CV32

Wow, what a game last night. Or rather, what a turnaround. Edmonton manhandled Carolina. Game 7 should be a real nail biter.

HCDB-060614 Aircraft: AH-64DJP Apache Longbow - Japan E-2K Hawkeye - Taiwan HC-235 - USA HH-3F - Italy JH-7A Feibao - China Merlin HC.3 - UK Su-30MK2V Flanker - Vietnam Ships/Mobile Land Units: BrahMos TEL - India Hamina - Finland Rajput (mod) DDG - India Submarines: Type 214 (ROK) SS - South Korea Installations: Kadena AB (Japan) - USA

A new version of the Harpoon Classic Commander's Edition (HCCE) Database (HCDB-060614) is now available. Get it at HarpGamer via the DB Share button. New additions (or overhauls of existing entries) include: Aircraft: AH-64DJP Apache Longbow - Japan E-2K Hawkeye - Taiwan HC-235 - USA HH-3F - Italy JH-7A Feibao - China Merlin HC.3 - UK Su-30MK2V Flanker - Vietnam Ships/Mobile Land Units: BrahMos TEL - India Hamina - Finland Rajput (mod) DDG - India Submarines: Type 214 (ROK) SS - South Korea Installations: Kadena AB (Japan) - USA Enjoy.

Oilers prevent Carolina celebration It ain't over yet ! My nerves are shot, but it is some pretty exciting hockey, no ?

Its probably just as well that they didn't have Hellfire aboard the Predators back then. Otherwise, that Predator controller might have had many sleepless nights of "what if".

I picked up DW a few weeks back but have only played one scenario. Did appear promising, though, even from my cursory look. When I have more time ...

I just hate being right all the time.

Date: December 1, 1939 (late afternoon) Location: Mid Atlantic, north of the Azores Weather: Light fog, light wind, cloudy U-boats: 3 x VIIB (1939) Enemy force encountered: Escorted convoy Results: CV32: Tonnage: 25,609 merchant, 2,248 warship; Renown: 940 Sunk: 2 x C2 Cargo, 1 x T2 Tanker, 1 x Coastal Merchant, 1 x V&W DD, 2 x Armed Trawler Brains: Tonnage: 10,817 merchant, 1,718 warship; Renown: 470 Sunk: 1 x T2 Tanker, 1 x V&W DD, 1 x Armed Trawler TonyE: Tonnage: 8,394 merchant; Renown: 250 Sunk: 1 x C2 Cargo, 1 x Coastal Merchant Friendly Losses: TonyE (depth charges); Brains: (distracted by wife, dove too deep with damaged hull) Enemy Damage: 1 x Armed Trawler

Tonnage Totals as of October 1, 1944 Brains: 405,965 CV32: 398,074 TonyE: 178,080 War Total: 982,119 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: September 4, 1939 (morning) Location: Mediterranean, somewhere northwest of Tunisia Weather: Sunny, clear, calm seas U-boats: 3 x VIIB (1939) Enemy force encountered: Very large British task force (including six battleships and numerous destroyer escorts) Results: CV32: Tonnage: 42,263, Renown: 1930 Sunk: 1 x Nelson BB, 1 x C class DD, 2 x Tribal DD, 1 x V&W DD TonyE: Tonnage: Nil, Renown: Nil Sunk: Nil Brains: Tonnage: Nil, Renown: Nil Sunk: Nil Friendly Losses: CV32 (implosion due to sudden loss of hull integrity) Enemy Damage: 4 x Revenge BB

We would be remiss in our duty if we did not take note that today is the 62nd anniversary of D-Day (and incidentally, Pete's birthday .. happy birthday, Pete !). Here are a couple of related links: Normandy DDAY Anniversary The National D-Day Memorial

For a related HCCE scenario, check out "My Love is Vengeance" for the EC2003 IOPG battleset at the Harpgamer Scenarios page. From Navy Times June 06, 2006 Deployment could take Cole to area of 2000 attack By William H. McMichael Times staff writer NORFOLK NAVAL STATION, Va. — The crew of the destroyer Cole is getting ready to deploy once again. But this time, its sailors could end up operating in the vicinity of the October 2000 terrorist attack that crippled and nearly sank the ship. It would be natural to assume that everyone on board would love to sail to Yemen and the waters off east Africa to somehow “get back” at al-Qaida — which investigators say was behind the boat-borne terrorist bomb that killed 17 sailors and wounded 42 during a refueling stop. Crew members interviewed Monday say they’re not sure whether that’s the case. But they feel there’s a strong undercurrent of that payback feeling on board DDG 67 — or, at least, of wanting to show its attackers that the Cole is alive and kicking. “It’s kind of like that saying, ‘You might knock us down today, but we’re going to get up tomorrow,’ ” said Gas Turbine System Technician (Mechanical) 2nd Class (SW) David Perez, who was assigned to the Cole on Sept. 11, 2001. “And that’s kind of the atmosphere for, I would say, most of the crew.” “We’re not afraid,” said Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class (SW) Jessica Saunders, admitting that she wouldn’t mind helping fire the destroyer’s 5-inch cannon in anger if the opportunity arose. “We will go back. And we will show U.S. pride to the world.” At the same time, Perez said, some on board may have mixed emotions. “It’s still kind of an eerie feeling, because of the fact that the last time they were there, they had the blast,” Perez said. None of the crew members on board during the attack are still with the ship. Twenty-five sailors remain on board who were, like Perez, assigned to Cole during the extensive repair period in Pascagoula, Miss. The repaired Cole made its first post-attack deployment from November 2003 to May 2004. But it was attached to NATO’s Standing Naval Force Mediterranean and remained in the Mediterranean Sea the entire time. Now it’s assigned to the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group, most of which is pulling out of East Coast ports today en route to North Carolina to pick up the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit before heading to the Middle East. While the Navy doesn’t generally release details of future deployments, officials say the Iwo Jima ESG is likely to follow in the footsteps of other recent ESGs and spend at least part of its deployment off the Horn of Africa in a combination of humanitarian assistance, military training of allies and interception of at-sea pirates and terrorists. A return to Aden harbor, however, would not appear to be on the horizon for any members of the ESG — or any other U.S. ships. According to Cmdr. Jeff Breslau, 5th Fleet spokesman, Navy ships are getting their fuel underway and do not use the port of Aden. The Cole will leave Norfolk later this week, officials said.

4-4 when Roloson left the game. Canes scored with less than a minute remaining. I gotta tell ya, with Roloson gone, all bets are off.

Check out this BBC article here.

A new RAND report contains a number of hypothetical scenarios which are focused on aircraft carrier operations and which might provoke some ideas for new Harpoon scenarios (hopefully). The full report is here. China-Taiwan Crisis (2009) The government in Beijing waited until after the 2008 Olympic Games before taking a direct coercive approach against Taiwan. The motivation to take such direct action increased during the games, since the leadership in Taipei used China’s refusal to admit its team into the games as an opportunity to pronounce its “new national status” and virtually declare independence from the mainland. Within a month of the end of the games, Beijing announced major military exercises that included Chinese warships operating north and east of the island. On the political front, Beijing issued a virtual ultimatum to Taipei that it must renounce any pretense of independence and enter into bilateral talks to “formalize the union of Taiwan with its home country.” The leadership in Taiwan refused to do so. On January 15, Chinese warships seized two Taiwanese freighters that were en route to the island, escorting them to Chinese ports. Both ships were loaded with military equipment just purchased from Europe. Once the cargoes were inspected, Beijing announced that the weapons represented an outright provocation and declared an economic blockade of the island. Chinese warships put to sea, and the entire Chinese military started mobilization. The government in Taipei also announced mobilization, and it called on the United States, the United Nations, and other nations for assistance to repel Chinese aggression. The President directed the Secretary of Defense to dispatch several Carrier Strike Groups, additional long-range bombers and support aircraft, Army missile defense units, and two Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) toward locations in the western Pacific, although not to Taiwan itself. As soon as these steps became known, the Chinese government declared them an attempt to interfere with internal Chinese affairs. Ominously, Beijing’s ambassador in Tokyo handed a formal communiqué to the Japanese government, warning it to remain strictly neutral in the event of an armed conflict over Taiwan and stating that any American use of Japanese bases for operations against China would be regarded as an act of war by Japan against China. The communiqué stated that China would feel free to take any appropriate steps in those circumstances. On January 20, roughly three days into the U.S. deployment of additional forces toward the western Pacific, the Chinese commenced military operations against Taiwan. A barrage of over 200 conventionally armed missiles strike Taiwanese air bases, command centers, and key political locations. Less than 30 minutes later, a strike by some 250 Chinese fighters and bombers hits military targets on the island. Later that day, a Taiwanese freighter some 200 miles off the east coast of the island is torpedoed and sunk, apparently by a Chinese submarine. Considerable movement of coastal vessels has been detected in Chinese ports close to the straits between Taiwan and the mainland. That afternoon, the President authorizes U.S. military action to defeat Chinese attempts to isolate or take over Taiwan. Almost simultaneously, the Japanese ambassador in Washington informs the Secretary of State that U.S. military forces located in Japan are not allowed to conduct offensive operations against China until the Japanese Diet considers the matter. He informs the Secretary of State that Tokyo has just received what amounts to a formal ultimatum from Beijing, demanding that Japan prohibit any U.S. use of its bases. Coup Attempt in Pakistan (Year Unknown) Radical elements in the Pakistani armed forces have staged a coup in an attempt to overthrow the government. Although the coup failed—the government of Pakistan remained in power—the rebels managed to seize control of two Pakistani nuclear weapons storage sites, together with a number of missile launchers. A number of Pakistani military units have joined the rebels and are now defending the seized nuclear facilities. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the Pakistani government has requested U.S. military assistance in order to (1) defeat the rebel forces, (2) prevent the launch of a nuclear weapon, and (3) prevent a nuclear weapon from being removed from the storage sites and delivered to parties unknown. North Korea Crisis (2006) By spring 2006, it is clear that the six-party (United States, Republic of Korea [ROK], Democratic People’s Republic of Korea [DPRK], PRC, Russia, and Japan) negotiations to eliminate the North Korean nuclear-weapon programs have reached an impasse. With strong U.S. encouragement, China, Japan, and Russia announce the beginning of a “partial” economic and financial embargo on all trade with the DPRK—most importantly, including Chinese petroleum. Although officially supportive, South Korea expresses grave private doubts that the strategy of economic coercion will lead to a second Korean War. There are large demonstrations in South Korea, protesting the ROK government’s tentative support for the coercive strategy. Pyongyang virulently denounces this turn of events and warns of war. In response to the growing discontent in South Korea, the United States announces that it will take “prudent precautionary measures” to ensure that North Korea does not consider a military option to escape an “unavoidable decision to give up its nuclear-weapon program.” Further, the Secretary of State announces that Washington would treat any evidence that the DPRK is selling and/or transferring nuclear weapons and/or weapons-grade material to parties “known or unknown” as a “threat to its vital interests.” U.S. and Asia media interpret this statement as a “red line” for North Korea. Consistent with the Proliferation Security Initiative, the United States and Japan declare a “naval surveillance zone” around the DPRK to ensure that Pyongyang does not attempt to transfer nuclear-weapon materials by sea. The crisis rapidly escalates after three events. First, a U.S. Navy (USN) warship stops a DPRK freighter in the China Sea. The North Korean crew resists an attempt by the USN to board the freighter. During a short firefight, the North Korean ship blows up. Washington is very suspicious of a “war provocation.” Second, North Korea responds by firing two FROG-7–class short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) into the Han River between Seoul and Inchon in an attempt to intimidate the South Korean government. Third, the Japanese Coast Guard has an armed clash with a North Korean “spy boat” off the west coast of Kyushu. Pyongyang responds by threatening to “demonstrate” its nuclear deterrent against Japan. During an interview with the South Korean media, the North Korean leader appeals for “Korean unity” and promises not to use his nuclear arsenal against his “Korean brothers and sisters.” This interview creates a sensation among the South Korean public. There are mass demonstrations in the major cities of South Korea, calling for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces. The U.S. Ambassador to South Korea reports that the ROK may not allow U.S. reinforcements or the use of its airfields for offensive operations in the event of war. In turn, the Japanese Prime Minister, through a hotline, calls on the U.S. President to stand firm in the face of North Korean nuclear aggression. The U.S. government is now considering its options to take action against North Korea, including the possibility of a preemptive strike against the North’s WMD storage facilities and missile-launch units. Crisis with Iran (Year Unknown) Since U.S. forces occupied Iraq in early 2003, the Islamic regime in Iran has stepped up its efforts to undermine and weaken U.S. power and influence in the Persian Gulf region. Realizing that they cannot directly challenge U.S. military power, the Iranian regime has used third parties—terrorist groups, radical organizations, and insurgents—in the Middle East to attack U.S. interests and undermine the governments of nations in the region that are friendly to the United States. Such indirect actions against the United States have also placed Tehran at some risk, because it cannot completely control the actions of its third-party proxy forces. Meanwhile, Iran has become a nuclear-armed nation, although publicly denying that it has any nuclear arms. At present, it has roughly a dozen nuclear weapons. Delivery means include theater missiles that are capable of striking Israel, Turkey, and all of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, some Iranian aircraft have been refitted to drop nuclear bombs. The precipitating event for the crisis is a terrorist bombing attack against a hotel in Amman, Jordan, that is frequented by Westerners. The hotel was the scene of an international conference on aid to poor African and Middle Eastern nations. More than 400 people were killed in the blast, including roughly 100 Americans. Two of the terrorists were captured by Jordanian authorities. Upon interrogation, one states that his group developed the plan of attack and was armed by Iranian agents. Additional leads are followed, and the evidence pointing toward direct Iranian involvement seems undeniable. When the United States publicly accuses Iran of sponsoring the bombing, the leaders in Tehran openly claim that they are prepared to respond “massively” to any U.S. attack, and they state that for any nation in the region to assist in or contribute to a U.S. attack on Iran will be regarded as an act of war. Immediately, several Middle Eastern governments that are generally friendly toward the United States request information on U.S. intentions toward Iran and information on what protection the United States can provide them if the crisis leads to actual armed conflict. Support for Myanmar (Year Unknown) Myanmar (formerly Burma) is growing in strategic importance. Located between China and India, the nation has only recently started to come out of a period of intense, self-imposed isolation. China is starting to invest heavily in the nation, including building new major roads to facilitate access to the port of Rangoon in southern Myanmar. This vignette postulates that a new group of leaders assumes control and tilts the nation more in the direction of the West and India, much to the dislike of the Chinese. In response, the Chinese back a revolt in which the pro-Chinese elements in the nation attempt to regain power, which leads to an intense civil war. India expresses alarm at the situation and asks the United States to join its efforts to assist the Myanmar government.The United States elects to support the new Myanmar government with military advisers, supplies, and equipment, as well as selected air support. As was the case in the Colombian vignette, regional and domestic political considerations mean that the United States must minimize its presence ashore in the area.This reality places a premium on carrier-based aviation. Similar to several other vignettes, the distances to be covered by aircraft operating off the carrier were assumed to be long. Much of the fighting between government troops and the rebels is taking place in the middle of the country, thus requiring air missions with a radius of 500 miles or more from carriers operating in the northern portion of the Bay of Bengal. ISR support for the government forces, plus occasional precision-strike missions, would be the main role of the carrier air wings in this situation. There are some other scenarios too, including some non-combat scenarios.

Here's an interesting new RAND report that might be helpful to you and other scenario designers who are thinking about how US Navy carriers and their air wings might be employed: Leveraging America's Aircraft Carrier Capabilities: Exploring New Combat and Noncombat Roles and Missions for the U.S. Carrier Fleet There are also a number of interesting hypotheticals in this report which I'll list in a separate thread, and which might serve to provoke some ideas for Harpoon scenarios.

Hmm, maybe the "new" NHL conspiracy is having US vs Canada Stanley finals !

Not bad ... but you've a ways to go before you can unseat ole Herm. (Of course, I don't think we could handle two of you).

Ugh, thats too bad. Don't get discouraged. I'm really looking forward to a Maidhof scenario !

Actually, Tony's quite an aggressive sub skipper, and gets plenty of kills, even if it gets him sunk in the process. Brains, on the other hand, seems to enjoy tangling with the escorts. Me ... I like to sink merchies and try to avoid tin cans like the plague. We really ravaged a convoy last evening, sinking 20 of about 30 merchies.

Good point, Pete. I always save often as I progress through the building of a scenario, and under separate filenames too so that I have a fallback if I screw something up. Consider this subsection Rule #1(a)(i).

'ursprache' ? you got to be kidding me ... take note, a Canadian was runner-up.

From DefenceTalk Washington: In announcing Wednesday a US offer to join the talks on Tehran's nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered a comprehensive outline of US policy on Iran. Here are the key points of Rice's remarks in a question-and-answer format: Will the United States talk directly to the Iranians? - "To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance the prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table with our EU colleagues and meet with Iran's representatives." Will the United States discuss security guarantees for Iran? - "We have not been asked about security assurances and I don't expect that we will be." Is there a quid-pro-quo with Russia and China that they will support UN sanctions against Iran if negotiations stall? - "There is substantial agreement and understanding that Iran faces a clear choice. I think you can be sure that our friends and our partners understand the importance of the step and the importance that the Iranians must now see of making a choice and making that choice clearly. I think we have very good understanding with our partners about that." Why did the United States, which had stayed on the sidelines of the European-led negotiations with Iran, change course? - "This is the last excuse (for Iran), in some sense. There have been those who have said, 'Well, if only the negotiations had the potential for the United States to be a part of them, perhaps then Iran would respond.' So now we have a pretty clear path." "We now believe that having created a strong climate of opinion in which a great number of states are united around a clear concept of what Iran must do ... the United States might be able now to add weight to the negotiating track by joining these discussions." Where do discussions with other powers on a package of incentives or UN sanctions for Iran stand ahead of Thursday's meeting in Vienna of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany? - "Our political directors have been working on that package. They have made good progress. I think that we have substantial progress. There are some outstanding issues that I would hope to be able to work on in Vienna." Is this a diplomatic breakthrough towards normalization of US-Iranian relations? - "I want to make clear, we're not talking about what some would characterize as a grand bargain. What we're talking about here is an effort to enhance the chances for a successful negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. ... This is not a bilateral negotiation between the United States and Iran, on the whole host of issues that would lead to broader relations between Iran and the United States." What about other US complaints against Iran such as its alleged support for terrorism and interference in Lebanon and Iraq? - "The United States is ready to join the EU-3 to press these and other issues with the Iranian government in addition to our work to resolve the nuclear danger." Will the United States pursue other actions against Iran outside of eventual negotiations and UN action? - "We will continue to work with our international partners to end the proliferation trade globally, to bar all proliferators from international financial resources and to end support for terror. We also intend to work with our friends and allies to strengthen their defensive capabilities, their counterproliferation and counterterrorism efforts, and their energy security capabilities." Is the United States willing to take the option of using military force against Iran off the table while negotiations last? - "The president is not going to take any of his options off the table temporarily or otherwise."

Ooh, ooh ... I know this one ! Can I answer in an example ? Everytime the gang plays SH3, CV32 sinks a "plethora" of ships ! (CV32 slams the hatch shut, and orders a crash dive).

Thanks, Pete, but in this case the problem is not related to incorrect coordinates as such. (You will note that the coordinates for Al Udeid in the PE are the same as those quoted here by you ... with rounding, of course). Rather, sometimes the coordinates punched into the PE do not appear at the proper place when you open the GE/SE. In those cases I have to manually adjust the installation's location to approximate where it actually appears geographically, and use "fudged" coordinates.

From DefenseNews Iran Says Research on Nuclear Fusion Progressing By REUTERS, TEHRAN Iran is pressing ahead with research tests on nuclear fusion, a type of atomic reaction which has yet to be developed for commercial power generation, a senior Iranian official said on May 29. Iran said in the 1990s it was working on nuclear fusion research but this is the first mention in years that the work is continuing and comes at a time of heightened tension over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has been hauled before the U.N. Security Council for failing to convince the world that its atomic work is not being used to make bombs. Tehran insists it only wants to generate electricity. "Iran has done various fusion tests for research purposes at its Amirabad research reactor over the last few years," the official told Reuters, referring to the reactor in central Tehran, adding that Iran was continuing to carry out such tests. "We do fusion tests for research purposes from time to time," he said. Commercial nuclear reactors rely on nuclear fission, a process that generates energy from splitting atoms. Fusion tries to generate power by joining nuclei of atoms together, but scientists have yet to develop a commercial way of doing this so that it produces more energy than it consumes. Each development in Iran’s nuclear program is scrutinized by the international community. Iran surprised experts in April by announcing it had enriched uranium for the first time in small quantities to the level used in nuclear power plants. As long ago as 1996, the then Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said Iran was pressing ahead with research on nuclear fusion. In 1999, Canada said it had blocked a plan to sell its experimental nuclear fusion program to Iran because it could be used to make atomic bombs. Nuclear arms incorporating fusion are also called thermonuclear bombs.