CV32

From Navy Times Chavez could take loan to buy Russian subs By Philip Ewing - Staff writer Posted : Monday Apr 7, 2008 6:24:20 EDT Russia and Venezuela are in talks over a deal in which a Russian bank would help finance the purchase of four new Russian diesel-electric attack submarines, an official Russian news agency reported Friday. Citing an article in the Russian business newspaper Kommersant, the RIA Novosti news service reported that Russia’s state Vneshekonombank could loan Venezuela about $800 million to help move forward the proposed $1 billion sale of four new Kilo-class subs. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a socialist strongman and an outspoken foe of the U.S., could sign a contract for the boats as early as May, Novosti reports, when he visits Moscow for the swearing-in of the incoming Russian president Dimitri Medvedev Russian and Venezuelan officials disclosed no details to Novosti, but the submarine deal has been in the works for years. A financing arrangement could help both countries leap the last hurdle in finally beginning construction on the ships. In 2007, U.S. naval experts said they thought although Venezuela appeared flush with oil money, the government might not be stable long enough to see through the deal, or that oil revenues could trail off before the last ship was finished. If the loan arrangement goes through as reported, the arrival of Venezuela’s new submarines would represent a brazen challenge to American naval power in its own backyard. The latest-generation Kilo-class boats are some of the quietest and most capable submarines in the world, and although they likely will not be equipped with an Air Independent Propulsion system, as on other modern subs, the small, quiet boats can exploit weaknesses in American anti-submarine tactics developed to fight Soviet nuclear subs in the open ocean. In March, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, commander of Fleet Forces Command, said he was “not satisfied” with the Navy’s ability to track conventionally powered submarines. Speaking on a panel at the Sea Air Space exposition in Washington, he said that improving anti-submarine warfare was one of his top priorities. The Navy has “borrowed” some conventionally powered submarines in order to practice hunting them. From 2005 to 2007, West Coast sailors trained with the Swedish submarine Gotland, leased by the U.S. and transported from Sweden aboard a heavy-lift ship; the Chilean submarine Simpson took its place last September.

HCDB-080406 Aircraft: H-6M Badger - China HD-5 Beagle - China Eurofighter - Germany Eurofighter - Italy Eurofighter - Spain Typhoon F2 - UK Y-8EW - China Ships: Albion LPD - UK Canberra LHD - Australia Cheng Kung mod FFG - Taiwan Hobart (F100) DDG - Australia Houbei (Type 022) PTM - China Hsiung Feng III Bty - Taiwan Juan Carlos I (BPE) LHD - Spain Yuzhao (Type 071) LPD - China Submarines: Trafalgar (UFP) SSN - UK Trafalgar (1983) SSN - UK Triumph (1991) SSN - UK

A new version of the official Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) Database (HCDB-080406) is now available. Get the new DB in the Download section. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: H-6M Badger - China HD-5 Beagle - China Eurofighter - Germany Eurofighter - Italy Eurofighter - Spain Typhoon F2 - UK Y-8EW - China Ships: Albion LPD - UK Canberra LHD - Australia Cheng Kung mod FFG - Taiwan Hobart (F100) DDG - Australia Houbei (Type 022) PTM - China Hsiung Feng III Bty - Taiwan Juan Carlos I (BPE) LHD - Spain Yuzhao (Type 071) LPD - China Submarines: Trafalgar (UFP) SSN - UK Trafalgar (1983) SSN - UK Triumph (1991) SSN - UK Enjoy.

All good suggestions. Consider it done.

Pretty sure I added the Arsenal Ship to Tony's Fictional DB. The A-6F Intruder II and A-12 Avenger are good suggestions to add to it, for sure.

Are the Oscars in missile range? If so, are you sure that the AI has detected player controlled ships? The only Shipwreck missiles that should be launching against land bases would be the nuclear armed versions. A savegame would be useful.

A new version of the HCDA database, the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Americas' Database (HCDA-080403), is now available. It is available in the Downloads section of this website. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: Scout AH.1 - UK Nimrod MR.2P - UK Ships: Alvega TANK - UK Anco Charger TANK - UK Bahia Aguirre AK - Argentina Bahia Paraiso AK - Argentina Balder London TANK - UK Baltic Ferry MRCH - UK Cabo San Antonio LST - Argentina Capable (JIATF) AGOS - USA Eburna TANK - UK Elk MRCH - UK Europic Ferry MRCH - UK Formosa MRCH - Argentina Forrest (Arg) MRCH - Argentina Forrest (UK) MRCH - UK Fort Toronto TANK - UK G.A. Walker TANK - UK Geestport MRCH - UK Irishman ATF - UK Islas de los Estados AK - Argentina Islas Malvinas PG - Argentina Lycaon MRCH - UK Lyness AFS - UK Narwhal AGI - Argentina Powhatan ATF - USA Punta Delgada AO - Argentina Punta Medanos AOR - Argentina Rio Carcarana MRCH - Argentina Saxonia MRCH - UK Scottish Eagle TANK - UK Stalwart AGOS - USA Stalwart (JIATF) AGOS - USA Tor Caledonia MRCH - UK Yehuin AUX - Argentina Enjoy.

Need more info. I've been watching and waiting for more info to become available regarding the Type 022. It seems there might be now. I'll take a look at adding this one. The JH-7 already has antiship loadouts. Already in the DB. See the Y-8DZ. I'll look at this one as well. Thanks for the suggestions.

From Navy Times Navy requests more Littoral Combat Ships By David Sharp - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Apr 2, 2008 18:33:47 EDT PORTLAND, Maine — The Navy is moving forward with construction of a new type of smaller, speedy warships, putting the project back on track after the cancellation of two ships last year, officials said Wednesday. The Navy’s formal request for proposals issued on Tuesday to General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works and Lockheed Martin calls for construction of three Littoral Combat Ships to be carried out over the next several years. The Navy envisions a competition in which the winning bidder is awarded contracts for two of the ships while the other gets to build just one ship, Navy Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield said Wednesday. Two competing versions of the ship are under construction at shipyards in Wisconsin and Alabama. But the Navy put the brakes on the program last year, canceling two additional ships, after costs of the original ships grew from early estimates of about $220 million to more than $300 million apiece. The Navy now is operating under a congressional cost cap of $460 million per ship, a reflection that the original cost estimates for the ships were too low. The Navy, which hopes to build 55 Littoral Combat Ships, envisions smaller warships capable of operating in nearshore waters to meet threats including modern-day pirates and terrorists. The ships are a key element of the Navy’s goal of a 313-ship fleet. Lockheed Martin’s LCS-1 is being built at Wisconsin’s Marinette Marine Corp., while General Dynamic’s LCS-2 is being built at Alabama’s Austal USA shipyard in Mobile. Lockheed Martin’s version resembles a traditional frigate or destroyer but features a sleek, semi-planing hull, while General Dynamic’s version is an all-aluminum three-hulled vessel. Both are powered by steerable waterjets and can reach speeds of about 50 mph.

From DefenseNews Indian Party Wants To End Military Ties With U.S. By vivek raghuvanshi Published: 1 Apr 12:58 EDT (08:58 GMT) NEW DELHI -Increasing defense cooperation with the United States is likely to shorten the life of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government here as its main supporter on the left, the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM), has resolved to end India's military relationship with the United States. Without the support of India's Communist parties, the alliance government will find it difficult to remain in power until its term ends in mid-2009. Meeting March 29, the CPM's 19th Congress called for ending the Indo-U.S. military relationship. "The defense framework agreement and the nuclear cooperation agreement are parts of an overarching alliance," CPM General Secretary Prakash Karat said at the meeting, held at Coimbatore in southern India. "We have to undo the military collaboration agreement. We have to continue the struggle to disentangle India from the strategic U.S. embrace." India's strategic partnership with the United States was forged during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington in July 2005. The military ties between the two countries boomed after September 2001, when Washington lifted the U.S. sanctions against New Delhi, which immediately led to the sale of the Firefinder radar to India. The two countries have since agreed to cooperate on civil nuclear energy. The Indian Navy bought the landing platform dock USS Trenton, retired by the U.S. Navy and now rechristened INS Jalashwa. A deal has been struck for the sale of six C-130 J transport aircraft from U.S. company Lockheed Martin to India . In September 2007, India, the United States, Japan, Australia and Singapore joined to hold one of the biggest naval exercises in Indian waters. The UPA government is unlikely to reverse its friendship with Washington. The Communist parties could withdraw their support from the governing alliance at any time. [CV32: Interesting scenario fodder here, for sure. On a specific note, what would this do to a potential MMRCA fighter jet contract award to a US company? What about the P-8I Poseidon? etc]

From Defense Aerospace Op-Ed: Missing Ingredient In Weapons Decisions: Common Sense (Source: The Lexington Institute; issued April 2, 2008) By Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. Military expert Anthony Cordesman claims the Bush Administration has fielded "the worst wartime national security team in United States history." That's pretty harsh. LBJ and Nixon managed to squander over ten times as many American lives on a much less important piece of real estate, while destroying much of Indochina in the bargain. In the end America simply gave up, delivering millions of innocent lives into the hands of murderous dictators like Pol Pot. Nothing like that is likely to happen while Bush and Cheney are in charge. But I come not to praise Caesar. The paradox of military coverage during the last eight years is that the Bush team has been continually attacked over its conduct of war policies for which critics had no clear alternative, while chronic incompetence in the performance of routine management chores at the Pentagon has gone largely unnoticed. That is especially true in the case of weapons purchases, where the real scandal isn't rising costs but a never-ending litany of dumb decisions. Here are some examples. Littoral Combat Ship. The Navy decided in 2001 that it needed an agile, versatile replacement of cold war frigates that could counter mines, submarines and speedboats in the shallow waters along enemy coastlines. Its answer was a low-cost, modular vessel called the Littoral Combat Ship that made a lot of sense. But it tried to develop the cutting-edge warship in record time using smaller shipyards that had never built complex surface combatants before, and then failed to finalize construction standards until well after metal bending had begun. End result: canceled contracts, slipping schedules, and a promising program now in jeopardy. Space Radar. Air Force radar planes have repeatedly demonstrated their value in tracking hostile aircraft and ground vehicles. But the cold war airframes on which the radars are carried have become hard to maintain, and aren't big enough for sensor arrays that can see very stealthy cruise missiles. The service wanted to buy a replacement plane dubbed the E-10, but Rumsfeld's gurus said the mission should be done with a hyper-expensive Space Radar that had already been rejected several times by Congress. End result: Space Radar is about to be canceled and there is no plan to replace the aging radar planes. [Emphasis mine]. Transformational Satellite Communications. This leap-ahead approach to communications would have enabled warfighters anywhere in the world to stay connected using foot-wide receiver dishes connected to a high-capacity "internet in the sky." But policymakers insisted on pushing the program forward at breakneck speed, even though a more modest successor to the existing Milstar constellation was already facing delays. A skeptical Congress refused to fully fund budget requests. End result: the program is undergoing yet another restructure, and probably won't survive despite serving a vital need. Presidential Helicopter. When 9-11 raised awareness of threats to the President, the White House demanded quick replacement of its antiquated presidential helicopters. The only airframe that could carry necessary equipment and passengers to the desired range while still landing in tight spaces like the White House lawn was the US101. But White House urgency collided with the unbending construction standards of the Naval Air Systems Command, producing an overly aggressive development schedule. End result: more time and money required to build the final version of the helicopter, which should have been obvious from day one.

From Aviation Week's ARES Blog Space Radar Chopped Posted by Bill Sweetman at 4/2/2008 8:32 AM CDT News that the Space Radar program had been cancelled was not surprising. It had already been reported that the project was being reconsidered, after many restructuring attempts, and the fact that the budget and schedule suddenly went black in the FY2009 budget didn't inspire confidence. SR was eight years away from first launch, and as the GAO noted in its latest review of major programs, the technologies were far from mature. To a great extent it was a victim of requirements overload, with the intelligence community wanting high resolution (equals large antenna) and the tactical community wanting high revisit rates and (ideally) the ability to track moving targets - the latter being a nasty challenge, since synthetic aperture radar (SAR), the long-running technology behind most high-resolution radars, has a very hard time seeing moving targets at all. Launched as an Air Force effort, joined by the NRO in 2005, and originally called Space Based Radar, SR was the follow-on to a DARPA/National Reconnaissance Office project called Discoverer II. In that case, the goal was to apply an emerging technology - space-based active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar - in a low-cost platform. The key advantage of AESA is its flexibility, permitting interleaved SAR and ground moving target indication (GMTI) modes. That technology's still valid - but whether it can give the generals their response times, and the spooks their 10 cm resolution, at a price that even the Pentagon can afford, is open to question. Meanwhile, this is more trouble for the national space imagery program. The NRO joined SR in 2005 because of the ghastly mess of the Future Imagery Architecture project, which was supposed to provide both electro-optical and radar reconnaissance. When FIA itself was restructured in 2005 - with the NRO essentially firing Boeing as the prime - Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract to produce the EO satellites and Boeing retained a rump of radar business, but only as a gap-filler between retirement of the existing Lacrosse/Onyx and the launch of SR. This is where Northrop Grumman sees a potential niche for Trinidad, its proposal to produce a version of Israel Aerospace Industries' newly operational TecSAR for US users. Trinidad does not offer anything like the performance of SR, or match FIA or Lacrosse, but it delivers "under one meter" resolution, Northrop Grumman says - and its price tag will be a fraction of the $2 billion estimated for SR.

Wow, I'm amazed that they're not there already. Consider it high priority.

HCDB-080401 Ships: Dajiang ASR - China Dalang (Type 922) ASR - China Dolores Chouest ASR - USA Dongdiao AGI - China Fuchi AOR - China Fuxianhu AFS - China Gorshkov (22350) FFG - Russia Invincible AGM - USA Kellie Chouest ASR - USA LNG carrier - Intl Observation Island AGM - USA Stalwart AGOS - USA Tug (ocean going) ATF - Intl Victorious AGOS - USA Xiangyanghong AGOR - China Yuanwang (Type 718) AGM - China

HCDB-080326 Aircraft: A-50E - India ScanEagle Block D - USA Ships: L'Audacieuse (P400) OPV - France Type 352 Ensdorf MCM - Germany Seehund MCM - Germany

A new version of the official Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) Database (HCDB-080401) is now available. Get the new DB in the Download section. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Ships: Dajiang ASR - China Dalang (Type 922) ASR - China Dolores Chouest ASR - USA Dongdiao AGI - China Fuchi AOR - China Fuxianhu AFS - China Gorshkov (22350) FFG - Russia Invincible AGM - USA Kellie Chouest ASR - USA LNG carrier - Intl Observation Island AGM - USA Stalwart AGOS - USA Tug (ocean going) ATF - Intl Victorious AGOS - USA Xiangyanghong AGOR - China Yuanwang (Type 718) AGM - China Enjoy.

From Jane's Ma's victory eases tension across Taiwan Strait 01 April 2008 When Ma Ying-jeou is asked how his China-friendly attitude will play out in practice, he flinches. Although Ma just won Taiwan's presidential election in a landslide on an agenda of closer links with the island's economically attractive but politically hostile neighbour, he is very cautious. Welcome to political reality in Taiwan. While Ma has pledged not to move towards independence during his term in office, he has also committed himself not to negotiate unification. This sets a tight framework for what Ma can achieve. He has made clear that he will not try to resolve the conflict once and for all, but rather find a way to end the state of hostility. A purely economic agenda bears little risk of controversy but many opportunities for quick benefits to show voters. Yet, Ma also wants to follow any quick wins with longer-term progress. An aide who has been working on Ma's cross-strait policy agenda told Jane's: "Once we feel we are really getting somewhere, we broaden things to more sensitive political issues." In the short term, Ma's security policy team hopes to get the green light from Washington for the 66 F-16 C/D multi-role aircraft requested from the United States, preferably before George W Bush leaves office. In the longer term its priorities will be strengthening Taiwan's anti-missile defences and C4ISR capabilities. These military ties with the US remain a reason for unease in China. Nonetheless, the real challenge to cross-strait rapprochement will be foreign policy. China's leadership is under pressure not to create the impression at home that it is allowing Taiwan anything that could amount to sovereignty. FORECAST Any progress is likely to come in small steps, starting with building mutual trust through semi-official dialogue on purely economic issues. If everything goes smoothly, military confidence-building measures could come in 2012, while any broader agreement on ceasing hostilities is not to be expected until a second Ma term.

DarkNite has provided a scenario for which he would like some testing and feedback. Its for the EC2003 GIUK battleset and requires HCDB-080326. Please take DarkNite's scenario for a spin and let me know if you have problems, issues, thoughts, opinions, whatever. The scenario is NOT ready for release, so please do not distribute it. Baltic_Fury.zip

Can't see why not. I'll have a look at it. If you're not already aware, in most cases Harpoon 4.1 data trumps all other sources as far as the HCDB is concerned. If you have conflicting information, or have sources for new platforms, please post links wherever possible so I can look at them more closely. Lastly, please put all requests for new platforms in the already existing thread here: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=511 Its much easier for me to track requests for additions or changes if they're in one place.

From Navy Times End of ERGM spotlights other future guns By William Matthews - Staff writer Posted : Monday Mar 31, 2008 17:12:09 EDT In June 2007, a Navy destroyer used its 5-inch gun to shell Islamic militants in Somalia. That was 16 years after the last use of naval gunfire: at the start of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Before that was Lebanon in 1983, Vietnam a decade earlier and Korea two decades before that. Using ships to attack targets on land is rare, but naval surface fire support remains a must for the Marine Corps, said Maj. Eric Dent, a service spokesman. And since the Navy pulled the plug on Raytheon’s Extended Range Guided Munition program March 19, Marines are wondering how long it will be before Navy guns get the firepower the Corps contends it still needs. “When you look at how the Marine Corps is going to be employed, we’re going back to our roots. We’re going to be expeditionary,” Dent said. Marines expect “to transition from sustained land-based operations” back to operating from ships that sail to hot spots around the world, Dent said. And when they do, the Corps will need fire support from the sea. That’s what ERGM had been promising — but couldn’t deliver — since 1996. It was to be fired from a 5-inch gun like a conventional shell, then use a rocket motor to climb like a missile to 80,000 feet, then glide like a precision-guided bomb to a target 50 miles away. ERGM was supposed to turn a 5-inch gun into tolerable replacements for the 16-inch battleship behemoths that could fire 2,500-pound shells up to 23 miles. The last of those old Iowa-class guns retired in 1992. But throughout 12 years of development by Raytheon, ERGM was trouble-plagued. Too many challenges Over years of testing, guidance fins failed to deploy, rocket motors didn’t ignite and electronic components such as Global Positioning System guidance systems didn’t survive the shock of being shot from a deck gun. In February tests at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., guidance components, rocket motors and tail fins all flunked, according to news reports. Raytheon officials refuse to discuss the February tests in detail, but one official insisted that they were not failures. Raytheon was testing for “specific functionalities, not testing for overall functionality” of the rounds, he said. But the Navy concluded “we were not seeing the return on investment that we had hoped to see,” spokeswoman Patricia Dolan said. According to the Government Accountability Office, the ERGM’s program research-and-development costs went from $80 million to $400 million between 1997 and 2004. Total program costs went from $400 million $600 million, and the price per ERGM jumped from $45,000 in 1997 to $191,000 per weapon by late 2004. To counter rising costs, the Navy cut the number of munitions to be bought from more than 8,500 to about 3,150. Raytheon officials refused to discuss ERGM’s cancellation but issued a written statement saying, “We are disappointed in this decision [to cancel the ERGM] and feel that it is premature, given the critical point we have reached on this engineering development program.” The statement claims Raytheon was “on the verge” of building a reliable ERGM, and would have demonstrated as much during a 20-round test scheduled for September. The Navy was not convinced. After years of “nonreliability issues,” the Navy had “no confidence” that Raytheon could produce a working weapon, Dolan said. Instead, the Navy is preparing for an “analysis of alternatives” that will examine “a variety of technological solutions to meet Marine Corps naval surface fire support requirements,” she said. Some options are sure to be ruled out early. Cruise missiles could do the job, but at $600,000 or more a missile, are much too expensive, Navy analysts said. Another possibility is ERGM competitor, BTERM — the Ballistic Trajectory Extended Range Munition by Alliant Techsystems — but it has experienced problems similar to the ERGM’s. The Navy has stopped requesting money for BTERM, but members of Congress keep slipping BTERM allocations into the Navy’s budget along with orders to keep the program alive. “It’s a congressional plus-up,” Dolan said. “We continue to execute funding because of Congress’ instructions.” Another possibility: Replace the current 5-inch guns with new 6.1-inch guns designed for the DDG-1000 destroyer. The new guns fire a 6.1-inch — or 155mm — shell that is similar to the 5-inch ERGM, but doesn’t appear to have the ERGM’s performance problems. According to the Congressional Research Service, the rounds have an 83-mile range, and in place of the ERGM’s 8-pound warhead, they carry 24 pounds of explosive. “It might be possible to fit the DDG-51 with one of the 155mm guns to be carried by the DDG-1000,” the CRS said in a report to Congress. “It would likely require the removal of both the DDG-51’s 5-inch gun and its forward 32-cell vertical launch system. In this configuration, the DDG-51 might carry about 120 of the gun’s 155mm shells.”

Will do. How about something generic thats similar to the Abnaki class fleet ocean tug?

No fundamental reason why you couldn't do it that way, except max altitude would have to be Low and the unit would be subject to attack by anti-aircraft weapons like SAMs, AAMs and gunfire. And you still couldn't get it to drop other units (like vehicles), as the SEAL teams and such are modeled as bombs or missiles.

Something for the bug tracker, I expect. You can't really directly compare ship and aircraft RCS values. As far as the ships themselves are concerned, its difficult to guage RCS for platforms that aren't in service (like the Zumwalt and LCS) and for which information isn't readily available. The La Fayette, for example, is considered in some ways to be "first generation" naval stealth, and thats in part why it gets the bigger value here.

The Zumwalt adopts in large part the H4.1 data you see here: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2648 The cruise speed is calculated from the max speed. If they were modeled as gunfire, you would have instantaneous hits or misses, even at the max range of 83 nm. Plus they would be fired automatically, probably something you wouldn't want to do. Because occasionally I make typographical errors too. Interesting. Its a side effect of being modeled as a missile, I expect, but even so, they have only inertial guidance. A code limitation of that, probably. Good to know. No problem. Fun platform to play with, I expect.

Yeah, they're sharing loadouts (and hence range) because of the extremely limited room in the Loadouts annex. If there were more room, I'd give the Block 20 its own loadout (with the additional range). In the meantime, if you're running your Global Hawks outta gas, maybe you oughta move the airfield closer. Just kidding.