinese heartland therefore begins in Xinjiang. So long as Xinjiang is Chinese, Beijing will enjoy a 1,500-mile, inhospitable buffer between Lanzhou — the westernmost major Chinese city and its oil center — and the border of Kazakhstan. The Chinese thus will hold Xinjiang regardless of Muslim secessionists. The Importance of Tibet to China Now look at Tibet on the population density and terrain maps. On the terrain map one sees the high mountain passes of the Himalayas. Running from the Hindu Kush on the border with Pakistan to the Myanmar border, small groups can traverse this terrain, but no major army is going to thrust across this border in either direction. Supplying a major force through these mountains is impossible. From a military point of view, it is a solid wall. Note that running along the frontier directly south of this border is one of the largest population concentrations in the world. If China were to withdraw from Tibet, and there were no military hindrance to population movement, Beijing fears this population could migrate into Tibet. If there were such a migration, Tibet could turn into an extension of India and, over time, become a potential beachhead for Indian power. If that were to happen, India’s strategic frontier would directly abut Sichuan and Yunnan — the Chinese heartland. The Chinese have a fundamental national interest in retaining Tibet, because Tibet is the Chinese anchor in the Himalayas. If that were open, or if Xinjiang became independent, the vast buffers between China and the rest of Eurasia would break down. The Chinese can’t predict the evolution of Indian, Islamic or Russian power in such a circumstance, and they certainly don’t intend to find out. They will hold both of these provinces, particularly Tibet. The Chinese note that the Dalai Lama has been in India ever since China invaded Tibet. The Chinese regard him as an Indian puppet. They see the latest unrest in Tibet as instigated by the Indian government, which uses the Dalai Lama to try to destabilize the Chinese hold on Tibet and open the door to Indian expansion. To put it differently, their view is that the Indians could shut the Dalai Lama down if they wanted to, and that they don’t signals Indian complicity. It should be added that the Chinese see the American hand behind this as well. Apart from public statements of support, the Americans and Indians have formed a strategic partnership since 2001. The Chinese view the United States — which is primarily focused on the Islamic world — as encouraging India and the Dalai Lama to probe the Chinese, partly to embarrass them over the Olympics and partly to increase the stress on the central government. The central government is stretched in maintaining Chinese security as the Olympics approach. The Chinese are distracted. Beijing also notes the similarities between what is happening in Tibet and the “color” revolutions the United States supported and helped stimulate in the former Soviet Union. It is critical to understand that whatever the issues might be to the West, the Chinese see Tibet as a matter of fundamental national security, and they view pro-Tibetan agitation in the West as an attempt to strike at the heart of Chinese national security. The Chinese are therefore trapped. They are staging the Olympics in order to demonstrate Chinese cohesion and progress. But they must hold on to Tibet for national security reasons, and therefore their public relations strategy is collapsing. Neither India nor the United States is particularly upset that the Europeans are thinking about canceling attendance at various ceremonies. A Lack of Countermoves China has few countermoves to this pressure over Tibet. There is always talk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That is not going to happen — not because China doesn’t want to, but because it does not have the naval capability of seizing control of the Taiwan Straits or seizing air superiority, certainly not if the United States doesn’t want it (and we note that the United States has two carrier battle groups in the Taiwan region at the moment). Beijing thus could bombard Taiwan, but not without enormous cost to itself and its own defensive capabilities. It does not have the capability to surge forces across the strait, much less to sustain operations there in anything short of a completely permissive threat environment. The Chinese could fire missiles at Taiwan, but that risks counterstrikes from American missiles. And, of course, Beijing could go nuclear, but that is not likely given the stakes. The most likely Chinese counter here would be trying to isolate Taiwan from shipping by firing missiles. But that again assumes the United States would not respond — something Beijing can’t count on. While China thus lacks politico-military options to counter the Tibet pressure, it also lacks economic options. It is highly dependent for its economic well-being on exports to the United States and other countries; drawing money out of U.S. financial markets would require Beijing to put it somewhere else. If the Chinese invested in Europe, European interest rates would go down and U.S. rates would go up, and European money would pour into the United States. The long-held fear of the Chinese withdrawing their money from U.S. markets is therefore illusory: The Chinese are trapped economically. Far more than the United States, they can’t afford a confrontation. That leaves the pressure on Tibet, and China struggling to contain it. Note that Beijing’s first imperative is to maintain China’s internal coherence. China’s great danger is always a weakening of the central government and the development of regionalism. Beijing is far from losing control, but recently we have observed a set of interesting breakdowns. The inability to control events in Tibet is one. Significant shortages of diesel fuel is a second. Shortages of rice and other grains is a third. These are small things, but they are things that should not be happening in a country as well-heeled in terms of cash as China is, and as accustomed as it is to managing security threats. China must hold Tibet, and it will. The really interesting question is whether the stresses building up on China’s central administration are beginning to degrade its ability to control and manage events. It is easy to understand China’s obsession with Tibet. The next step is to watch China trying to pick up the pieces on a series of administrative miscues. That will give us a sense of the state of Chinese affairs.

As could be expected, lotsa commentary that this time table is a bit of a joke.

And my fantasy hockey team, which I've named "Lawyers, Guns & Money" , is still atop the playoff pool. (Thanks in large part to Malkin, Datsyuk, Koivu and Avery, hehe).

Hehe, beauty pic, Pete.

From Reuters FEATURE-Could Israel use submarines against Iran? Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:04am EDT By Dan Williams HAIFA, Israel, April 17 (Reuters) - Anticipating a showdown with Iran, Israel decides secretly to deploy a submarine off its arch-foe's coast. But how? The quickest route from Israel's Mediterranean coast is via the Suez Canal, which runs through Egypt and which the classified vessels shun. So the submarine is hidden in the belly of a commercial tanker, which delivers it to the Gulf. Such is the plot of an Israeli thriller, "Undersea Diplomacy". Does it hold water? Perhaps not. Then again, the author, Shlomo Erell, is no mere novelist. He's an ex-admiral with experience in Israel's most sensitive military planning. "It's pure fiction, but it's informed fiction," he said simply, when asked if his book reflects how the Israeli fleet of Dolphin-class submarines could be used against Iran, whose leadership has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", stoking international concern over Tehran's nuclear programme. Israel has three Dolphins, with two more on order from Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, a German shipyard custom-building them at a steep discount as part of Berlin's bid to shore up a Jewish state founded in the wake of the Nazi Holocaust. The submarines are a subject of deepest secrecy given speculation that they carry nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Many analysts believe the Dolphins are Israel's "second strike" weapons, referring to the Cold War theory that a country can deter foes from launching nuclear attacks by maintaining the ability to retaliate, even after its own territory has been laid waste. A nuclear "platform" out at sea is the best guarantee. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, and independent experts say it is years away from any such capability. Some, in turn, think Israel's expanding submarine fleet may be part of preparations to foil the perceived future threat through force. "There is nothing on the horizon to suggest Iran would have the capability to knock out Israel's nuclear delivery means," said Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. air force colonel who stages Middle East wargames for U.S. government and private clients. The Dolphins, he said, may be part of "a conventional capability to deal with the number of targets Israel believes would need to be struck in a conventional preemptive attack". DISTANCE NO OBJECT? Israel sent jets to bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and has hinted it could do the same against Iranian facilities if U.S.-led diplomatic pressure failed to rein in Tehran's plans. But the Iraqi raid was on a single site, relatively close to Israel's borders. Targets in Iran might be too numerous and distant for Israel's air force, especially as intermediate Arab states or Turkey would likely refuse overflight rights. Israel is assumed to have ballistic missiles, yet its small size may make surprise launches impossible: an unannounced missile test in January became news within minutes as the startled residents of nearby towns reported the roaring takeoff. Submarines could bridge the gap, especially if positioned in Iranian waters. That possibility has given rise to speculation that Israel wants five Dolphins in order to allow for at least one to be at sea at all times while others are being serviced. The question remains of how far they might travel. Israeli navy sources say the Dolphins do not use the Suez -- to avoid being inspected by Egyptian harbourmasters. That means that, to reach the Gulf, Israel would either have to resort to fantastical ruses like the one in "Undersea Diplomacy", or send the submarines around Africa -- a month-long trip at least. Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, is sceptical. "I don't buy the idea of a rotation. These submarines have not been purchased with a view to operating in the Gulf," he said. As Dolphins run on conventional rather than nuclear power so require regular refuelling and shore maintenance, he described them as better suited to close Mediterranean missions. Israel also has access to the Red Sea through Eilat port. But navy sources said there was no plan to dock submarines there because the narrow Red Sea, which is shared with several Arab states, is vulnerable to blockades at the Straits of Tiran. DETERRENTS NEVER USED Restricted to the Mediterranean, analysts point out, the Israeli Dolphins could pose a "second-strike" threat to Iran only if they carried nuclear cruise missiles capable of hitting targets as far as 1,500 km (970 miles) away. Lee Willett of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies noted that Dolphins lacked the vertical tubes used by much bigger Western and Soviet-era submarines to launch ballistic missiles. Cold War tests showed nuclear warheads are too heavy to be delivered long distances on cruise missiles, so Israel could hit Iran only with conventional warheads if they were fired from the Mediterranean, he said. A nuclear attack on Iran by a Dolphin, Willett argued, would have to be from the Gulf, which in turn would give away an unsupported submarine's position and probably doom it to being destroyed by surviving Iranian forces. "The whole point of a deterrent is that it's never used," Willett said. "In designing the Dolphins as a second-strike platform, I imagine the Israelis were thinking 'it's not ideal, but it's the best we've got'." Israel does not discuss its nuclear capabilities, under an "ambiguity" policy billed as warding off regional enemies while avoiding the kind of provocations that can trigger arms races. Erell appeared to support such thinking. The message of his book -- which made a modest splash in Israel, and is currently available only in Hebrew -- was "how to use a submarine without resorting to war". "It's about affecting statecraft," he said. (Editing by Andrew Roche and Sara Ledwith)

Good man.