CV32

From DefenseNews Taiwan Ups Military Spending Amid China Increase AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 4 Mar 14:23 EST (09:23 GMT) TAIPEI - Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian said March 4 that the island had beefed up defense spending against rival China's threat, while the mainland announced a nearly 18 percent funding increase for its military. "In order to strengthen our self-defense capabilities and facilitate the modernisation of weapons and military equipment, the government has budgeted 349.5 billion Taiwan dollars ($11.27 billion U.S.) in military spending this year," Chen said. "This marks for the first time (in many years) military spending is going to account for three percent of GDP" (gross domestic product), he told a group of military officers during a promotion ceremony in Taipei. Taiwan's defense ministry increased its military spending to 2.85 percent of GDP in 2007, up from 2.6 percent in 2006. Chen, of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), also demanded the military prepare for contingency plans "as the military threat and saber-rattling from China is ever increasing". Chen's comments came as China announced that military spending this year would rise 17.6 percent to 417.8 billion yuan (57.2 billion dollars at the end-2007 exchange rate), though it insisted the increase was moderate. Chinese parliamentary spokesman Jiang Enzhu also warned Taiwan on Tuesday that its planned referendum this month on United Nations membership was placing peace between the two sides at risk. "If Chen Shui-bian authorities stubbornly move down the path [to a referendum], they will pay a heavy price," he said. Chen has defied repeated warnings from Beijing and pressed on with plans for a referendum, to be held alongside March 22 presidential polls, that calls for the island to seek U.N. membership under the name of "Taiwan." The island's China policy decision-making body, Mainland Affairs Council, said China's criticism of the U.N. vote "shows again that Beijing attempts to mislead international society and influence the internal situation of Taiwan." The council said Taiwan was "an independent sovereign state" and Beijing must stop interfering in its democratic process. "China should face the reality that the two sides of the Strait have been governed separately," the council said in a statement. As of November, China had between 990 and 1,070 short-range ballistic missiles deployed to garrisons opposite of Taiwan, as well as 490 combat aircraft within un-refueled operational range of the island, according to an annual report released by the Pentagon on March 4. China views Taiwan as a rebel province and has threatened to retake the island by force if the territory should ever declare formal independence. The two sides split at the end of a civil war in 1949.

From DefenseNews Boeing Seeks 'Immediate' Reasons for Tanker Loss AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 4 Mar 14:14 EST (09:14 GMT) WASHINGTON - Boeing on March 4 said it has asked the U.S. Air Force for an "immediate" explanation for its decision to reject the U.S. aerospace giant's bid for a lucrative aerial refueling contract. The air force late Feb. 29 announced its decision to select a team led by Northrop Grumman Corporation and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to provide new KC-45A aerial refueling tankers to start replacing its aging tanker fleet Boeing had been heavily favored to win the 35-billion-dollar contract for an initial phase in replacing the air force's aging fleet of Boeing tankers. Its arch-rival in commercial aircraft, EADS subsidiary Airbus, will now assemble the new tankers in Alabama. Boeing said that as of March 4, it had not yet received a briefing on the decision and pointed out that the air force had said a briefing would occur on or after March 12, calling the delay "inconsistent with well-established procurement practices." "A delay of this length in the formal debriefing is unusual," said Mark McGraw, Boeing vice president of the 767 tanker programs. "Consistent with past practice and recent experience, we would expect this briefing to occur within days, not weeks, of the selection announcement." Boeing said its request was "more than fair and reasonable" because of media reports containing detailed information on the competing bids. The Chicago-based Boeing hinted Feb. 29 that it may protest the decision, which has sparked an outcry among some lawmakers over the spending of tax dollars on a military project that will partly profit a foreign company. [CV32: Explanation? How about, "the other plane is better?" Just tossing that out there].

From Defense Aerospace Pelosi: Congress Must Examine Air Force Aerial Tanker Contract to Northrop Grumman and Airbus (Source: Speaker of the House of Representatives; issued March 3, 2008) WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on the Air Force’s decision to award a multi-billion dollar aerial tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, the parent company of Airbus: “The Air Force’s decision to award the contract for a much-needed modernization of the nation’s aerial tanker fleet to Northrop Grumman and Airbus raises serious questions that Congress must examine thoroughly: -- What are the national security implications of using an aircraft supplied by a foreign firm for this essential mission? -- Were the risks associated with choosing a conceptual design over a proven capability properly assessed? -- Was sufficient consideration given to the impact of the contract award on jobs in America and on our technological base? “Given the ramifications of this decision for the United States, the Air Force must explain to Congress how it meets the long-term needs of our military and the American people.”

From Defense Aerospace Rafale International Moves A Step Forward In Greece By Reinforcing Its Presence in Athens (Source: Rafale International; issued March 4, 2008) Today, March 4 2008, Mr. Eric Trappier Rafale International Managing Director has inaugurated the Rafale International office, located 80-88 Syngrou Avenue, 117 41 Athens in presence of H. E. Mr Christophe Farnaud, Ambassador of France in Greece, during a ceremony held at the French Embassy. Rafale International’s three partners have been supplying aircraft to Greece since 1974, with the purchase of 40 Mirage F1 at first, followed by the signature in 1985 of the TALOS contract for the acquisition of 40 Mirage 2000. Last November, the successful delivery of the fifteen new Mirage 2000-5 aircraft to the Hellenic Air Force was celebrated at the Tanagra Air Force Base by the Greek and French Ministers of Defense, Mr. Evanghelos Meimarakis and Mr. Hervé Morin. The purpose of Rafale International in Athens is to promote the Rafale Omnirole Fighter as the natural continuity of the French supply source to answer the needs of Hellenic Air Force and to enhance the long standing cooperation the three partners already have with Greek industry. Taking advantage of their experience with the Mirage 2000-5 programme, Rafale International offers to major Hellenic defence companies as Hellenic Aerospace Industry and others, as well as to small and medium enterprises, an ambitious industrial package based on high value technology exchanges and equal partnership for development and co-production of one of the most modern fighter in the world, thus, leading to the creation of a substantial number of jobs. Designed to replace 7 types of aircraft of the French Armed Forces, extremely powerful, highly agile and very discrete, the Rafale Omnirole Fighter flies the entire spectrum of modern Air Power missions from air-combat to anti-ship missions through air superiority, close air support, battlefield air interdiction, deterrence and reconnaissance. Fitted with an awesome weapon load which can be used simultaneously for air-combats and ground attacks during the same mission, integrating the largest and most modern sensors with the brand new technology of the multisensor data fusion, the Rafale Omnirole Fighter has a unique combined situational awareness and omnirole combat capability. Its exceptional long range capabilities, thanks to its large fuel capacity and its stand-off missiles performances allow the Rafale Omnirole Fighter to attack deep inside enemy territory and to guarantee air sovereignty to protect the country Delivered to the French Air Force in 2006, "combat proven" in Afghanistan where it has been successfully deployed in March 2007 and engaged since February 2008, it demonstrates its outstanding capabilities in a real war environment. The Rafale Omnirole Fighter is now fully mature to meet Hellenic Air Force requirements and to continue to support Greek defence and security for the next decades. Rafale International is a Joint-venture (G.I.E Groupement d'Intérêt Economique) set up by Dassault Aviation, Snecma and Thales to promote the Rafale Omnirole Fighter to international customers. [CV32: Its a pretty cool plane. Somebody buy some already! ]

From Defense Aerospace China's Defense Budget to grow 17.6% in 2008 (Source: Chinese Government Portal; issued March 4, 2008) China plans to increase its defense budget by 17.6 percent in 2008, a parliament spokesperson said in Beijing on Tuesday. The planned defense budget for 2008 was 417.769 billion yuan, a rise of 62.379 billion yuan from last year, Jiang Enzhu, spokesman for China's top legislature's annual session, told a press conference. (ends) China Military Expansion Could Have Global Implications (Source: US Department of Defense; issued March 3, 2008) WASHINGTON --- China not only is a rising international economic power, but also is a rising military power with new and developing capabilities that have global implications, according to the 2008 China Military Power Report released today. The annual report mandated by Congress analyzes China’s military development and strategy and says that the country spent as much as $139 billion, more than three times its announced defense budget, modernizing its military forces last year. That amount dwarfs the military budgets of Russia, Japan and South Korea, and has been the driving force behind the country’s military transformation, fueled by the acquisition of advanced foreign weapons and far-reaching organizational and doctrinal reforms. Combined with what Defense Department officials call a lack of transparency, the military development poses risks to stability by increasing the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation, the report concludes. “China’s military buildup has been characterized by opacity, but (there is an) inability by both people in the region and people around the world to really know what ties together the capabilities that China’s acquiring with the intentions it has,” said David Sedney, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia. “So there are a lot of areas where there is misunderstanding. There are a lot of areas where there is lack of knowledge.” The Chinese government generally protests the report, said Sedney, but this year the two sides have agreed to talk about their objections and officials hope to get more answers to their questions. This is the first time this has been done, he said. “As China continues to grow and expand and influence the course of world events, it’s important for us to have a clear understanding,” Sedney said. To date, the Chinese have invested in new generations of survivable nuclear missiles, capable of targeting the United States as well as regional powers; advanced short- and medium-range ballistic missiles; advanced attack and ballistic missile submarines; Russian aircraft and precision weaponry; multi-mission F-10 fighter aircraft; Russian guided missile destroyers; and modern, long-range, mobile air defense systems. China’s near-term focus appears to be on Taiwan, but long-term trends suggest China is building a force scoped for operations beyond Taiwan, according to the report. China continues to deploy its most advanced weapons systems to the military regions opposite Taiwan. China’s military is developing capabilities for a number of different military options against Taiwan, including coercion, an air and missile campaign, blockade, and amphibious invasion, according to the report. Of particular concern to Defense Department officials is the country’s ability to use cyberspace to attack computer networks. Several “intrusions” around the world in which a computer network is infiltrated and information gathered, Sedney said, have been sourced back to China. None of the intrusions were into classified material, Sedney said. “While we are not able to definitively label them as the work of the (People’s Liberation Army) or the Chinese government, the techniques that were used, the way these intrusions are conducted are certainly very consistent with what you would need if you were going to actually carry out cyber warfare,” Sedney said. But, overall, Sedney said, there is no one “big” change this year in the continued military growth in China. “The real story is the continuing development, the continuing modernization, the continuing acquisition of capabilities and the corresponding and unfortunate lack of understanding, lack of transparency about the intentions of those and how they are going to be employed. What is China going to do with all that?” Sedney said. Still, the overall U.S.-China defense relationship continues to improve, as demonstrated by extensive high-level visits in both directions; ship visits; and officer exchanges, including for mid- and junior-grade officers and between military education institutions, according to the report. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates met in November with Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan and said, “the United States has a relationship with China that is candid, constructive, and cooperative. Minister Cao and I discussed ways to build on positive momentum in our defense relations, and how to use these interactions to improve communications and reduce the risk of misunderstanding.” On Feb. 29, the two countries agreed on establishing a telephone link between their respective defense departments. Officials believe the link will be operational this month. Still, U.S. officials would be more comfortable with China’s military expansion if it understood the country’s overall intentions, officials said. “The United States welcomes the rise of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous China,” the report reads. “The United States continues to encourage China to participate as a responsible international stakeholder by taking on a greater share of responsibility for the stability, resilience and growth of the global system. However, much uncertainty surrounds China’s future course, in particular in the area of its expanding military power and how that power might be used.” Click here for the Pentagon report on China’s Military Power (66 pages in PDF format) on the Pentagon website.

From Defense Aerospace Tanker Competition: Northrop Won by A Wide Margin (Source: The Lexington Institute; issued March 3, 2008) By Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. Last week Northrop Grumman and European partner EADS confounded expectations by beating incumbent Boeing for the contract to build the Air Force's next-generation aerial refueling tanker. The initial contract will be for 179 modified wide-body jets, but eventually the entire fleet of 600 cold-war tankers will need to be replaced, making this one of the biggest marketing coups in defense-industry history. However, that is just the beginning of what Northrop Grumman has achieved, because Boeing didn't manage to beat Northrop in a single measure of merit. Here's how they were evaluated... 1. Mission capability: Arguably the most important factor, this metric compared the teams on performance requirements, system integration & software, product support, program management and technology maturity. The teams tied in most measures, but the Northrop offering was deemed to offer superior refueling and airlift capacity at 1,000 nm. range and substantially superior refueling and airlift capability at 2,000 nm. range. The superior airlift capacity of Northrop's plane was deemed a "compelling" consideration in giving Northrop the edge for this factor. 2. Proposal risk: This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to match the appeal of the Northrop proposal, but it did so only after being pressed to accept a longer development schedule for its tanker. The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively low cost. The company was forced to stretch out its aggressive schedule, adding cost. 3. Past performance: The Northrop Grumman team received higher ratings in past performance due to satisfactory execution of half a dozen programs deemed relevant to the tanker competition. Air Force reviewers had less confidence in Boeing's past performance due to poor execution in three relevant programs. In addition, Northrop's subcontractors were rated more highly on past performance than Boeing's. 4. Cost/price: This was the factor in which many observers expected the Northrop-EADS team to shine, because EADS subsidiary Airbus usually underbids Boeing in commercial competitions. But Boeing compounded its difficulties in the eyes of reviewers by failing to adequately explain its assumptions in calculating the cost of developing a tanker. The resulting low confidence in Boeing cost projections undercut its claims of lower life-cycle costs. Northrop was rated higher. 5. Integrated assessment: The "integrated fleet aerial refueling assessment" was designed to compare how the competing planes would fare in an operational setting using a realistic wartime scenario. The review found that the Northrop Grumman proposal could accomplish specified missions with nearly two dozen fewer planes than the Boeing proposal, a big advantage. So Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome. Although both proposals satisfied all performance requirements, the reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year. The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards.

From Defense Aerospace Op-Ed: Musings on the USAF’s Tanker Decision (Source: defense-aerospace.com; issued March 3, 2008) By Giovanni de Briganti With the benefit of hindsight… In retrospect, it’s hard to see why selection of the Northrop/EADS KC-45A was so unexpected, given how both candidates stacked up against the five broad criteria that the USAF had previously identified. While speculation had concentrated on the KC-767’s reputed advantages, including its smaller ground footprint and its ability to use smaller airfields, its much bigger handicaps were overlooked. In fact, it should have been clear that Boeing was going to lose on at least three of five main criteria (mission capability, as it offered the smaller payload/offload; proposal risk, given its problems in developing the KC-767 for Japan and Italy; and past performance, given the troubled history of the USAF tanker lease.) while, at best, drawing on the other two (cost price, and integrated fleet aerial refueling rating). The Northrop-Grumman/EADS team, on the other hand, demonstrated a smooth KC-30 development program and the mature configuration of its MRTT tanker, sold to several countries, albeit in small numbers. It thus offered much less risk than its competitor. So, when US Air Force acquisition chief Sue Payton said that Northrop Grumman won because, “overall, [it] did have strong areas in aerial refueling and in airlift, as well as their past performance was excellent and they offered great advantage to the government in cost price, and they had an excellent integrated fleet aerial refueling rating,” she wasn’t saying anything that could not have been inferred. But no-one had dared to gamble that the USAF would play by its own rules, perhaps because of its past performance on the tanker issue, and that the Pentagon would allow it to give such a massive contract to a foreign company, especially in an election year. Europe busts another US monopoly Tanker aircraft are the third major market segment in which EADS and other European companies are breaking long-standing, de facto monopolies held by US industry, after tactical airlift (with the Airbus A400M), medium-range air-defense missiles (with Eurosam’s Aster), and beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles (with the MBDA Meteor). With the A380, Airbus has also broken Boeing’s monopoly on jumbo jets while, in the helicopter market alone, the Agusta-Westland AW-101 has broken into the heavy lift helicopter segment formerly shared by the Sikorsky CH-53 and the Boeing CH-47, while the NH-90 has supplanted the Bell UH-1 and Sikorsky UH-60 in the utility helicopter role and the Eurocopter Tiger is effectively challenging the Boeing Apache in the attack helicopter market. Worryingly for the US industry, it has no credible candidates for any of the above market segments in the development pipeline, meaning it has in effect conceded them to Europe for the foreseeable future. To be fair, it should be noted that US industry scored one success when it busted Europe’s near-monopoly on short-range anti-tank missiles with the Javelin. Contract worth at least $17 billion to EADS EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois told French media March 1 that the contract would be worth “over half of its total value” to EADS, or over $17 billion. The balance will be shared between Northrop Grumman (defensive and other systems) and General Electric (engines). It will be interesting to see how much of the total value actually ends up as profit in EADS’ accounts. Are teeth gnashing in Farnborough? In 2006, BAE Systems sold its 20% stake in Airbus to EADS, fearing that it might prove financially risky. BAE made 2.75 billion euros from the sale, and BAE paid down its pension obligations, bought back some shares and acquired Armor Holdings, Inc. in the US. One wonders what BAE’s share of profits from the tanker contract would have amounted to over time. Airbus will make the wings for the tankers at its British plants in Broughton and Filton, The Times reported March 2, adding that “the contract will bring in $6 billion worth of work and help secure 9,000 British jobs” on the wings alone. Was BAE too hasty in baling out of Airbus? Still cheaper than leasing The KC-45A contract works out to an average of $175 million per aircraft. This compares very favorably to the $215 million per aircraft that the Air Force would have paid had its 2002 leasing agreement with Boeing gone through. In Nov. 2003, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that “it would cost $21.5 billion to lease 100 tankers and then purchase them at the end of each lease period,” as proposed by Boeing. So the US Air Force will save about $7.16 billion ($40 million per aircraft, for 179 aircraft), or 20%, by buying the KC-45A – and just on the first contract.

From Greg Wilcox at Matrix Games: "Hi everyone, We've got a Public Beta (v2008.024) Update available via our Members Club. While we do final testing we figured we'd offer you a change to get it early as well. This is still a beta, but it's stable and solid as far as we can tell and includes a brand new feature - The BattleSet Builder! See the change list list below for details. You can download this as a Registered Download as long as you have registered your Larry Bond's Harpoon Commander's Edition serial number in our Members Club (click on the MEMBERS link in the top nav bar). WARNING ! This is quite a large update and with the new features included it weighs in at 284MB! Here's the change list: New Features: • BattleSet Builder - For the first time, end users can create their own Harpoon Classic BattleSets covering nearly any part of the planet. From the early days HC players were forced to play in the GIUK, NACV, MEDC, or IOPG areas of operations. The initial HCE release gave you the Western Pacific, now the player is free to play elsewhere. If you have always wanted to build a Falklands series of scenarios, now you can. Feel the need to bomb a distant continent from CONUS, now you can. Not only that but the utility walks you through the process step by step. For the adventurous users the textured map can be edited to give your BattleSet a look and feel like no other. For those talented with editing large graphics files, you could even recreate the globe, play Pangaea instead of modern Earth. http://www.computerharpoon.com/wiki/main/i...e=HCCE:BB_Guide contains the start of documentation for the program. • Surface Gun Model Improvements - Prior releases of Harpoon Classic engagements with surface to surface guns were often short and very much favored the AI. The computer knew exactly when each unit was in range to fire and loosed an overwhelming full minute's barrage in the first game second. That model underwent major surgery for the 2008.024 release. Now the AI and player may allocate many shells to be fired but the guns will fire them at a rate adhering to the Rate of Fire and number of barrels limitations of the Weapons Mounts. That one-sided and very quickly resolved gun battle may now range over many minutes and occasionally even hours. If you are a database designer, be aware that you'll want to test your guns and update those areas of your database so they work more smoothly with the reworked model. • Game Database Changes - The 2008.024 version of HCE contains the HCDB-080122 platform database by Brad Leyte. This version also sees adoption of further platform photos. In addition to the changes listed below, many tweaks and fixes occurred in response to feedback from the community. Even those changes, however, pale in comparison to the changes triggered by the reworked gun model in this first HCE patch. Brad undertook the modification of all surface gun weapons in the database to make use of the improved surface gunnery model. Gun battles which used to leave the player's ships sunk before there was time to react now often last many minutes. All of the magazines for ships have also been re-worked, not only for gun ammunition but missiles as well. That means cascaded changes to the mounts themselves, truly changes innumerable for this release of the game. • Data Export DLL Interface - The release version of HCE contains an undocumented interface for exporting a subset of game actions to a 3rd party DLL. That interface endured a total rewrite for HCE 2008.024. Now instead of a single DLL, a player can load multiple DLLs, each adhering to a different version of the export DLL specification. These DLLs may do something as simple as note each time a unit is killed, or follow the progress of units across the map. This is just the most visible early step in a series of efforts to open up the game to user mods. Existing export DLLs: DataDump - exports all information made available by the interface to a text file, GoogleEarth - plots the movement of all units involved in a scenario on your local copy of Google Earth, HC Remote Viewer - perhaps the interface that will allow multiple players to submit orders to a central game umpire leading to an interesting impersonation of multiplayer. For more information, see: http://www.computerharpoon.com/wiki/main/i...tend:Export_DLL • Range Circles are now Range Ellipses, helping to more accurately portray systems capabilities in "non-square" BattleSets. Range rings are still just play aids giving a general indication of a Group's capabilities, they do not indicate the exact ranges of a particular group. • Scenario Editor now runs at resolutions of 1600x1200 and greater. (note: there were only a very few machines available on which to test the capability) • EC2000 BattleSets again make an HC appearance. This allows the use of the Scenario Converter application to convert scenarios from EC2000 to EC2003 format. Thanks to B.I. Hutchinson for the use of the EC2000 res files. • By modifying the db_utils utilities, database designers can now stuff thousands of platform images into their rsr files, up from somewhat under 1,000 images in the HCE release version. • Instant Action has returned to HC. When the game is loaded and the Instant Action checkbox was previously checked, the player will be thrown immediately into a randomly chosen legacy scenario. The Instant Action checkbox has had no effect for a number of HC iterations, now it is enabled and expanded in capability. • CPU Relief - HCE will no longer use as much horsepower as the CPU can provide. The game now gives CPU cycles back to the operating system if they are not needed, potentially allowing notebook computers to run cooler. • The player and the AI can now fire surface to surface torpedoes, no longer are submarines the only targets for torpedoes! • Scenario Editor - Scenarios larger than 64kB can no be loaded in the SE for those itching to make scenarios so large no computer can actually play them. Loadout range is now shown in the launch aircraft dialog for each line of ready aircraft. Added 16x, 32x, and 64x zoom levels to allow finer placement of platforms in BattleSets that cover a large geographical area. Adding bases and airplanes to scenarios proceeds more smoothly in 2008.024, no more unintended jumping up and down a line when adding aircraft, adding a base returns you to the same base on the same side as the base just added. • Game Engine - Show range in launch aircraft dialog for each line of ready aircraft. This helps the player choose aircraft sure to have the range to comfortably reach the target and return. ECM devices on mounts will now operate in the area and point defense regimes. This includes chaff and flares. Surface to Air guns now adhere to the altitude limitations listed in the database. When planes return to base they will no longer drop to Low altitude, they will maintain whatever altitude they were at before assuming the RTB posture. Suppress the Orders window if there were no orders provided with the scenario instead of showing blank orders window. The Show All keyboard command works in the release builds (Ctrl-Alt-s) Bug Fixes/Workarounds: • Crash Fixed - Clicking on an AD Mobile group would crash the game due to an overflow in the mini report window. • Crash Fixed - Making listview columns very narrow would put the GE into an endless loop trying to shorten the displayed text. • Crash Fixed - Long Class Names (i.e. Improved Spruance Strike 1984) could crash the formation editor. While fixing the crash the length of text displayed was also increased (the text that shows at the bottom of the formation editor window). • Crash Fixed - Splitting all units from a group would often crash the game. Most of the reasons for splitting all units from a group have also been addressed. • Crash Fixed - Using the game option "Start with full ordnance" set to No would result in a crash with any scenarios containing Neutral units. • Crash Fixed - Scenario Editor platform display will no longer crash due to long mount names. • Fix - SE will now dynamically shorten length of ship class names so that the entries at the end of the list are not blank. • Fix - Aerial refueling improvements centering around any manual refuel event replacing a planned refuel event. This means refueling works more reliably than in 2007.000. However, there is much work yet to be done. • Fix - The Red Victory graphic for EC2003 and newer BattleSets will now be the same as the pre-EC2003 graphic instead of the errant US CVN super-imposed over a USA flag. • Fix - Included the new sound files that should have been a part of the original HCE release. • Fix - If an air group has an attack order against a surface group and that target unit is destroyed before the air group comes within weapons range, the air group will now pick a new target in the group instead of clearing mission and loitering or returning to base. • Fix - BOL weapons will now attack any unit in the way, foe, neutral, or friend; and will go active near the player selected target location. In 2007.000 the weapons would only attack the enemy and were seeking a target immediately after launch instead of waiting until the activation point. • Fix - Neutrals no longer attack other sides and do not share sensor information with other sides. • Fix - Victory conditions were often triggering when only have the required number of units were damaged or destroyed. The damage was being counted two different ways instead of one way correctly. • Fix - Bombers closing to their death senselessly has been reduced. The planes were properly given the RTB order after launching weapons but the attack order was not cleared, the two orders fought and resulted in the bombers flying to their deaths. • Fix - Neutral submarines now have an image displayed on the Staff Assistant dialog when sunk. • Fix - If the original unit in a group was sinking it was not possible to attack other units in the group, this is no longer the case, the other units may be attacked. Mainly this affected land unit groups. • Workaround - In pre-EC2003 BattleSets SAMs can no longer be used in an anti-surface role. This was preventing purpose-built ASMs from firing if they were placed in a mount after the SAMs. • Workaround - HDS III GIUK scenario 12.0 is errantly the same scenario as 11.0. The GE will not longer show 12.0 as available, the SE however will still show the scenario in the BattleSet listing in case someone wants to create the scenario for later inclusion in the game (if possible). See the Release Notes section for greater detail." Unzip the Patch file anywhere and run the exe file that was unzipped, that will start the installer. When prompted for a destination, point it to the location where HCE is installed.

What is the HCDA? The HCDA is an acronym for the Harpoon Commander's Edition Database 'Americas', a new custom database designed to cover the North, South and Central America theaters, and to be used in conjunction with the upcoming BattleSet Builder. Until the advent of the BattleSet Builder, HCE (and Harpoon Classic) players have been limited to the North Atlantic, GIUK Gap, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and (the most recently added) Western Pacific theaters. The BattleSet Builder utility, however, will permit HCE players to create new battlesets (i.e. new maps) for virtually any area of the globe. The HCDA contains a wealth of new aircraft, ships, submarines and installations for the 'Americas' theater, as well as retaining and/or adapting many platforms from the official database of the HCE simulation, the HCDB. This allows the fullest range of scenarios to be created with the BattleSet Builder tool, from Soviet/Cuban interventions in Central America and the Caribbean basin, to the 1982 Falklands conflict between Great Britain and Argentina, to an action by the People's Republic of China to protect its 'investment' in the Panama Canal, to a Second Civil War between the States. The HCDA is available for download 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 HCDA 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 HCDA cover (generally speaking) the 1980-2015 era, but this is not a hard and fast rule, and there are some exceptions. Please note that copyright to HCDA database content is held by Brad Leyte (aka CV32). HCDA database content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. You may copy, distribute and transmit the HCDA 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 HCDA 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 HCDA database. The HCDA 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 HCDA 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 HCDA).

I'm wondering what our American friends think of how big an election issue this will become, especially considering McCain's "crusade" during the Boeing tanker scandal.

From Defense Aerospace Pentagon Contract Announcement (Source: US Department of Defense; issued Feb. 29, 2008) Northrop Grumman Corp., of Los Angeles, Calif., is being awarded a cost plus incentive/award fee, fixed price incentive, firm fixed price contract for the newly-named KC-45. This contract is awarded after full and open bidding, and provides for the system design and development of four test aircraft for $1.5 billion. This contract also includes five production options targeted for 64 aircraft at $10.6 billion. At this time no funds have been obligated. Contracting activity is the Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (contract number FA8625-08-C-6451). (ends) Air Force Awards Tanker Contract to Northrop Grumman (Source: US Department of Defense; issued Feb. 29, 2008) WASHINGTON --- The Air Force announced today it has selected Northrop Grumman Corp. to build its next-generation air-refueling tanker aircraft. The contract calls for up to 179 new KC-45A tankers to be built over the next decade or so at a cost of around $35 billion. Tanker aircraft are used to refuel other aircraft while in flight. “This initial contract for the newly named KC-45A will provide significantly greater air refueling capabilities than our current fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135s,” Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne told reporters at a Pentagon news conference. The new tanker “will be able to refuel U.S. and allied aircraft in every area of responsibility, worldwide, 24 hours a day, in adverse weather and be equipped with defensive systems,” Wynne said. The new planes eventually will replace hundreds of aging KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft that were introduced in the late 1950s. “Today’s tanker decision is a major step in the Air Force’s critical recapitalizing and modernization that is going to be required to defend the United States and to support our international partners in the 21st century,” Wynne said. The new aircraft also will used to carry cargo, passengers, and medical patients, the Air Force secretary said. “The KC-45, built by Northrop Grumman, will provide our nation and partners the critical ability to reach across the globe and project our combat capability or our humanitarian friendship rapidly and effectively,” Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, the Air Force’s vice chief of staff, said. The new tankers, McNabb continued, will “ensure our bombers and our fighters can deliver global power and give our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms the ability to provide global vigilance.” The Airbus-Northrop Grumman partnership had competed against the Boeing Co. for the tanker contract, said Sue C. Payton, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition. Payton cited the transparency of the contracting competition, noting both enterprises had received regular feedback from the Air Force on how they were performing throughout the process. “Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government,” Payton said, noting the Airbus-allied group’s plane earned superior marks for mission capability, past performance and in several other categories. “I would tell you, that, overall, Northrop Grumman did have strong areas in aerial refueling and in airlift,” Payton said. There was “no bias” involved in the awarding of the contract, she emphasized. Both competitors will be debriefed in coming weeks, Payton said, noting there is an appeal process. If everything goes well, the first test aircraft should be flying by 2010, said Air Force Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, commander of Air Mobility Command based at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. Air Mobility Command provides the U.S. military with passenger, cargo, tanker and other aircraft support. The Air Force should receive the first group of operational KC-45A aircraft around 2013, Lichte said. Citing his role as Air Mobility Command’s chief, Lichte expressed relief that the process to deliver a new air refueling tanker to his service is moving forward. “We know that in the future years we will have a new tanker,” Lichte said. “Tankers are what really enable the fight.” Tanker Contract Award Announced (Source: US Air Force; issued Feb. 29, 2008) WASHINGTON --- Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb announced the selection of Northrop Grumman as the winner of the KC-X competition for development and procurement of up to 179 tanker aircraft for approximately $35 billion. The initial contract for the newly named KC-45 is for the system design and development of four test aircraft for $1.5 billion. This contract also includes five production options targeted for 64 aircraft at $10.6 billion. "The tanker is the number one procurement priority for us right now," General McNabb said. "Buying the new KC-45A is a major step forward and another demonstration of our commitment to recapitalizing our Eisenhower-era inventory of these critical national assets. Today is not just important for the Air Force, however. It's important for the entire joint military team, and important for our coalition partners as well. The KC-45A will revolutionize our ability to employ tankers and will ensure the Air Force's future ability to provide our nation with truly Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power. "It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalize our aging fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere. In this global Air Force business, the critical element for air bridge, global Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and global strike is the tanker," he said. The KC-45A will provide significantly greater air refueling capabilities than the current fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135 Stratotankers it will begin replacing. For example, it will be able to refuel Air Force and Navy aircraft on every flight. These aircraft have different systems for receiving fuel and today, KC-135s must be set up for one or the other before takeoff. The KC-45A will be equipped for both systems on every flight and also will have connections for wing pods. When wing pods are installed, it can refuel two probe-equipped aircraft, such as those flown by Navy and many allied aircrews, at the same time. The KC-45A can even be refueled in flight by other tankers. The KC-45A also will have defensive systems that allow it to go into dangerous environments that tanker aircrews currently have to avoid. It will also supplement the airlift fleet by carrying cargo, passengers and medical patients in a secondary role. The KC-X source selection used a "best value" determination to select a winner based on five factors: mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, cost/price and an integrated fleet air refueling assessment -- performance in a simulated war scenario. These five factors were developed after consulting with industry and were finalized prior to starting the competition. Considered together, these grading criteria ensured the Air Force maximized the capability delivered to the warfighter while optimizing the taxpayers' investment. Air Force officials followed a carefully structured process, designed to provide transparency, maintain integrity and promote fair competition. Air Force officials met with offerors on numerous occasions to gain a thorough understanding of their proposals and provide feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Officials also provided insight into government cost estimates throughout the process instead of waiting until the post-decision debrief. The competitors indicated they've been very pleased with the degree of communication. The evaluation team comprised experts covering a broad spectrum of specialties from acquisition to operations and was hand-picked from across the Air Force and other government agencies. As part of the process, Air Force officials will now provide a written notice to both the selected and not-selected and offer to provide a debrief on their bid proposals. To maintain the integrity of that process, officials will be unable to provide additional information about the proposals and contract. "Today's announcement is the culmination of years of tireless work and attention to detail by our acquisition professionals and source selection team, who have been committed to maintaining integrity, providing transparency and promoting a fair competition for this critical aircraft program," Secretary Wynne said. "Through these efforts, we believe we will provide a higher-value resource to the warfighter and the taxpayer." (ends) AMC Commander Welcomes Tanker Announcement (Source: US Air Force; issued Feb. 29, 2008) SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. --- The commander of Air Mobility Command hailed today's aerial tanker source selection announcement as an important first step toward ensuring America maintains its global reach capability. Air Force officials announced today that Northrop Grumman Corporation was selected to build the new tanker, designated the KC-45. The new tanker will replace the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135 Stratotankers. "The KC-45A is the tanker of the future," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, AMC commander. "It will enable us to carry more fuel and cargo, and allow us the flexibility to refuel any type of receiver on every mission. It will come equipped with systems to take this capability closer to the fight while protecting our airmen as they operate in hostile skies." The backbone of America's existing tanker fleet is the KC-135, which was built during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. Replacing this aircraft has been the top acquisition priority for the Air Force for several years. "The KC-135s have served us well and will have to continue to fly for decades until this recapitalization is complete," General Lichte said. "It is vitally important to ensure this recapitalization effort is fully funded and stays on track, to ensure this capability so critical to our national security is always there. "I look forward to seeing the first KC-45A in the field. The success of this program will require a strong commitment from our national leaders, and I'm confident they understand and appreciate what an important asset this modernized tanker is to America's defense," he said. Tanker aircraft have played an essential role in the war on terrorism. Since Sept. 11, 2001, Air Force tankers have passed more than 1.2 billion gallons of fuel to other aircraft. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley calls tankers "the single point of failure for everything we do."

From Flight International DATE: 02/03/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Seattle-area politicians seething over Boeing tanker defeat By David Kaminski-Morrow Outraged politicians from Washington state, the manufacturing home of Boeing, are demanding to know why the US Air Force selected rival Airbus for a $35 billion tanker contract which will also see the airframer assemble civil A330-200 freighters in the USA. But the Air Force decision yesterday to opt for the Northrop Grumman-EADS KC-45A, which is based on the A330 airframe, has generated strong support from Alabama where, at a facility in Mobile, the tankers and freighters will be built. “Preparatory work is now underway for our commitment to co-locate the final assembly of the tankers and A330 civilian freighter aircraft…creating the first new large commercial aircraft assembly facility in the USA in over 40 years,” says Airbus chief executive Tom Enders. A330F production will add hundreds of personnel to the 1,000 staff already expected to be employed on KC-45A tanker work. But the decision has stunned Boeing’s political supporters. Washington senator Patty Murray says: “We are shocked that the Air Force tapped a European company and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our own American military. “At a time when our economy is hurting, this decision to outsource our tankers is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s military. “Boeing has 75 years of experience building tankers and its workers are the best in the world. We look forward to asking tough questions about how the Air Force reached this decision.” Boeing, which had offered the rival KC-767 tanker based on the 767-200, is yet to decide on a course of action. Washington congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers says the decision is a “surprising disappointment”, adding: “Boeing was the smart choice for taxpayers for building the tankers quickly and efficiently, right here in the USA. “Any challenge that may follow [this decision] needs to be done quickly so that we don’t have further delay in getting these new tankers built.” However, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, describes the decision as “fantastic news” for the state, insisting that the Northrop Grumman-EADS team “won the competition on the merits of the proposal and the outstanding capabilities of the aircraft”. He adds: “It marks a full-circle transition for Brookley Field from a mothballed air base to a world-class aircraft manufacturing centre.” Sessions’ view is backed by senator Richard Shelby, also representing Alabama, who says the KC-45A is “by far the most superior platform”. He says the contract will bring 1,800 jobs to the Mobile area and 5,000 to the state. While Airbus says it could not justify the expense of developing a freighter-only final assembly line at Mobile, building it as an extension of the tanker facility makes economic sense. Customers have placed firm orders for 77 A330Fs. Lessor BOC Aviation became the latest to sign for the type with an order for five earlier this month. EADS says it has started work on US facilities to support the tanker and freighter programmes, adding that the final assembly line will “ensure low risk, high efficiency and increased capacity for both the US Air Force and commercial Airbus customers”. Last September the first KC-45A airframe performed its maiden flight. The US Air Force will acquire 179 KC-45A tankers, although the initial $1.5 billion contract covers four development aircraft. This contract also includes five production options for 64 aircraft, worth $10.6 billion. General Electric CF6 engines will be fitted to the twin-jets. GE, which initially dropped out of offering a powerplant for the A330F, values the overall tanker programme – including other GE components and spares – at over $5 billion.

Re LCS, its more likely they'll sink some money into some variant of the USCG's Legend WMSL 750 design. (Probably should have looked at that option more closely from the beginning).

The initial release version of the Harpoon Commander's Edition (HCE) 'Americas' Database (HCDA-080302) is now available. The database file is available from the Downloads section of this website. PLEASE NOTE that I am just including the commondb.res file to reduce the size of the download and simplify things. Just use your stock HCE commondb.res file. Be sure to rename any custom commondb.res file (such as commondb_custom.res, for example). Keeping the old file will permit you to easily switch back and forth between databases. You do not need to import to play the sim using the new HCDA. You will need to import if you want to use it in the Platform Editor. The initial release version of the HCDA includes (among many others): Aircraft: A-1A AMX - Brazil A109K2 - Peru A-4AR Fightinghawk - Argentina A-4C Skyhawk - Argentina A-4P Skyhawk - Argentina A-4Q Skyhawk - Argentina A-37B Dragonfly - Intl A-58 Pucara - Uruguay AF-1 (A-4KU) Skyhawk - Brazil AB212ASW - Venezuela AH-11A Super Lynx - Brazil AS.332B Super Puma - Venezuela AS.365 Dauphin 2 - Argentina AS.532B2/M1 Cougar - Venezuela AS.555SN Fennec - Argentina ASH-3H Sea King - Argentina AT-29 Tucano - Brazil AT-63 Pampa - Argentina B-200T Cormoran - Argentina B707 Tanker - Venezuela B707-387C - Argentina Bell 206B JetRanger - Chile BO-105C - Chile BO-105CB - Peru BO-105CBS-5 - Mexico BO-105LS-A3 - Peru Boeing 707 - Intl C-105 Amazonas - Brazil C-212-200M Aviocar - Mexico C-212-200M Aviocar - Panama C-212-200MPA - Mexico C-212-300 Aviocar - Argentina C-212-300PM Patrullero - Argentina C-212-400 Patrullero - Venezuela C-23B/C Sherpa - USA C-295M Persuader - Chile C-95A/B Bandeirante - Brazil C-97 (EMB-120) - Brazil Canberra B.Mk 62 - Argentina Canberra B.Mk 82 - Venezuela Canberra B(I).Mk 68 - Peru Canberra PR.Mk 83 - Venezuela Condor (B707 Phalcon) - Chile CP-121 Tracker - Canada Dagger A - Argentina DHC-5A Buffalo - Intl DHC-6 Twin Otter - Intl E-2C Hawkeye - Mexico EMB-111N Bandeirante - Chile EMB-145AEW - Mexico EMB-145MP - Mexico EMB-312 Tucano - Venezuela F.27-200 Maritime - Peru F-103D/E - Brazil F-103D/E (3NG) - Brazil F-16A/B FAV1 - Venezuela F-16A/B FAV2 - Venezuela F-5E Tiger II - Brazil F-5E/F Tiger II - Chile F-5E/F Tiger II - Honduras F-5E/F Tiger II - Mexico F-5E/F Tigre III - Chile F-5EM/FM - Brazil F-2000B/C - Brazil Finger - Argentina G.222 - Intl Hunter FGA.71 - Chile HB.315B Gaviao - Brazil IA-50 Guarani II - Argentina IA-58A Pucara - Argentina IA-58A Pucara - Colombia IA-63 Pampa - Argentina IH-6B - Brazil Jaguar ES/EB - Ecuador KC-130H Hercules - Argentina KC-137 - Brazil Kfir C.2 - Ecuador Kfir C.7 - Colombia Kfir C.10 - Colombia Kfir C.10 (CE) - Ecuador L-188E Electra - Argentina Learjet 35A - Argentina Lynx Mk 23 - Argentina MB-326GB - Argentina MB.339A - Argentina MB.339AP - Peru MiG-19P Farmer - Cuba MiG-29S Fulcrum C - Peru MiG-29SE Fulcrum - Peru Mirage 5COA - Colombia Mirage 5M - Colombia Mirage 5MA Elkan - Chile Mirage 5P - Argentina Mirage 50EV - Venezuela Mirage 50FC - Chile Mirage 50CN Pantera - Chile Mirage 2000P/DP - Peru Mirage F.1JA - Ecuador Mirage IIICJ - Argentina Mirage IIIEA - Argentina Mirage IIIEV - Venezuela NAS.332C Cougar - Chile NF-5A/B (FAV) - venezuela O-2A Skymaster - Chile OV-10D Bronco - Argentina OV-10E Bronco - Venezuela P-3ACH - Chile P-3B Orion - Argentina P-3BR Orion - Brazil P-95A/B Bandeirulha - Brazil PC-7 Turbo Trainer - Chile R-99A (EMB-145SA) - Brazil R-99B (EMB-145RS) - Brazil RC-26B Metroliner - Intl S-2A (P-16A) Tracker - Brazil S-2E Tracker - Argentina S-2E (P-16E) Tracker - Brazil S-2E Tracker - Peru S-2E Tracker - Venezuela S-2G Tracker - Peru S-2G Tracker - Uruguay S-2T Turbo Tracker - Argentina S-2T Turbo Tracker - Brazil SA.315B Lama - Intl SA.319B Alouette III - Argentina SA.330L Super Puma - Argentina SAH-11 Lynx - Brazil SC-95B Bandeirante - Brazil SH-3A Sea King - Brazil SH-3B Sea King - Brazil Shorts 360 - Intl SP-2H Neptune - Argentina Strikemaster Mk.89/A - Ecuador Su-22M2K Fitter F - Peru Su-22M3 Fitter J - Peru Su-25K Frogfoot A - Peru Su-30MKV Flanker c - Venezuela Super Etendard - Argentina Super King Air B200 - Argentina UH-12 Esquilo - Brazil UH-13 Esquilo - Brazil UH-14 (AS.332F1) - Brazil UH-14 (AS.532SC) - Brazil UH-1H - Argentina VF-5A/D (FAV1) - Venezuela VF-5A/D (FAV2) - Venezuela Ships: Acosta (Cactus) PG - Dominican Republic Acuario PG - Mexico Acuario B PG - Mexico Aguirre (De Ruyter) CL - Peru Aguirre (Lupo) FFG - Peru Alfaro (Leander) FF - Ecuador Alferez Sobral (Sotoyomo) ATF - Argentina Allende (Knox) FF - Mexico Almirante Brown (Meko 360H2) DD - Argentina Almirante Camara AGOR - Brazil Almirante Clemente FF - Venezuela Almirante Gastao Motta AOR - Brazil Almirante Grau (De Ruyter) CL - Peru Almirante Irizar AGB - Argentina Almirante Latorre (L class) FFG - Chile Almirante Padilla (FS1500) FF - Colombia Amorin do Valle (River) AUX - Brazil Antares AGOR - Brazil Aquiles AFS - Chile Aratu (Schutze) MCM - Brazil Araucano AO - Chile Ary Rongel AGOR - Brazil Atahualpa AOT - Ecuador Azteca PG - Mexico Baradero (Dabur) PG - Argentina Barroso FFL - Brazil Betelgeuse (PGM 71) PG - Dominican Republic Blanco Encalada (County) DDG - Chile Blanco Encalada (M class) FF - Chile Bracui (River) PG - Brazil Bravo (Bronstein) FF - Mexico Cabo PG - Mexico Calicuchima (Throsk) AE - Ecuador Cambiaso (Cohoes) PG - Dominican Republic Camcraft PG - El Salvador Canal Beagle TRAN - Argentina Capana LST - Venezuela Capitan Beotegui (YO 153) AO - Dominican Republic Cartegena de Indias AO - Colombia Carvajal (Lupo) FFG - Peru Casma (Saar IV) PTM - Chile Ceara (Thomaston) LSD - Brazil Chaco (Ton) MCM - Argentina Chimborazo (Abnaki) ATF - Ecuador Cienfuegos - Cuba Ciudad Bolivar AK - Venezuela Cochrane (Type 23) FF - Chile Condell (Leander) FF - Chile Condell mod (Leander) FF - Chile Constancia PG - Venezuela Constitucion PG - Venezuela Corneta Cabrales AGS - Chile Corral PG - Chile Custodio de Mello TRAN - Brazil Durango (Holzinger 2000) OPV - Mexico Democrata PG - Mexico Doutor Montenegro AH - Brazil Drummond (A69) FFL - Argentina Duque de Caxia (De Soto) LST - Brazil EDVM 25 LCM - Brazil Enriquillo (Sotoyomo) PG - Dominican Republic Erebus PG - Argentina Esmeraldas FFL - Ecuador Espora (Meko 140A16) FF - Argentina Federacion PTM - Venezuela Felinto Perry ASR - Brazil Fort Charles PG - Jamaica Francisco de Churruca PG - Argentina Garcia D'Avila LSL - Brazil Gavion PC - Venezuela General Belgrano CL - Argentina Gorgona AGS - Chile Grajau PG - Brazil Greenhalgh (Type 22/1) FF - Brazil Guacolda PG - Chile Guama (Biya) AGS - Cuba Guarapari (LCU 1610) LCU - Brazil Guardian Rios ATF - Peru Guaymuras PG - Honduras Halcon (Type B119) PG - Argentina Hercules (TYpe 42 mod1) DDG - Argentina Hercules (Type 42 mod2) DD - Argentina Hercules (Type 42 mod3) DD - Argentina Holzinger PG - Mexico Hualcopo (LST 542) LST - Ecuador Huasteco AFS - Mexico Humbolt AGOR - Peru Huracan (Saar 4.5) PTM - Mexico Imperial Marinheiro PG - Brazil Inhauma FFL - Brazil Intrepida (TNC 45/early) PT - Argentina Intrepida (TNC 45/late) PTM - Argentina Intrepido (SX 506) SS - Colombia Iquique (Saar III) PTM - Chile Irigoyen (Cherokee) PG - Argentina Isla PG - Mexico Itaipu (Roraima) PG - Paraguay Janequeo (Maersk) ATF - Chile Kukulkan (Broadsword) PG - Guatemala Leucoton ATF - Chile Lobitos AOT - Peru Los Taques ATF - Venezuela Maipo (Batral) LST - Chile Malpelo AGOR - Chile Manuel Azueta DD - Mexico Manta PTM - Ecuador Marajo AO - Brazil Maranhao (Fletcher) DD - Brazil Marcilio Dias (Gearing) DD - Brazil Mariscal Sucre (Lupo) FFG - Venezuela Mariscal Sucre (mod) FFG - Venezuela Marshall AGB - Chile Mato Grosso (Sumner) DD - Brazil Mattoso Maia (Newport) LST - Brazil Maule PG - Chile Maya AK - Mexico Merino AS - Chile Micalvi PG - Chile Miguel Rodriguez ATF - Venezuela Minas Gerais CV - Brazil Murature PG - Argentina Nanawa PG - Paraguay Niteroi (Vosper Mk10/1) FF - Brazil Niteroi (Vosper Mk10/2) FF - Brazil Niteroi mod FF - Brazil Noviembre (Vigilant) PG - Uruguay Oaxaca OPV - Mexico Ona PG - Chile Orion AGOR - Ecuador Orompello LSM - Chile Osa II (Project 205U) PTM - Cuba Oscar Viel Toro PG - Chile Oswaldo Cruz AH - Brazil Otomi (Abnaki) ATF - Mexico Oyarvide (Helgoland) AGS - Uruguay Palacios (Daring) DD - Peru Paita (LST 1156) LST - Peru Papaloapan LST - Mexico Panquiaco (Vosper) PG - Panama Para (Garcia) FF - Brazil Parnaiba PG - Brazil Patagonia (Durance) AOR - Argentina Pauk II (1241PE) FFL - Cuba Pedro Campbell (Auk) AGS - Uruguay Pedro de Heredia ATF - Colombia Pedro Teixeira PG - Brazil Petrel (Point) PG - Venezuela Piaui (Fletcher) DD - Brazil Polaris (CB90HMN) PG - Mexico Prat (County) DDG - Chile Prat (County mod 2) DDG - Chile Prestol Botello PG - Dominican Republic Puerto Cabello AK - Venezuela Punta PG - Mexico Punta Alta (Red) Aux - Argentina Punta Brava AGOR - Venezuela Punta Caxinas TRAN - Honduras Quetzalcoatl DD - Mexico Quito PTM - Ecuador Rio Panuco LST - Mexico Riquelme (Type 148) PTM - Chile Roraima PG - Brazil Sao Paulo (Foch) CV - Brazil Segui (Sumner) DD - Argentina Sergipe (Sumner) DD - Brazil Sierra (Holzinger 2000) OPV - Mexico Sirius AGS - Brazil Sonya (1265) MCM - Cuba Stenka (Project 205P) PG - Cuba Talara AOT - Peru Tarasco AK - Mexico Taurus AOT - Ecuador Temerario (Kondor II) MCM - Uruguay Teniente Olivieri ATF - Argentina Tlaxcala (YO-65) AO - Mexico Tortugero (White) PG - Dominican Republic Tracker II (LPPN-2) PG - Brazil Tritao ATF - Brazil Troncoso (Dabur) PG - Chile Unanue (Sotomoyo) AGS - Peru Uruguay (Cdr Riviere) FF - Uruguay Uribe PG - Mexico Valdivia (Newport) LST - Chile Valle (Auk) PG - Mexico Vanguardia (Piast) ATF - Uruguay Veintecinco De Mayo CV - Argentina Velarde (PR-72P) PTM - Peru Vidal Gormaz AGOR - Chile Williams (Type 22/2) FF - Chile Yevgenya (1258) MCM - Cuba Yojoa (Hollyhock) PG - Honduras Zhuk (Project 199 Grif) PG - Cuba Submarines: Angamos (T209/1200) SS - Peru Goias (Guppy III) SS - Brazil Guanabara (Guppy II) SS - Brazil Humaita (Oberon) SS - Brazil Humaita mod (Oberon) SS - Brazil Intrepido (SX506) SS - Colombia Islay (T209/1100) SS - Peru O'Brien (Oberon) SS - Chile O'Higgins (Scorpene) SS - Chile Pijao (T209/1200) SS - Colombia Sabalo (T209/1300) SS - Venezuela Santa Cruz (TR1700) SS - Argentina Salta (T209/1100) SS - Argentina Santa Fe (Guppy II) SS - Argentina Shyri (T209/1300) SS - Chile Thompson (T209/1300) SS - Chile Tikuna (T209/1400) SS - Brazil Tupi (T209/1400) SS - Brazil Installations: Acapulco - Mexico Aldershot - Canada Almirante Zar (Trelew) - Argentina Altus AFB - USA Anapolis - Brazil Anniston Army Depot - USA Antofagasta - Chile Apiay - Colombia Arturo Merino Benitez - Chile Ascension - UK Atlantic City IAP - USA Balboa - Panama Bangor NB - USA Barbacena - Brazil Barksdale AFB - USA Barranquilla - Colombia Battle Creek ANGB - USA Beckley AP - USA Belem - Brazil Belize City - Belize Boa Vista - Brazil Bradley IAP - USA Bradshaw IAP - Saint Kitts Brasilia - Brazil Bremerton NB - USA Bridgetown - Barbados Buckley AFB - USA Byrd Field - USA Cachoeira - Brazil Cali - Colombia Camaguey - Cuba Camden Heliport - Trinidad & Tobago Camp David - USA Campeche - Mexico Camp H.M. Smith - USA Camp Lejeune - USA Campo Grande - Brazil Camp Pendleton - USA Canelones - Uruguay Cannon AFB - USA Canoas - Brazil Cape Canaveral - USA Capital AP - USA Cartagena - Colombia Centennial Bridge - Panama Cesaire IAP - France CFB Chatham - Canada CFB Chilliwack - Canada CFB Cold Lake - Canada CFB Comox - Canada CFB Edmonton - Canada CFB Esquimalt - Canada CFB Kingston - Canada CFB Moose Jaw - Canada CFB North Bay - Canada CFB Shiloh - Canada CFB St Hubert - Canada CFB Suffield - Canada CFB Summerside - Canada CFB Valcartier - Canada CFB Wainwright - Canada CFB Winnipeg - Canada CFD Mountain View - Canada CFS Alert - Canada Channel Islands ANGS - USA Charleston AFB - USA Chetumal - Mexico Cheyenne - USA Cheyenne Mountain - USA Chiclayo - Peru Chicureo - Chile Chihuahua - Mexico Chimore - Bolivia Ciudad Libertad - Cuba Cobija - Bolivia Cochabamba - Bolivia Collique - Peru Colonia Federal - Mexico Colorado Springs - USA Columbus AFB - USA Comalapa - El Salvador Comandante Espora - Argentina Comayagua - Honduras Comodoro Rivadavia - Argentina Concepcion - Paraguay Cordoba - Argentina Cozumel - Mexico Creech AFB - USA Crown Point - Trinidad & Tobago Culiacan - Mexico Curitiba - Brazil Cyril King AP - USA Dannelly Field - USA Davis Monthan AFB - USA Des Moines IAP - USA Dobbins ARB - USA Dos Afonsos - Brazil Douglas IAP - USA Duke Field - USA Duluth - USA Durazno - Uruguay Dyess AFB - USA Ebbing ANGB - USA Edwards AFB - USA Eglin AFB - USA Eielson AFB - USA Eirunepe - Brazil El Cipres - Mexico El Dorado - Colombia Ellington Field - USA Ellsworth AFB - USA El Palomar - Argentina El Bosque - Chile Elmendorf AFB - USA E.T. Joshua AP - St Vincent Everett NS - USA Ezeiza - Argentina Fairchild AFB - USA Flamingo IAP - Netherlands Flores Santa Elena - Guatemala Florianopolis - Brazil Forbes Field - USA Fortaleza - Brazil Fort Belvoir - USA Fort Benning - USA Fort Bliss - USA Fort Bragg - USA Fort Campbell - USA Fort Carson - USA Fort Detrick - USA Fort Dix - USA Fort Drum - USA Fort Eustis - USA Fort Greely - USA Fort Hood - USA Fort Huachuca - USA Fort Irwin NTC - USA Fort Knox - USA Fort Leavenworth - USA Fort Lewis - USA Fort Meade - USA Fort McCoy - USA Fort Monmouth - USA Fort Monroe - USA Fort Polk - USA Fort Richardson - USA Fort Riley - USA Fort Rucker - USA Fort Sam Houston - USA Fort Sill - USA Fort Stewart - USA Fort Wainwright - USA Fort Wayne IAP - USA Francis E. Warren AFB - USA Fresno IAP - USA Gabreski Field - USA Galeao - Brazil General Mitchell IAP - USA George Charles AP - Saint Lucia Georgetown - Guyana George Town - UK Gerald's Airport - UK Goodfellow AFB - USA Goose Green - UK Gowen Field - USA Grand Forks AFB - USA Greater Peoria - USA Great Falls IAP - USA Grissom ARB - USA Groom Lake - USA Guantanamo Bay - USA Guaratingueta - Brazil Guayaquil - Ecuador Guaymaral - Colombia Guaymas - Mexico Guerrero - Mexico Gustaf III AP - France Hanga Roa - Chile Hanscom AFB - USA Harrisburg IAP - USA Hato IAP - Netherlands Havana - Cuba Hector IAP - USA Henry Rohlsen AP - USA Hermosillo - Mexico Herrera - Dominican Republic Hickam AFB - uSA Hill AFB - USA Holguin - Cuba Holland ANGB - USA Holloman AFB - USA Homestead ARS - USA Howard AFB - Panama Hulman Field - USA Hunter Army Airfield - USA Hurlburt Field - USA Ilopango - El Salvador Ingleside NS - USA Iquique - Chile Iquitos - Peru Jacksonville IAP - USA JAGS McCartney IAP - UK Joe Foss Field - USA Jose C Paz - Argentina Juanchaco - Colombia Juan Santamaria - Costa Rica Juliana IAP - Netherlands Keesler AFB - USA Kelly AFB - USA Key Field - USA Kings Bay NSB - USA Kingsley Field - USA Kirtland AFB - USA Kitsap NB - USA Kulis ANGB - USA La Aurora - Guatemala La Ceiba - Honduras Lackland AFB - USA La Coloma - Cuba Ladario - Brazil Lagro Agrio - Ecuador Lagoa Santa - Brazil Laguna del Sauce - Uruguay La Joya - Peru Lambert Field - USA La Paz - Mexico La Paz-El Alto - Bolivia Larandia - Colombia Las Bajadas - Mexico Las Palmas - Peru Laughlin AFB - USA Lazaro Cardenas - Mexico L'Esperance AP - France Lettsome IAP - UK Lima-Callao - Peru Lincoln MAP - USA Little Creek NAB - USA Little Rock AFB - USA Los Brasiles - Nicaragua Los Cerillos - Chile Luke AFB - USA MacDill AFB - USA Madrid - Colombia Majors Field - USA Malmstrom AFB - USA Managua - Nicaragua Manaus - Brazil Mansfield Lahm AP - USA Manta - Ecuador Maquehue - Chile Marandua - Colombia March ARB - USA Mar del Plata - Argentina Mariel - Cuba Mariscal Sucre - Ecuador Martin State AP - USA Maxwell AFB - USA Mayport NS - USA MCAF Kaneohe Bay - USA MCAF Quantico - USA MCAF Stewart Field - USA MCAS Beaufort - USA MCAS Cherry Point - USA MCAS Miramar - USA MCAS New River - USA MCAS Yuma - USA McChord AFB - USA McConnell AFB - USA McEntire ANGS - USA McGhee Tyson AP - USA Melgar - Colombia Memphis IAP - USA Mendoza - Argentina Merida - Mexico Mexico City - Mexico Minneapolis-St Paul - USA Minot AFB - USA Moffett - USA Moody AFB - USA Mountain Home AFB - USA Monterrey - Mexico Montevideo - Uruguay Moquegua - Peru Moron - Argentina Munoz ANGB - USA NAF Washington - USA Nashville IAP - USA NAS JRB Fort Worth - USA NAS JRB New Orleans - USA NAS Atlanta - USA NAS Corpus Christi - USA NAS Fallon - USA NAS Jacksonville - USA NAS Key West - USA NAS Kingsville - USA NAS Lemoore - USA NAS Mayport - USA NAS Meridian - USA NAS North Island - USA NAS Pensacola - USA NAS Point Mugu - USA NAS Whidbey Island - USA NAS Whiting Field - USA Nassau - Bahamas Natal - Brazil NAWS China Lake - USA Neiva - Colombia Nellis AFB - USA New London NSB - USA Newport NS - USA Niagara Falls IAP - USA Norman Manley AP - Jamaica Nu-Guazu - Paraguay NWS Charleston - USA NWS Earle - USA NWS Seal Beach - USA NWS Yorktown - USA Oaxaca - Mexico Offutt AFB - USA Palanquero - Colombia Palmdale - USA Pampulha - Brazil Panama Canal Locks - Panama Pando-Artigas - Uruguay Parana - Argentina Parris Island - USA Pascagoula NS - USA Pastaza - Ecuador Patrick AFB - USA Pearl Harbor NB - USA Pebble Island - Argentina Peterson AFB - USA Picatinny Arsenal - USA Pine Bluff Arsenal - USA Pisco - Peru Pirassununga - Brazil Pittsburgh IAP - USA Piura - Peru Playa Baracoa - Cuba Point Salines IAP - Grenada Pointe a Pitre IAP - France Pope AFB - USA Portage la Prairie - Canada Port au Prince - Haiti Portland IAP - USA Port of Spain - Trinidad & Tobago Porto Velho - Brazil Port Stanley (Arg) - Argentina Port Stanley (UK) - UK Puerto Maldonado - Peru Puerto Suarez - Bolivia Pucallpa - Peru Punta Indio - Argentina Punta Arenas - Chile Queen Beatrix IAP - Netherlands Rancagua - Chile RAF Mount Pleasant - UK Randolph AFB - USA Recife - Brazil Reconquista - Argentina Redstone Arsenal - USA Reno-Tahoe IAP - USA Retalhuleu - Guatemala Rickenbacker ANGB - USA Riberalta - Bolivia Rio Cuarto - Argentina Rio Gallegos - Argentina Rio Grande - Argentina Rionegro - Colombia Robins AFB - USA Robore - Bolivia Rock Island Arsenal - USA Rosecrans AP - USA Roseau - Dominica Saint-Pierre - France Sajonia - Paraguay Salina Cruz - Mexico Salinas - Ecuador Salt Lake City IAP - USA Salvador - Brazil San Antonio de los Banos - Cuba San Cristobal - Ecuador San Diego NB - USA Sangolqui - Ecuador San Isidro - Dominican Republic San Juan de Marcona - Peru San Jose - Guatemala San Jose del Guaviare - Colombia San Julian - Cuba San Julian - Argentina San Nicolas de Bari - Cuba San Pedro Sula - Honduras Santa Cruz - Argentina Santa Cruz - Bolivia Santa Cruz - Brazil Santa Clara - Cuba Santa Gertrudis - Mexico Santa Lucia - Mexico Santa Maria - Brazil Santos Dumont - Brazil Sao Jose dos Campos - Brazil Sao Luis - Brazil Sao Paulo - Brazil Sao Pedro da Aldeia - Brazil Saravena - Colombia Savannah IAP - USA Schriever AFB - USA Scott AFB - USA Selfridge ANGB - USA Seymour Johnson AFB - USA Shaw AFB - USA Shepherd Field - USA Sheppard AFB - USA Silvio Pettirossi - Paraguay Simon Bolivar IAP - Venezuela Sioux Gateway IAP - USA Sky Harbor IAP - USA Standiford Field - USA Stewart ANGB - USA Stratton ANGB - USA Sumpter Smith ANGB - USA Syracuse-Hancock IAP - USA <<< Talara - Peru Tampico - Mexico Tandil - Argentina Tapachula - Mexico Tarija - Bolivia Taura - Ecuador Tegucigalpa - Honduras Tepual - Chile Terrapleno de Leste - Brazil Thompson Field - USA Thule AB - USA Tingo Maria - Peru Tinker AFB - USA Tobalaba - Chile Tobyhanna Army Depot - USA Tocumen - Panama Toledo Express AP - USA Tolemaida - Colombia Travis AFB - USA Tres Esquinas - Colombia Trinidad - Bolivia Truax Field - USA Tucson IAP - USA Tulsa IAP - USA Tuxtla Gutierrez - Mexico Twentynine Palms - USA Tyndall AFB - USA UN HQ - Intl Ushuaia - Argentina Vance AFB - USA Vanderberg AFB - USA V.C. Bird IAP - UK Vilhena - Brazil Villa Garzon - Colombia Villamontes - Bolivia Villa Reynolds - Argentina Vina del Mar - Chile Wallblake AP - UK Watervliet Arsenal - USA Westfield-Barnes AP - USA Westover ARB - USA W.H. Bramble AP - UK Whitehorse - Canada Whiteman AFB - USA White Sands - USA Will Rogers World - USA Wilmington AP - USA Wright-Patterson AFB - USA Yeager AP - USA Yellowknife - Canada Youngstown AP - USA Yrausquin AP - Netherlands Zanderij - Suriname Zapopan - Mexico Zorg en Hoop - Suriname Enjoy.

File Name: HCDA-110606 File Submitter: CV32 File Submitted: 2 Mar 2008 File Updated: 6 Jun 2011 File Category: Databases Authors: Brad Leyte Game Version: HCE / Battleset Builder HCDA-110606 by Brad Leyte (replaces previous version HCDA-110225) The HCDA (Harpoon Commander's Edition Database 'Americas') is a custom database. The stock HCE scenarios for EC2003 and Westpac will NOT function with this database installed. Use the stock HCE 'commondb.rsr' to ensure platform pic compatibility. The HCDA adheres to a policy of adding platforms but not deleting to retain backwards compatibility with all HCDA scenarios. Copyright @ 2008-2011, Brad Leyte. HCDA database content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. You may copy, distribute and transmit the HCDA 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 HCDA 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 HCDA database. The HCDA database may not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever without the express written permission of Brad Leyte. Click here to download this file

In anticipation of the soon to be released BattleSet Builder, in which HCE players will now be able to play scenarios across the entire globe, I've put together a new database that focuses on the 'Americas' - North, South and Central. The Harpoon Commander's Edition Database - Americas (HCDA) contains a wealth of new aircraft, ships, submarines and installations for the theater, as well as retaining and/or adapting many platforms from the official database of the Harpoon Commander's Edition simulation, the HCDB. This allows the fullest range of scenarios to be created with the BattleSet Builder tool, from Soviet/Cuban interventions in Central America and the Caribbean basin, to the 1982 Falklands conflict between Great Britain and Argentina, to an action by the People's Republic of China to protect its 'investment' in the Panama Canal, to a Second Civil War between the States. As always, a database is forever a 'work in progress' and the HCDA 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 HCDA (especially if you're writing scenarios for the rest of us to enjoy!) in the same manner as I have for the HCDB. And, as before, the HCDA will retain the same general database philosophy as the HCDB. The initial release version of the HCDA is now available from the Downloads section of this website. Stay tuned. There's more good news in store for HCE players, particularly if you're big on the Second World War.

Yes, it is the former Kiev class vessel Admiral Gorshkov.

And its already renamed KC-45.

From Flight International DATE: 29/02/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Airbus trumps Boeing as Northrop wins KC-X contract By Stephen Trimble Airbus today won a Northrop Grumman-backed bid to supply 179 tankers to the US Air Force in a massive defeat for incumbent supplier Boeing. The selection of the Northrop/EADS North America KC-30 -- to be renamed KC-45A -- for the potentially $35 billion deal is expected to draw heavy opposition from US lawmakers. Northrop’s team, which includes engine supplier General Electric, campaigned for three years focusing on strengths of the larger and more modern Airbus A330-200 passenger aircraft. “Northrop Grumman clearly provided the better value to the government when you take a look at the … five factors that were important to this decision,” said Sue Payton, assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition. Payton listed the top three factors as mission capability, proposal risk and past performance, followed by cost/price and an integrated aerial refuelling assessment. Northrop’s bid offered a “great advantage” to the air force on the cost/price factor, and scored “excellent” marks for past performance. The USAF is buying the first 68 tankers, including four test aircraft, for a total sum of $12.1 billion, or at an average price for each aircraft of $178 million. Payton refused to answer questions about why Boeing’s bid was not selected. “I think I owe it to Boeing to discuss the elements of our decision first,” she said. Airbus will build the A330-200 sections in Europe and ship the components to the US. A new factory in Mobile, Alabama will perform final assembly before moving to a nearby Northrop facility to install mission equipment. EADS also plans to manufacture the CASA-designed refuelling boom for the KC-45 in Bridgeport, West Virginia. EADS was hoping the KC-X contest would bring the European manufacturer a major programme win in the US defence market after its C-295 light transport lose to Alenia’s C-27J in the US Army/Air Force Joint Cargo Aircraft competition. Boeing offered the USAF a tanker version of a new derivative called the 767-200 Long Range Freighter (LRF). The aircraft combined elements of four different 767 designs, using the -200 fuselage as the platform. Boeing has a right to appeal the USAF decision. A protest can be filed with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) within 10 days after the USAF debriefs the Boeing team about the reasons for its decision. GAO is committed to issuing a judgment on the protest within 100 days. “Once we have reviewed the details behind the award,” Boeing said, “we will make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and our nation."

From Aviation Week Northrop/EADS Clinches U.S. Refueler Deal Feb 29, 2008 By Amy Butler, David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall The Pentagon’s competition worth up to $35 billion for the new KC‑45 refueling tanker was Boeing’s to lose, and it lost big. The selection of an Airbus design for its KC-135 replacement will freeze Boeing out of a market long considered to be a monopoly for the only U.S. wide-body manufacturer. Airbus has now soundly penetrated the world’s largest defense market. The loss comes after seven years of design work on various versions of a 767-based tanker—planning that stemmed from a derailed attempt by the U.S. Air Force, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to lease 100 refuelers from Boeing for nearly $30 billion. Boeing’s team failed after a scandal—landing two former executives in jail—and relentless probing from the now likely Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). This decision could force the U.S. contractor, which has enjoyed a position as the foremost supplier of tanker and transport aircraft to the Defense Dept., to rethink its business strategy. Uncertainty continues to plague the Chicago-based company’s C-17 strategic airlifter production line in Long Beach, Calif. Boeing is funding the manufacture of 10 of the massive aircraft on its own. Boeing is now under more pressure to win the upcoming next-generation bomber competition for the U.S. Air Force, as well as the Navy’s EP-3 intelligence aircraft replacement. Paul Meyer, vice president of Northrop Grumman Air Mobility Systems, says the team went into the down select with a 50% expectation of a win. “We are penetrating a new market,” he says. Another executive adds: “I just didn’t think the political system would let us do it.” But the fight may not be over yet. Boeing has been forming a strategy to protest a loss since the competition began, though a protest decision hasn’t yet been made. The company will be briefed on why it lost within two weeks. The Northrop Grumman/EADS team’s $1.5-billion win Feb. 29 of the KC-X competition was announced after multiple delays; it includes the manufacture of four developmental aircraft. Five options worth $10.6 billion for the first 64 aircraft are included. The total buy of 179 tankers begins with the fifth aircraft to come off the line. It will take more than a decade to complete with buy rates between 12-18 aircraft at a cost of about $3 billion per year. KC-X is the first iteration of a three-phased approach to replace the Air Force’s fleet of 530 KC-135E/Rs and 59 KC-10s. The next tranche to replace the Air Force’s larger KC-10 tankers, dubbed KC-Y, is not expected until at least 2020, effectively freezing Boeing out of the tanker market for the foreseeable future. One factor attractive to the Air Force was the ability to use fewer KC-45s per mission, according to sources familiar with the evaluation. Air Force officials were focused on providing refueling services to the massive Pacific theater and cargo hauling for humanitarian missions over the Cold War scenarios focused on Europe. The decision seals the fate for the 767 production line, with Boeing’s orders having shifted to the new 787. The U.S. contractor has about four years of work left for its Everett, Wash., production line without more orders. The Pentagon’s choice indicates that Northrop Grumman/EADS’s strong-arm tactics were worth the risk. The team threatened just over a year ago not to submit a proposal, which would have left the Air Force in a political quagmire without a true horse race. Since joining the competition, Northrop/EADS officials haven’t been shy about lobbying their potential customer and the U.S. Congress for split buy of KC-767s and KC-45s. Without resources to finance separate production lines, supply chains and training regimens, however, the Air Force has held to a winner-take-all approach. And it has now paid off for the underdog. Sole-sourcing the deal to Boeing was not an option after two former executives of the company—including the former top Air Force official who helped to craft the $30-billion lease while working for the government—were found guilty of conducting illegal job negotiations. They both wound up serving jail sentences, and Congress pushed for a competition to reduce the price and improve the design. Before they agreed to bid, Northrop Grumman/EADS officials insisted that the Air Force change its metrics to be more amenable to the team’s larger design. The Air Force subsequently added “Factor 5” to its KC-X evaluation criteria; it includes a review of both designs in various classified operational scenarios. The 767’s strength, according to Boeing, was its smaller size and ability to operate out of more airfields. The Northrop/EADS option, far larger, can carry more fuel and cargo, but it will operate from fewer bases. Using this aircraft will require the Air Force to change its concept of operations that is pinned around the smaller KC-135. Factor 5 was designed to level the playing field between the Boeing and Airbus designs, taking into account the fuel offload, range and ground handling attributes of both bids. It was this change that prompted Northrop Grumman officials to throw their hat into the ring. Sue Payton, USAF acquisition chief, describes the winners’ past performance as “excellent,” and says the Northrop/EADS proposal had an “advantage” in the cost portion of the competition, though this factor was not weighed heaviest. She also adds that the aerial refueling and airlift attributes of the KC-45 were strong. The competition, however, was close, she adds. U.S. orders for the Airbus design also will boost the aerospace industry in the Southeastern U.S. EADS plans to open a facility in Mobile, Ala. The sixth aircraft, the second production version, will be the first assembled in Mobile. In parallel with the Pentagon work, EADS has pledged to shift A330-200F final assembly work from its Toulouse, France, assembly line to the new plant in Mobile. Northrop Grumman plans eventually to add the specialized military equipment to the tankers at its new nearby facility. The aircraft will use the General Electric CF6-80E1 propulsion system. Now, officials plan to add the doors and floors to the first four deliveries, developmental test aircraft, at EADS’s passenger-to-freighter facility in Dresden, Germany. Beginning with the fifth aircraft, the first production model, those modifications will be built into the platforms on the production line, eliminating the need for conversions. EADS CASA will install the first centerline refueling boom on the initial test aircraft in Spain. Fuel was passed through the new boom for the first time in flight from an A310 testbed on Feb. 29. Boom work will shift temporarily with the second test aircraft to Northrop Grumman’s Melbourne, Fla., facility. With the fourth and final test aircraft, Northrop’s new Mobile plant will take over that role. Work on the first production KC-45—also the first to undergo final assembly at EADS’s new facility in Mobile—will begin in September 2011. The first test flight will take place in February 2010. The first squadron of KC-45s is to be fielded in 2013. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, has been eager to introduce the tankers into the fleet. Units at Altus AFB, Okla., will handle training pilots and crews for the KC-45. And the aircraft will be based eventually at Grand Forks AFB, N.D.; McConnell AFB, Kan.; MacDill AFB., Fla.; and Fairchild AFB, Wash.

From Air Force Times Tanker decision made By Kent Miller, Gayle S. Putrich and Pierre Tran - Staff writers Posted : Friday Feb 29, 2008 19:35:04 EST After months of deliberations — and more than one delay — the Air Force has finally decided who will build the service’s new refueling tankers. Northrop Grumman and European partner EADS beat out presumptive favorite Boeing for the Air Force’s $35-40 billion, 179-plane tanker deal, Air Force officials said. The bigger size of the plane was the crucial factor, they said. It represents the first of three deals that could eventually be worth as much as $100 billion over 30 years to replace almost 600 tankers. Compare the two planes The modified Airbus A330 aerial refueling tanker “gives us more,” said Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne. “More fuel to offload, more cargo, more passengers, more availability, more flexibility, more dependability and more ability to move patients.” The aircraft, which the Air Force has designated the KC-45A, will provide much greater refueling capabilities than the 50- to 60-year-old KC-135s it will replace. For example, it will be able to refuel two aircraft at the same time, including Air Force and Navy planes, which have different systems for receiving the fuel. Currently, KC-135s must be set up to service one or the other before each flight. Also important, Air Force officials said, are the plane’s defensive systems, which will allow it to get closer to the fight and offload as much fuel as possible. Air Force officials said they used a best-value determination to select the winner based on five factors: mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, price and life-cycle cost, and integrated fleet refueling assessments, in that order. The Northrop entry beat Boeing’s militarized 767 in four of those five criteria and matched in the fifth, according to one source close to the decision. “Considered together, these grading criteria ensured the Air Force maximized the capability delivered to the war fighter while optimizing the taxpayers’ investment,” according to an Air Force statement. The first test models of the KC-45A will be produced in 2010 and the first operational planes will reach the fleet in 2013. Wynne said the Air Force would like to begin retiring older E models of the KC-135 as soon as possible. The contract announcement came as something of a surprise to many industry and government observers, who had expected Boeing to get the nod. The Chicago-based company has been building refueling tankers for the Air Force for nearly 50 years. Boeing is widely expected to protest the decision, even though Air Force leaders, in the weeks leading up to the announcement, tried to convince both sides not to appeal. In Paris, analysts said the decision is a significant victory for EADS, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., which is the parent company of Airbus. It now has a huge entry into the U.S. defense market, they said, but execution of the contract would be crucial. “This is a great success and an enormous challenge for Airbus,” said Loic Tribot La Spiere, chief executive of the Paris-based think tank Centre d’Etude et Prospective Stratégique. “This puts Airbus under great pressure to deliver,” he said. "It has no room for mistakes in design or delivery.” Olivier Brochet, an analyst at the Paris brokerage firm Natixis, said, “This is truly good news for EADS. It opens access to the U.S. market, which has essentially been limited to Eurocopter.” The contract award allows EADS and Airbus to transfer assembly of the A330-200 and the cargo version of the airliner to the U.S., which is a key objective of management. One hotly disputed aspect of the competition was whether the U.S. military should award a contract of this size to a foreign company — and what that might mean for American jobs. Although many of the parts are to be built in Europe, the final assembly will be done in Mobile, Ala., producing 2,000 new jobs there. In addition, the plane’s General Electric engines will be built in North Carolina and Ohio. All told, the contract would support 25,000 jobs for U.S. suppliers. Wynne said, however, that jobs were not a factor in the Air Force decision.

Please keep it civil, folks. We're about being helpful and constructive around here. Thanks in advance.

Cool pics, T. What's that white stuff? Is that what you call snow?

From DefenseNews India, Russia End Spat Over Soviet-Era Aircraft Carrier AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 28 Feb 09:46 EST (04:46 GMT) NEW DELHI - India and Russia have ended a protracted dispute over the cost of a Soviet-era aircraft carrier which will be now sold at a higher price to the Indian navy in 2011, officials said Feb. 28. Indian Defence Secretary V. K. Singh, returning from Moscow, said a new undisclosed price had been agreed upon for the 44,570-ton Admiral Gorshkov. Russian export firm Rosoboronexport in 2004 signed a deal to refurbish the carrier for $970 million but last year demanded India pay an additional $1.2 billion. Singh declined to give details of the negotiations but conceded "there will be a substantial increase in the "reworked estimate" for the modernization of the 30-year-old ship. "The figure cannot be disclosed as the modified contract has to be put up to the union Cabinet and the cabinet committee on security for clearance," he told reporters in New Delhi. "The modified contract would be signed by March end after teams from Russia visit here to finalize it. There is no question of giving up the carrier and at no time had the Russians said that they wanted to reclaim the carrier." Defence sources said India has agreed to pay up to $900 million more for the carrier and added that a domestic shipbuilding yard was rushing experts to speed up the project. "India is sending more than 100 trained personnel from its shipyard to the Sevmash shipyard to join 1,200 Russian personnel who are working on that ship," a ministry official said. Singh said the Gorshkov will be rechristened INS Vikramaditya and join the Indian navy as early as 2011. "The warship requires installation of new turbines, boilers, 2,500 kilometers of cabling and strengthening of its flight deck as part of the new retrofitting to be undertaken on the carrier," he said. The carrier will be ready by 2010 after which it would undergo 18 months of sea trials." Under the contract, Russian shipyard Sevmash will equip the vessel with modern weapons, 16 MiG-29 fighter jets and a fleet of anti-submarine helicopters. Admiral Gorshkov is set to fill a vacuum left by the scrapping in 1997 of India's first aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, which had been in service since 1961. The Indian navy has only one operational aircraft carrier, the INS Viraat, which is set to be phased out in coming years. The breakthrough on the deal came three months after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh flew to Moscow on Nov. 12 for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on defense and political ties. Russia accounts for 70 percent of Indian arms supplies, but late deliveries and commercial disagreements have led New Delhi to use other suppliers such as Israel, Britain, France and the U.S. Russia is in a race with western rivals for a $10 billion deal to sell 126 fighter jets, artillery worth $2 billion and 317 helicopters worth $1 billion to India.