CV32

You don't need to open the file. If you want to tweak the database, you have to "Import" with your Platform Editor (PE) first.

ASW has become more challenging overall, I think. DATA still plays a part in determining the ultimate outcome of an engagement. All weapons ranges, regardless of country of origin, try to incorporate H4.1/HT paper rules data where those are available. So the Russian figures should be accurate if you consider H4.1/HT to be accurate. Its quite possible that the Victory conditions are buggered. Did you take a look at the scen in the SE?

Hey! No hijacking threads! Get back to work on that monster scen.

From Flight International DATE: 21/03/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Russia flies first production MiG-29 for Indian navy By Graham Warwick RSK MiG has flown the first production MiG-29K/KUB carrier-based multi-role combat aircraft for the Indian navy. The two-seat MiG-29KUB flew on 18 March from the company's Lukhovitsky test centre near Moscow. MiG is producing 12 single-seat MiG-29Ks and four tandem-seat MiG-29KUBs under a contract signed in January 2004. The aircraft are to equip the former Soviet navy aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, which is being refitted in Russia for delivery to the Indian navy as the INS Vikramaditya. The first of two pre-production aircraft, a MiG-29KUB, was flown in January 2007. External changes for carrier-based operation include the arrestor hook and folding wing with improved high-lift devices. The MiG-27K [sic] differs from previous versions in having increased performance, fuel capacity and weapon load, improved reliability and more than twice the service life, says MiG. The aircraft is powered by improved, electronically controlled Klimov RD-33MK engines with increased thrust and longer life. Equipped with a Phazotron Zhuk-ME multi-mode radar and an infrared search and track sensor, the aircraft has 1553B databus-based avionics using French, Indian and Israeli as well as Russian equipment, says MiG. Use of composites in the airframe is increased to almost 15%. Delivery of the MiG-29s is to begin in May, and Indian navy pilots will arrive in Russia shortly to begin training on simulators and the aircraft. Moscow-based Dinamika built a MiG-29K simulator for MiG, while Germany's Rheinmetall Defence Electronics has developed a full mission simulator for the Indian navy.

From Flight International DATE: 21/03/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Cancer-causing substance halts F-16I training flights By Stephen Trimble Fears about a cancer-causing substance in the cockpit has prompted the Israeli Air Force (IAF) to suspend training flights for its 62-aircraft fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16I Sufas. “According to tests the substance is formaldehyde that recently was defined as causing cancer above certain concentration,” says the IAF spokesman. Formaldehyde is a known by-product of jet engine exhaust, but it’s not clear if the IDF detected uniquely high levels in the cockpit of the F-16I. By contrast, the IAF’s fleet of 125 F-16C/Ds remain fully operational. Israeli sources say an IAF team is traveling on Sunday to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics headquarters at Fort Worth, Texas, to identify the source of the potentially cancerous substance. The sources also indicate that the immediate source of the formaldehyde is probably the F-16I air conditioning system. Lockheed Martin is “investigating some recent IAF pilot reports regarding the air quality in their F-16I aircraft and we are providing this support,” a company spokeswoman says. “We have not had similar reports by other F-16 users.” There are 3,561 F-16s in active service with international air forces around the world, according to Flight’s Milicas database.

Updated scenario posted to this thread for further testing. Oh, and the release version will contain a little surprise because of some changes to the HCDB.

From DefenseNews U.S. Navy's ERGM May Face Cancellation By william matthews Published: 20 Mar 15:55 EDT (11:55 GMT) For more than a dozen years the U.S. Navy has waited as Raytheon struggled to build a reliable rocket-powered munition to be fired from 5-inch guns on ships. After repeated test failures, years of delays and rising costs, the Navy may be ready to cancel the program. A Raytheon official acknowledged March 20 there were "many rumors swirling around" the fate of its Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) program, including the possibility that it will be canceled. A Navy official would not comment on the program's fate. The end for ERGM, if it is imminent, would come just weeks after multiple munitions flunked test shots, according to an industry source. A Raytheon spokesman insisted that the tests in February were not failures. He said Raytheon was testing for "specific functionalities, not testing for overall functionality" of the rounds. Cancellation of the ERGM would leave the Navy with only one other source for a long-range, precision 5-inch round - Alliant Techsystems, which is developing a ballistic trajectory extended-range munition (BTERM). The BTERM is similar to ERGM but has had serious test problems of its own. Both munitions were intended to give Navy ships the ability to strike targets with great accuracy from more than 50 miles away. If they worked, they would give some cruisers and destroyers long-range precision fire support from the sea for Marines ashore. Rocket-propelled during part of its flight, the ERGM was supposed to use signals from global positioning satellites to fly to within 20 meters of its target. Five feet long and 5 inches wide, with fins at the rear and canards near the nose, the 110-pound ERGM looked more like a missile than a 5-inch gun projectile. And it was supposed to fly like a missile, too. After being fired like a projectile, the ERGM's rocket motor would ignite, blasting the munition to 80,000 feet. From there, the fins and canards would pop out to guide the ERGM precisely to its target. It was expected to be quite an improvement over the standard 5-inch projectile, which can be shot about 13 miles and is not a precision weapon. Only the ERGM hasn't worked as hoped. Over years of testing, tail fins failed to deploy, rocket motors didn't ignite and electronic components such as GPS guidance systems didn't survive being shot from a deck gun. Sometimes only one in four or one in three ERGMs fully performed when tested. Meanwhile, the price has tripled, rising from $45,000 per weapon in 1997 to $191,000 per weapon by 2006. As a result, the number of munitions to be bought was cut from more than 8,500 to about 3,150. Christopher P. Cavas contributed to this report.

What is the HCWW? The HCWW is an acronym for the Harpoon Commander's Edition World Wars Database 'Americas', a new custom database that will initially focus on aircraft, ships, submarines and installations of the Second World War, and in due course, select platforms from the First World War. It is important to keep in mind the limitations of the current code when it comes to modeling WW1/2 era engagements, however, including: less than ideal modeling of aircraft guns; difficulty in modeling radio intercept; no limitations to communications; targeting based on formation center rather than unit to unit; etc. That said, I think there is still potential for extracting enjoyment of WW1/2 warfare simulation from HCE, and it is always possible we may be able to overcome some of these barriers in due course. The current release version of the HCWW is available from the Downloads section of this website. Extract the zip file into your main HCE directory. It will overwrite your current 'commondb.res' file. To maintain multiple databases, be sure to rename your existing 'commondb.res' file. A *.txt file is also included in the zip which details the latest update. The design philosophy of the HCWW is to maintain, wherever feasible, backwards compatibility with scenarios created with the database. The platforms (ships, submarines, aircraft, installations, and weapon systems) contained in the HCWW cover (generally speaking) the 1914-18 and 1939-45 time periods, but this is not a hard and fast rule, and there are some exceptions. Please note that copyright to HCWW database content is held by Brad Leyte (aka CV32). HCWW database content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. You may copy, distribute and transmit the HCWW and all or parts of its content, but not derivative works based on it without the express written permission of the author Brad Leyte. You may also adapt the HCWW database to your own needs under the terms of fair use. By doing so, you agree to fully attribute Brad Leyte as the author of the HCWW database. The HCWW database may not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever without the express written permission of Brad Leyte. A common sense explanation of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License is found here. The legal code of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License can be found here. Like any database, the HCWW is always a "work in progress". Requests for new platforms are always welcome, and stand a good chance of inclusion if (1) they adhere to the design philosophy described above, and/or (2) they are required for upcoming new scenarios. (This FAQ will be further developed as time goes on in order to keep everyone abreast of design or philosophy changes in the HCWW).

Welcome, Navman. To answer your question: DB updates: The zip file contains the "commondb.res" (with the database) and a txt file (with notes about the update). Before unzipping into your HCE main directory, you should probably rename your current "commondb.res" to "commondb_backup.res" or some such. Then go ahead and unzip the update file. At this point, the HCE Game Engine (GE) and Scenario Editor (SE) will both use the updated database automatically. If you want to tweak the database further, you'll need to "Import" with your Platform Editor (PE). Scenarios: HCE scenario filenames are organized by way of their filename suffix. This is laid out in detail in the FAQ here. A given battleset will only 'recognize' the matching scenario filenames, i.e. Westpac scenarios will have the filename suffix *.scq You can unzip the scenario files into your main HCE directory or a separate directory. I use one called "Scenarios" for ease of use. Each scenario zip file will typically contain: scenario.scq = the actual Westpac scenario (for example) scenario.blq = blue side orders scenario.rdq = red side orders and sometimes scenario.bkq = a backup file (not necessary, and I usually don't include it) Hope this helps. If you run into difficulty, just holler.

Excellent. Gotta love a torpedo kill. The other way to win was to have the Brit carrier near the floating nuke powerplant for a certain period of time. Yah, the Brits have invested in ALARM rather than HARM. As you say, they are seriously outranged by the double digit Russian SAMs. Good point. I'll do that. Yes, ok, I'll think about doing one or the other. Acknowledged. Thanks a bunch, Ralf.

As with the future French carrier, I've been waiting for details of the CVN-78 to firm up. This one may actually take a little longer to add than the French ship.

I've been considering that one, but waiting for the details to firm up. I may add a provisional version of the platform in due course. Already in the database. Yes, thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to update that entry. The revisions will appear in the next version.

Yes, I knew that's what you were getting at. I would not, however, want to take a guess at the ROE for such a situation in a time of crisis, nor would I want to be a crew member of that submarine.

File Name: HCWW-101110 File Submitter: CV32 File Submitted: 21 Mar 2008 File Updated: 10 Nov 2010 File Category: Databases Authors: Brad Leyte Game Version: HCE 2008.044 HCWW-101110 by Brad Leyte (replaces HCWW-101027). The HCWW (Harpoon Commander's Edition World Wars database) is a custom database for the World War I and World War II era. The stock HCE Battleset scenarios will NOT function with this database installed. The HCWW adheres to a policy of adding platforms but not deleting to retain backwards compatibility with all HCWW scenarios. Copyright @ 2008-2010, Brad Leyte. HCWW database content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. You may copy, distribute and transmit the HCWW and all or parts of its content, but not derivative works based on it without the express written permission of the author Brad Leyte. You may also adapt the HCWW database to your own needs under the terms of fair use. By doing so, you agree to fully attribute Brad Leyte as the author of the HCWW database. The HCWW database may not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever without the express written permission of Brad Leyte. Click here to download this file

Now that the BattleSet Builder has been released, and in anticipation of ever greater things for HCE, I've put together a new database that focuses on the First and Second World Wars. The Harpoon Commander's Edition World Wars Database (HCWW) will initially focus on aircraft, ships, submarines and installations of the Second World War, and in due course, I hope to start adding select platforms from the First World War. A database for WWII in particular has long been a dream for HC players, and Rene Haar and Jan Masterson were the first to make it a reality last year with the release of their HC_WW2_DB. It is important to keep in mind the limitations of the current code when it comes to modeling WW1/2 era engagements, however, including: inability to mount guns on submarines; less than ideal modeling of aircraft guns; difficulty in modeling radio intercept; no limitations to communications; targeting based on formation center rather than unit to unit; etc. That said, I think there is still potential for extracting enjoyment of WW1/2 warfare simulation from HCE, and it is always possible we may be able to overcome some of these barriers in due course. As always, a database is forever a 'work in progress' and the HCWW will continue to be improved, updated and expanded as time goes on. I would be happy to receive your requests for new additions to the HCWW (especially if you're writing scenarios for the rest of us to enjoy!) in the same manner as I have for the HCDB and HCDA. And, as before, the HCWW will retain the same general database philosophy as the HCDB and HCDA. The initial release version of the HCWW is now available from the Downloads section of this website. HOWEVER, an as yet unreleased version of the Platform Editor (PE) has been used to create the HCWW, and without it I'm afraid you won't be able to get a proper import of the database. (Unless you were a beta tester, of course .. hint, hint, nudge, nudge). This new, more capable version of the PE is planned to appear in a later patch for HCE. So, this announcement is really just a teaser of things to come. Sorry about that. Until then, here is a list of platforms available in this initial release version Ships: Admiral Graf Spee CA - Germany Admiral Hipper CA - Germany Alaska CB - USA Andrea Doria BB - Italy Aoba CA - Japan Asashio DD - Japan Bolzano CA - Italy Enterprise (1943) CL - Great Britain Flower (GB/1940) DE - Great Britain Flower (GR/1940) DE - Greece Flower (NE/1940) DE - Netherlands Flower (CA/Aug 1940) DE - Canada Flower (GB/Aug 1940) DE - France Flower (GB/Aug 1940) DE - Great Britain Flower (GR/Aug 1940) DE - Greece Flower (NO/Aug 1940) DE - Norway Flower (CA/Jun 1941) DE - Canada Flower (GB/Jun 1941) DE - Great Britain Flower (GR/Jun 1941) DE - Greece Flower (NO/Jun 1941) DE - Norway Flower (CA/Sep 1941) DE - Canada Flower (FR/Sep 1941) DE - France Flower (GB/Sep 1941) DE - Great Britain Flower (US/Sep 1941) DE - USA Flower (GB/Jul 1942) DE - Great Britain Flower (NO/Jul 1942) DE - Norway Flower (CA/Mar 1943) DE - Canada Flower (GB/Mar 1943) DE - Great Britain Flower (IN/Mar 1943) DE - India Flower (NZ/Mar 1943) DE - New Zealand Flower (US/Mar 1943) DE - USA Fubuki (1941) DD - Japan Gneisenau (Scharnhorst) BC - Germany Graf Zeppelin CV - Germany Hood (1939) BC - Great Britain Hood (1941) BC - Great Britain Jakobi (Zerstorer 1934A) DD - Germany Kongo BB - Japan Lancha Torperdera PT - Spain Leander (Grp 1/1939) - Great Britain Maas (Zerstorer 1934) DD - Germany Queen Elizabeth (1939) BB - Great Britain Roeder (Zerstorer 1936) DD - Germany Schnellboot S-7 (1935) PT - Germany Schnellboot S-14 (1936) PT - Germany Schnellboot S-18 (1939) PT - Germany Schnellboot S-26 (1940) PT - Germany Schnellboot S-30 (1939) PT - Germany Schnellboot S-100 (1943) PT - Germany Schnellboot S-151 (1941) PT - Germany Tirpitz (Bismarck) BB - Germany Troopship (Lrg) TRAN - Great Britain Troopship (Sml) TRAN - Great Britain Warspite (1941) BB - Great Britain Warspite (1944) BB - Great Britain Aircraft: Ar.196A-4 - Germany Ar.232B Taussendfussler - Germany Ar.234B-2 Blitz - Germany Bf.109B-2 - Germany Bf.109E - Germany Bf.109F - Germany Bf.109T-1 - Germany Bf.110C-4 Zerstorer - Germany Ba.349 Natter - Germany Bv.138C-1 - Germany Bv.138MS - Germany Bv.238V-1 - Germany Do.17Z-2 - Germany Do.17Z-10 - Germany Do.335A-1 Pfeil - Germany Fw.189 Uhu - Germany Fw.190D-9 Wurger - Germany Fw.200C-3/U4 Kondor - Germany Fw.200C-8 Kondor - Germany Go.229A-0 (Ho.IX) - Germany He.111H-16 - Germany He.111J-1 - Germany He.111H-12 - Germany Hs.129B-1 - Germany Hs.129B-2 - Germany He.162A-1 Volksjager - Germany He.280V-5 - Germany Ju.87D-1 Stuka - Germany Ju.87B-2 Bertha - Germany Ju.87C Stuka - Germany Ju.87G-1 Gustav - Germany Ju.88G-7b - Germany Ju.88A-4 - Germany Ju.287V3 - Germany Ju.390V1 - Germany Me.262A-1a Schwalbe - Germany Me.262A-2 Sturmvogel - Germany Me.262B-2 Nachtjaeger - Germany Me.410A-1 Hornisse - Germany Me.410B-2 Hornisse - Germany Ta.152H - Germany Ta.154A-1 Moskito - Germany Submarines: Agosta (1940) SS - France Agosta (1942) SS - France Ariane SS - France Argonaute SS - France B Class SS - Norway Balao (Group 1) SS - USA Balao (Group 2) SS - USA Balao (Group 3) SS - USA Biber SSM - Germany Circe SS - France Gato SS - USA Grampus SS - Great Britain H Class (Group 3) SS - Great Britain K XIV SS (1939-42) SS - Netherlands K XIV (1943) SS - Netherlands L'Espoire (1940) SS - France L'Espoire (1942) SS - France Malyutka (VI) SS - Soviet Union Malyutka (VI-bis) SS - Soviet Union Malyutka (XII) SS - Soviet Union Malyutka (XV) SS - Soviet Union Marder SSM - Germany Minerve SS - France Molch SSM - Germany Neger SSM - Germany O Class (Odin) SS - Great Britain O Class (Oxley) SS - Great Britain O 21 (KXXI/1940) SS - Netherlands O 25 (KXXI/Ge) SS - Germany Oruc Reis (P611) SS - Turkey P Class SS - Great Britain P611 (Oruc Reis) SS - Great Britain R Class (Rainbow) SS - Great Britain Redoutable (1940) SS - France Redoutable (1942) SS - France Requin SS - France River (Thames) SS - France S Class (Group 1/USA) SS - USA S Class (Group 1/GB) SS - Great Britain S Class (Grp 1/US-GB) SS- Great Britain S Class (Group 1/Pol) SS - Poland S Class (Group 2) SS - USA S Class (Group 2 mod) SS - USA S Class (Group 3) SS - USA S Class (Group 4) SS - USA S Class (Group 2/GB) SS - Great Britain S Class (Group 2/USSR) SS - Soviet Union S Class (Group 3/GB) SS - Great Britain S Class (Group 4/GB) SS - Great Britain S Class (Group 4 mod/GB) SS - Great Britain S Class (IX) SS - Soviet Union S Class (IX-bis) SS - soviet Union S Class (IX-bis-2) SS - Soviet Union Saphir SS - France Sea mine MTA - Germany Sea mine SMA - Germany Sea mine TMA - Germany Sea mine TMB - Germany Sea mine TMC - Germany Seehund Type XXVIIB SSM - Germany Sirene SS - France Surcouf SS - France T Class (Group 1/1939-40) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 1/1941) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 1/1943) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 1/1945) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 2/1941-42) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 2/1943) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 2/1945) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 3/1942) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 3/1943) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 3/1945) SS - Great Britain T Class (Group 3/Neth) SS - Netherlands Tench SS - USA Type IA SS - Germany Type IIA (1939-42) SS - Germany Type IIB (1939-42) SS - Germany Type IIC (1939-42) SS - Germany Type IID (1939-42) SS - Germany Type XXI Elektroboot SS - Germany Type XXIII SS - Germany Type XXIII mod SS - Germany Type VIIA (1939-42) SS - Germany Type VIIB (1939-41) SS - Germany Type VIIB (1942) SS - Germany Type VIIB (1943) SS - Germany Type VIIB mod SS - Germany Type VIIC (1940-41) SS - Germany Type VIIC (1940/GB) SS - Great Britain Type VIIC mod (1941) SS - Germany Type VIIC mod (1944) SS - Germany Type VIIC (1942) SS - Germany Type VIIC (1943) SS - Germany Type VIIC (1943/Italy) SS - Italy Type VIIC (1944) SS - Germany Type VIIC/41 (1943) SS - Germany Type VIIC/41 (1944) SS - Germany Type VIIC/41 (1945) SS - Germany Type VIIC (U-Flak) SS - Germany Type VIID (1941) SS - Germany Type VIID (1942) SS - Germany Type VIID (1943) SS - Germany Type VIID (1944) SS - Germany Type VIIF (1943) SS - Germany Type VIIF (1944) SS - Germany Type IXA (1939-41) SS - Germany Type IXA (1942) SS - Germany Type IXA (1943) SS - Germany Type IXA (1944) SS - Germany Type IXB (1939-41) SS - Germany Type IXB (1942) SS - Germany Type IXB (1943) SS - Germany Type IXB (1944) SS - Germany Type IXC (1939-41) SS - Germany Type IXC (1942) SS - Germany Type IXC (1943) SS - Germany Type IXC (1944) SS - Germany Type IXC/40 (1942) SS - Germany Type IXC/40 (1943) SS - Germany Type IXC/40 (1944) SS - Germany Type IXC/40 (1945) SS - Germany Type IXD1 (1942) SS - Germany Type IXD2 (1943) SS - Germany Type IXD1 (1944-45) SS - Germany Type IXD1 (1945/Japan) SS - Germany Type IXD2 (1942) SS - Germany Type IXD2 (1943) SS - Germany Type IXD2 (1944) SS - Germany Type IXD2 (1945) SS - Germany Type XB (1941) SS - Germany Type XB (1942) SS - Germany TYpe XB (1943) SS - Germany Type XB (1945/Japan) SS - Japan Type XIV (1941) SS - Germany Type XIV (1942) SS - Germany Type XIV (1943) SS - Germany Type XIV (1944) SS - Germany U Class (Group 1) SS - Great Britain U Class (Group 1/USSR) SS - Soviet Union U Class (Group 2a) SS - Great Britain U Class (Group 2b) SS - Great Britain U Class (Group 2b/Pol) SS - Poland U Class (Group 3) SS - Great Britain U Class (Group 3/Fra) SS - France U Class (Group 3/Neth) SS - Netherlands U Class (Group 3/Nor) SS - Norway U Class (Group 3/Pol) SS - Poland U Class (Group 3/USSR) SS - Soviet Union V Class SS - Great Britain V Class (France) SS - France V Class (Greece) SS - Greece V Class (Norway) SS - Norway

Debatable. Yeah, the S-3B Viking's ASW mission is gone. And, yeah, ASW training is hurting those days. But there are still helicopters flying and there is still (as far as we know) usually an SSN assigned to each carrier strike group. But I get your point regarding the sub threat.

This scenario, 'Worst Case Scenario', is for play by BLUE in the Westpac Battleset. This is a "monster scenario", depicting a war between Russia/China/DPRK vs USA/Japan/ROK/Vietnam across multiple fronts in the Western Pacific. It has over 1,700 aircraft, nearly 50 bases and nearly 100 ships in play. It is PC memory intensive, and labour intensive. It will be a challenge to keep control of all of your units, let alone successfully employ them. But thats half the fun, right? You will need the latest version of the HCDB. Please take this 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. BUMP for updated scenario (20 June 2008)

As you know, I'm not one for quoting exactly what a player needs to do to win. I continue to be of the mindset that real war doesn't happen this way, i.e. a commander doesn't get a list of precisely defined objectives that say "destroy this and that" and the enemy will surrender. I like inserting the extra challenge of figuring out for yourself what one might need to do to be victorious. That said, most of your objectives here should be easily gleaned from the orders: (1) The Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN) sub Utsira was caught inside Russian waters at the time of the nuclear calamity and the Russians have discovered her. Hence the proximity of a Russian ship at the scenario start. She has little chance, but maybe some enterprising player can save her. (2) RNoN objectives: to quote from the orders, "Norwegian naval assets have been directed to safeguard territorial integrity, and in particular, to conduct patrol and survey missions in the vicinity of the Snohvit oil field in order to assess and curb any potential radiological contamination. They have been directed to observe and respect the Russian declared exclusion zone, at least for now." (3) Royal Navy carrier group objectives: to quote from the orders, "Depart from Harstad ... In the event of war, the carrier group should move to secure the accident zone ... " I realize this. The precarious position of the RNoN is intentional. Hence the necessity of involving the British carrier. See my earlier comments. The Russian frigate is not right on top of the sub, but very close by. I'm curious if anyone will be able to save Utsira, hehe. Now you're into the real meat of the scenario. As I stated in my original post, this scenario was supposed to examine what fighter aircraft might make the best choice for Norway. Lemme know what happens when the Eurofighters arrive. Glad to hear it, and looking forward to the rest. Thank you very much for your efforts, Ralf. Very much appreciated.

It does seem odd, and more than a little disconcerting. Especially since I don't think the Kitty Hawk and Nimitz are traveling together. The Nimitz CSG was in the East China Sea as late as 16 March, conducting an Expeditionary Strike Force (ESF) exercise with the Essex Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). Meanwhile, as this article indicates, the Battle Cat didn't leave port until Tuesday, 18 March. They may be rendezvousing with each other or other combatants at some point, but until then, Kitty Hawk seems a little exposed.

From Navy Times 2 carriers in W. Pacific ahead of Taiwan vote Kyodo News Service Posted : Thursday Mar 20, 2008 8:07:03 EDT TAIPEI, Taiwan — Two U.S. aircraft carriers and accompanying vessels have been deployed to the Western Pacific just days before Taiwan’s presidential election amid heightened regional tensions, a U.S. military spokesman told Kyodo News on Thursday. Aircraft carriers Kitty Hawk and Nimitz are both “conducting scheduled, routine operations in the Western Pacific,” said Master Chief Shane Tuck, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii. “With the Nimitz, that carrier’s deployment includes its entire carrier strike group. For the Kitty Hawk, only the USS Curtis Wilbur is accompanying that carrier,” Tuck said by telephone Thursday. The Curtis Wilbur is a guided-missile destroyer. A carrier strike group consists of an array of warships and submarines and is typically deployed for months at a time. The Kitty Hawk left its port in Japan on Tuesday, Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said Wednesday, while the Nimitz strike group’s deployment began Jan. 24, Tuck said. “The vessels are able to respond to any regional contingency any time,” Tuck added. Local media reports claim the deployments are connected to Taiwan’s presidential election on Saturday, traditionally a tense time in the Taiwan Strait, as the self-ruled island claimed by China exercises its democracy. Tuck denied the reports, while Taiwan’s defense spokeswoman Col. Chi Yu Lan declined comment. “This is the U.S.’s business. We’re not in a position to comment,” Chi said Thursday. Asked how close the vessels are to Taiwan, Tuck declined comment. China views Taiwan as a renegade province awaiting unification with the mainland, by force if necessary, and has vowed to attack the island if it formalizes its de facto sovereignty. Coinciding with the election are two referendums that will ask voters whether Taiwan should enter the United Nations, a move China has slammed as “provocative.” Taipei lost its U.N. seat in 1971 to Beijing, which has thwarted Taipei’s subsequent moves to rejoin the world body. Beijing has veto power as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. The Kitty Hawk is scheduled for a port call in Hong Kong next month and both carriers are expected to remain near Taiwan for the island’s election and the referendums, local media said. U.S. Pacific Command and Taiwan defense officials declined comment on reports of a port call. “We usually don’t talk about port visits beforehand because of safety issues, just as we don’t talk about troop movements ahead of time,” said another U.S. Pacific Command spokesperson. For June Dreyer, former Asia adviser to the chief of naval operations, the timing of the deployments is revealing. “Although these deployments will doubtless be described as for routine maneuvers, the timing is suspicious,” said Dreyer, now a political scientist at the University of Miami. The Kitty Hawk, Dreyer said, has a history of deployment to the Taiwan Strait or otherwise near the island during tense periods. In 1996, the Kitty Hawk was deployed near Taiwan in response to Chinese military exercises preceding the island’s presidential election that year. China had fired unarmed missiles to within kilometers of the island in maneuvers widely perceived as a move to intimidate voters and curb independence rhetoric by then-Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui.

Thanks, Tony. You da man. Ralf, you're probably missing the latest commondb.rsr file (the images) needed for the display function.

Ralf, are you cutting and pasting text from a word processor (like Word or Wordperfect) into the Orders Writer? I do that myself sometimes, but as Tony has mentioned, the Orders Writer can be fickle about such things.

From Flight Global DATE: 20/03/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Australia, Kaman reach agreement on Seasprites cancellation By Siva Govindasamy Australia has reached an agreement with Kaman on the cancellation of the country’s Super Seasprite helicopter project, with the decision projected to result in savings of A$150 million ($139 million). Canberra ordered 11 Super Seasprites – upgraded ex-US Navy SH-2Fs – in 1997 for delivery from 2001. Ongoing problems with the helicopters' avionics have delayed the programme by seven years, and Australia has spent A$950 million in all trying to get it on track for delivery by 2011. The previous Liberal government reviewed the programme in 2007, but opted to continue amid concerns over legal action by Kaman. But the new Labor government, which came to power late last year, said on 5 March that it would cancel the project. “The Australian government will receive at least 50% of the proceeds from any sale of the helicopters by Kaman with a guaranteed financial return …of A$39.5 million. In addition, a further $30 million worth of spares will be retained for use on the Seahawk and Black Hawk helicopter fleets,” says the defence ministry. “The Australian government has saved A$150 million that would otherwise have been spent on the Seasprite project that will now be available for use on other capability.” The government now plans to improve the operational availability of the Royal Australian Navy's Sikorsky S-70B Seahawks, which have an inferior surveillance capability, but has not provided further details. Another billion-dollar replacement order is likely to provide the navy's Anzac frigates with a surface surveillance and attack capability. It will also look at replacement options for the Seahawk during a Defence White Paper study this year. This could include additional NH Industries' MRH90s, 46 of which are already on order for the navy and the Australian army. Earlier this week, as part of a review of Australian defence procurements, the government said that it would stick to an A$6.6 billion order for 24 Boeing F/A-18Fs to replace its aging General Dynamics F-111s and as a stopgap before the induction of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. However, defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon also rounded on his predecessors and accused them of lacking “sound long-term air combat capability planning during the last decade”. “It is the only aircraft which can meet the small delivery window created by the former government’s poor planning processes and politically-driven responses,” he added. The ministry will now examine Australia’s air combat capability needs until 2045, including the plan to acquire the F-35s. Further announcements on this are expected in late-April. The review’s findings will be incorporated by end-2008 into the Defence White Paper, which will guide future defence planning. [CV32: Shucks, not much money to be made by the lawyers there at all. ]

There has been a change in torpedo seeker acquisition range, to introduce more realism, which in effect means that torpedoes will need to be closer to their target in order to acquire them. That does not affect, however, torpedo employment overall. There is a maxim for torpedo engagements, and that is: launch your torpedo only against a target for which you have a fixed position (i.e. the best possible firing solution), and from as close a range as possible. Missile hit probability (pH) figures in the HCE database adopt, wherever possible, the Harpoon 4.1/High Tide paper rules ATA data. So, the early AIM-120A/B has a pH of 75. The latest models (e.g. AIM-120D) have ph 85. Air-to-air missiles are not undetectable. Yep, thats right.