CV32

True, I don't have any H4 type information for you, but I can point you in the direction of available sources. You can also find some information at www.israeli-weapons.com

Here's a brochure produced by the manufacturer: IAI EL/M-2228

Nope.

From Air Force Times Deputy SecDef: No more Raptors needed By John T. Bennett - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Jan 29, 2008 11:35:26 EST PASCAGOULA, Miss. — Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England defended his position that the Air Force needs no more than 187 F-22 Raptors, saying Saturday that several Pentagon studies have concluded that number is sufficient to tackle future threats. In recent months, senior Air Force officials have intensified their public campaign for 381 of the Lockheed Martin-made fighters. Senior Pentagon officials recently approved an Air Force plan to purchase four more Raptors, a move that will bring the planned buy to 191 warplanes. In a Jan. 14 letter to Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., England said the Department of Defense intends to keep the Lockheed Martin production line running via a 2009 supplemental funding request for more planes to replace war-related losses. But sources with knowledge of internal Pentagon discussions say England has blocked the air service’s attempts to substantially increase the currently planned buy. “All of the analysis points supports the fact that that is the right number … so that is the number we’re going to build,” England said under gloomy skies following a chilly christening ceremony for a new Navy destroyer here. “I know there are people who would like to build more, but we can’t support that by our analysis.” Rumors have swirled for weeks about studies by England’s office of just how many Raptors will be needed. Sources have said those studies put the number at more than 190. England denied that. “That’s not the case. The analysis by the Department of Defense supports the right number is 180-something airplanes,” he said. England said the decision to buy four more Raptors using supplemental funding would likely be the Bush administration’s final tinkering with the program. He noted it will be up to the next administration to decide whether to expand the buy closer to the 381 fighters the Air Force wants.

HCE. Yep, lightning bolts have been inserted to show jamming effect. You must be looking at a pre HCE version of Classic or just haven't noticed them?

From Aviation Week ARES Blog F-22 intercepting Tu-95 Bear near the Aleutians in November 2007 F-22 dropping external fuel tanks (pylons and all)

No. It can also mean chaff or flares. But you don't see the jamming symbol (lightning bolt) for those, and they operate only in point defense (eg. self-protection). You have to turn on your radar. When he activates his radar. It indicates the 'jammee', the sensor that is being subjected to the jamming effect. That's not readily apparent, but a little experience will tell you which platforms are the jamming types. Well, I don't think there are any electronic counter countermeasures (ECCM) at work here, so the only way to counter jamming is by pure radiated power (ie. the strength or range capabilities of the radar being jammed). Tony might have something to add to this (well, to all of it, really), but I expect they're being seen as priority targets by the AI.

Sure, if they were carrying HEAT warheads. But they're not, these are just normal HE warhead rockets.

I expect this is due to the fact that the T-80 is armored, and the weapons you are using to try and destroy it are not capable of penetrating armor. Just a WAG on my part. Noted to Mantis.

Ah, yes, well its just because DP was inadvertently set to zero. The latest HCDB (coming soon) has the proper DP value, and until then you can simply add the figure yourself to play the scenario.

Its the hair, man, the hair.

This scenario has now been released.

File Name: Iron Wolf File Submitter: CV32 File Submitted: 26 Jan 2008 File Category: GIUK Iron Wolf A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for the EC2003 GIUK Gap battleset. This scenario is designed for play by the BLUE side. The three small Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are no strangers to a hard life of aggression, occupation, and oppression. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a determined populace grabbed the opportunity for independence once again. But history had taught them a lesson: that their long term survival was dependent upon becoming part of an international alliance. In Spring 2004 they became full members of NATO. Without any strategic depth, there is nothing that the Baltic states could do to stop a reasonably determined Russian attack, so instead NATO has opted to do such things as emphasize early warning and control, improve the defensive capabilities of local light forces, and have NATO air forces take turns in providing fighters for territorial air defence. There is at least one significant flaw in the arrangement. The Baltic states still rely heavily on Russia for their supplies of natural gas and oil, and their power grids remain linked. In 2007, they entered into an agreement with neighbor (and NATO partner) Poland to replace the ageing (Chernobyl type) nuclear reactor at Ignalina in Lithuania. The Ignalina reactor has now been shut down, and the new powerplant is still under construction, despite the protests of Russia and Belarus regarding the increased pressure on the regional fossil fuel supply. The Baltic states therefore remain critically exposed, and their former ruler has decided to make its move. And of Gediminas, who on Ponary's crest, Warm in hunter's bearskin, lay down to rest. Soothed by the songs of the wise Lizdejko, Lulled by the rush of the sweet Vilejko, He saw a wolf of iron in his dreams. - Pan Tadeusz, a poem by Adam Mickiewicz Russia has declared that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are in violation of their natural gas supply agreements, and has suddenly cut off both the fuel supply and shut down the electrical grid. Large parts of the Baltic states are now without power, particularly in border areas. Protests from Baltic governments and NATO HQ in Brussels have been ignored in Moscow and Minsk, except for harshly worded warnings to refrain from interfering in "internal state affairs". A Russian attack is believed imminent, likely supported by Belarus. Their timing is unfortunate for NATO; the currently assigned NATO fighter force is a contingent of elderly Luftwaffe F-4F Phantoms on their final deployment. Click here to download this file

This scenario has now been released.

File Name: Foxes in the Henhouse File Submitter: CV32 File Submitted: 26 Jan 2008 File Updated: 26 Jan 2008 File Category: WestPac Foxes in the Hen House A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for the Westpac battleset. This scenario is designed for play by the BLUE side. The Soviet HENS submarines - the Hotel class SSBNs, the Echo class SSGNs and the November class SSNs - that began deploying in the early 1960s introduced a major technological breakthrough that gave them a dramatic acoustic advantage over the US Navy's Skipjacks and Skates. The new concept was rafting - where a submarine's engineering plant was placed on a flexible mount or raft within the submarine - dramatically reduced the transmission of mechanical vibrations through the hull, and into the water. Intelligence reports that three Soviet nuclear submarines, believed to comprise the Hotel II class SSBN Ukrainsky Komsomolets, Echo I class SSGN K-122 and the November class SSN Leninsky Komsomol, are transiting the Strait of Tartary, enroute to their deployment zones in the Western Pacific. The Skipjack attack submarines USS Shark and USS Sculpin have recently passed through the La Perouse Strait and have been directed to intercept the Soviet boats before they can deploy into their patrol zones. This scenario is the early Cold War version of blind man's bluff, where to make noise is to invite death. Click here to download this file

From Jane's Clock ticking for Kim's Korea By Reuben F Johnson 24 January 2008 Kim Jong-Il's regime could collapse within six months, bringing chaos to North Korea, observers and intelligence sources in Asia have told Jane's. A joint United States report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the US Institute for Peace has also revealed that China has "contingency plans" in the event of North Korea's implosion. The report, entitled 'Keeping an Eye on an Unruly Neighbor', said that China was prepared to "take the initiative" and had a military strategy for securing North Korea's "loose nukes" should Kim Jong-Il's rule fail. Any apocalyptic scenario has to be taken with a grain of salt; in 1997 the Central Intelligence Agency predicted the collapse of North Korea within five years. However, there are reasons for the heightened levels of concern; in particular, the recent actions of Kim Jong-Il and other North Korean officials are being interpreted as signs that the regime is nearing its end. Tellingly, the 'Dear Leader' is in the process of moving financial resources to ensure that his assets are portable should he have to go into exile, according to some sources. The centrally controlled economy has also now ceased to function and the food distribution system is near breaking point. With loyalty to the regime at an all-time low, another sign of trouble is the regime's diminishing ability to prevent people from leaving the country.

Thanks, Ralf. I'll try and polish this one up for release soon.

Bob Cole's alright, but I despise golf. I was thinking of ways we could raise some money for Mr. Stevens.

They'd certainly like to have more. Send donations c/o Robert J. Stevens Golfing Fund.

Why, yes, yes they do. US to buy 4 more F-22s

When you first click the 'Course' button to set a course for a Group, you need to check (put an 'X' in) the little window that says 'Set New Legs'. Then click the 'Speed' button (its not in the Course pop-up window but rather off to your left) to enter an initial speed.

From Air Force Times Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China By Patrick Winn - Staff writer Posted : Monday Jan 21, 2008 11:51:13 EST In a hypothetical future scenario, the U.S. and China are poised to clash — likely over Taiwan. The democratic Republic of China, commonly called Taiwan — which America backs and the communist People’s Republic of China considers part of its territory — frequently irritates Chinese leaders with calls for greater independence from the mainland. But while the American military mulls its options, Chinese missiles hit runways, fuel lines, barracks and supply depots at U.S. Air Force bases in Japan and South Korea. Long-range warheads destroy American satellites, crippling Air Force surveillance and communication networks. A nuclear fireball erupts high above the Pacific Ocean, ionizing the atmosphere and scrambling radars and radio feeds. This is China’s anti-U.S. sucker punch strategy. It’s designed to strike America’s military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service. In a script written by Chinese military officers and defense analysts, a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war. This strategic outlook isn’t hidden in secret Chinese documents. It’s printed in China’s military journals and textbooks. And for much of last year, Mandarin literates and defense experts — working for the Santa Monica, Calif.-based Rand Corp. on an Air Force contract — combed through a range of Chinese military sources. They emerged with “Entering the Dragon’s Lair,” a lengthy report on how the Chinese People’s Liberation Army would likely confront the U.S. military and how the Air Force in particular can brace itself. In many cases, the theoretical enemy nation China’s officers discuss in these scenarios isn’t explicitly named but is unmistakably the U.S. “These aren’t war plans,” said report co-author Roger Cliff, a former Defense Department strategist and China military specialist who spoke to Air Force Times from Taiwan. “This is the military talking to itself. It’s not designed for foreigners or even China’s general public to read.” Element of surprise When it comes to conflict with the U.S., Chinese military analysts favor age-old schoolyard wisdom: Throw the first punch and hit hard. “Future conflicts are likely to be short, intense affairs that might consist of a single campaign,” Cliff said. “They’re thinking about ways to get the drop on us. Most of our force is not forward-deployed.” China’s experts concede its army would lose a head-on fight, with one senior colonel comparing such a scenario to “throwing an egg against a rock.” Instead, the Chinese would attempt what Rand calls an “anti-access” strategy: slowing the deployment of U.S. forces to the Pacific theater, damaging operations within the region and forcing the U.S. to fight from a distance. “Taking the enemy by surprise,” one Chinese military expert wrote, “would catch it unprepared and cause confusion within and huge psychological pressure on the enemy and help [China] win relatively large victories at relatively small costs.” Another military volume suggests feigning a large-scale military training exercise to conceal the attack’s buildup. The Dragon’s Lair Striking U.S. air bases — specifically command-and-control facilities, aircraft hangars and surface-to-air missile launchers — would be China’s first priority if a conflict arose, according to Rand’s report. U.S. facilities in South Korea and Japan, even far-south Okinawa, sit within what Rand calls the “Dragon’s Lair”: a swath of land and sea along China’s coast. This is an area reachable by cruise missiles, jet-borne precision bombs and local covert operatives. Air Force bases within this area include Osan and Kunsan in South Korea, as well as Misawa, Yokota and Kadena in Japan. And in a conflict over Taiwan, any nation allowing “an intervening superpower” such as the U.S. to operate inside its territory can expect a Chinese attack, according to China’s defense experts. China is designing ground-launched cruise missiles capable of nailing targets more than 900 miles away — well within striking range of South Korea and much of Japan, according to the report. Cruise missiles able to reach Okinawa — home to Kadena Air Base — are in development. The Chinese would first launch “concentrated and unexpected” attacks on tarmacs using runway-penetrating missiles and, soon after, would target U.S. aircraft. Saboteurs would play a role in reconnaissance, harassing operations and even “assassinating key personnel,” according to another military expert. Chinese fighter jets would scramble to intercept aerial refueling tankers and cargo planes sent to shuttle in fuel, munitions, supplies or troops. High-explosive cluster bombs would target pilot quarters and other personnel buildings. Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces. (“The U.S. experience in Somalia is usually cited in support of this assertion,” according to the Rand report.) Once this hard-and-fast assault on U.S. bases commenced, the Chinese army would “swiftly divert” its forces and “guard vigilantly against enemy retaliation,” according to a Chinese expert. Dumb and blind The PLA also would likely use less conventional attacks on the American military’s vital communications network. The goal, as one Chinese expert put it: leaving U.S. combat capabilities “blind,” “deaf” and “paralyzed.” Losing early-warning systems designed to detect incoming missiles would be, for the Air Force, the most devastating setback — one that could force the service to exit the region altogether, according to Rand. China could also launch a nuclear “e-bomb,” or electromagnetic explosive, that would fry U.S. communication equipment while ionizing the atmosphere for minutes to hours, according to the report. This would likely jam radio signals in a 900-mile diameter beneath the nuclear fireball. The PLA could also employ long-range anti-satellite missiles — similar to one successfully tested last January — to destroy one or more American satellites. However, the PLA has a host of less dramatic options: short-range jammers hidden in suitcases or bombs and virus attacks on Air Force computer networks. U.S. Air Force options Shielding against a swift Chinese onslaught is, according to Rand, as simple as reinforcing a runway or as complex as cloaking the orbit of military satellites. In the short term, U.S. air bases inside the Dragon’s Lair should add an extra layer of concrete to their runways and bury fuel tanks underground. All aircraft, the report said, should be parked in hardened shelters, especially fighter jets. Parking larger aircraft — bombers, tankers and E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control Systems jets — in hard-shell hangars would be expensive and difficult but likely worth the cost, according to the report. U.S. fighter jets remain the best defense against incoming Chinese missile attacks. But, given China’s taste for sudden attacks, surface-launched missile defense systems must be installed long before a conflict roils. Because the PLA is expected to strike quickly, the report said, waiting for the first tremors of conflict is not an option. The Air Force also should fortify itself against Chinese hackers by using software encryption, isolating critical computer systems and preparing contingency plans to communicate without a high-bandwidth network. Though China maintains a “no first use” nuclear bomb policy, the U.S., according to Rand, should warn China that nuclear electromagnetic pulse attacks will be considered acts of nuclear aggression and could prompt nuclear retaliation. Rand insists the Air Force must defend satellites — which support communication, reconnaissance, bomb guidance and more — against China’s proven satellite-killing missiles. This could be accomplished in the Cold War tradition of mutually assured destruction by threatening to retaliate in kind if the PLA blasts U.S. satellites. “That might be the one restraining factor,” Cliff said. “They might not want to start that space war.” Or, Rand suggests, the U.S. could invest heavily in satellite protection or evasion techniques, including stealth, blending in with other satellite constellations or perhaps developing and deploying microsatellites capable of swarming to defend larger satellites, which the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working toward. Could this really happen? The Chinese first-strike strategy is “more than hypothetical,” according to the report. But in the near term, at least, it’s considered unlikely. If the most contentious issue is Taiwan, Cliff said, then the likely trigger would be Taiwanese elections, where assertions of complete independence from the mainland can infuriate Chinese leaders. China’s current president, Hu Jintao, has built up China’s military but also its ties with America. In 2012, however, when Taiwan holds an election and mainland China’s leadership is expected to turn over, perhaps for the worse, the risk of conflict could increase. “It really depends on the circumstances,” Cliff said. “Would Taiwan be the provocateur? If so, it might be hard for the American public to support intervention.” However, if China moves to capture control of the island, Cliff said he believes the U.S. would face a rocky dilemma. “Are we really going to let a small, democratic country get snuffed out by a huge authoritarian country — especially when you think about how our own country came into existence?” Cliff said. As China pours more resources into its evolving and expanding military, it buys the power to more strongly assert itself against America. In November, China denied U.S. Navy minesweepers shelter from a storm and, in another incident that month, turned down an Air Force C-17 flight shuttling supplies to the American consulate in Hong Kong. Experts speculate this was a rebuff to American arms sales to Taiwan, as well as President Bush’s autumn meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of another state China claims, Tibet. “If this conflict happened today, I’m certain we’d prevail,” Cliff said. “But as time goes on, that’s not a given.”

From RIA Novosti Russian missile cruiser hits all test targets in Atlantic 19:24 | 21/ 01/ 2008 MOSCOW, January 21 (RIA Novosti) - The flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva guided-missile cruiser, has successfully hit designated targets as part of a Navy exercise in the northern Atlantic Monday, a Navy spokesman said. A Joint Naval Task Force, comprised of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Udaloy-Class destroyers Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko, as well as auxiliary vessels, is currently on a two-month tour of duty in the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic. "The missile system used for the launches has no match in performance terms," Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo, an aide to the Navy commander, said. The Moskva cruiser joined up with Russian warships in the Mediterranean on Friday to participate in ongoing maneuvers, including live missile launches against airborne and seaborne targets. Russian warships will also practice interoperability with naval aviation and strategic bombers for several days. The operation is the first large-scale Russian Navy exercise in the Atlantic for 15 years. All the warships and aircraft involved are carrying full combat ammunition loads, the Navy said. [CV32: Guess the Moskva isn't in too bad a shape? Of course, the source could be blowing hot air. Confirmation, anyone?]