CV32

Good point, Tony. I assumed Pete was referring to EC2003 or later, because the aircraft he mentioned don't exist in the earlier battlesets.

MAD detection has a range of 1.0 nm when the submarine is at Shallow or less. This falls to 0.5 nm when the submarine is at Intermediate depth. And, well, you know what happens when the submarine is at Deep.

There are no restrictions of this kind. Add any type of aircraft you wish, as long as its size matches the size of the runways at the airfield. For example, you can't base a VLarge aircraft at an airfield with only Small runways.

That's correct, and I expect there are no prospects of that particular shortcoming being resolved any time in future when it comes to HCCE.

Yes, you can set ground units' waypoints and speed, just as you would with ships. Be advised, however, that AI behavior can vary depending on what the AI perceives as a threat, and it can be somewhat unpredictable.

Here's some more insight about how the code for sonar works ... Active sonar sweeps are conducted every five (5) minutes, in accordance with submarine TMA analysis cycles. However, a dipping sonar will be "dipped" for as little as 90 seconds, thereby preventing it from performing any sweep at all. This can probably be fairly easily remedied in the code, in either of a couple of different ways: (1) adjusting the sonar sweep frequency to occur less than every 90 seconds (2) creating a new bit of code for dipping sonars Also, as an aside, regarding Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD), detection range DOES decrease with the depth of the submarine.

No problem, Pete. That's why this forum is here.

You can already obtain this information without using the Range and Bearing calculator. Simply clicking between any two points on the map (and it doesn't have to be between two units or installations) will give you the range and bearing information at the very bottom left hand side of your screen. Be quick to notice it, however, as it will be superseded by new information as the game progresses.

Helicopters patrolling in formation WILL light up their active sonar range circles while they are moving, if you manually activate them. Otherwise, they come on while only in the hover (which is as it should be). Now, whether that sonar is actively pinging or not, just because the range circle is there, is a different story. The secret is in the code, as always.

When the yellow range circle is present, your dipping sonar is actively pinging. Pressing the key will activate the sonar. It doesn't stay on constantly, because it is performing "sweeps". (Tony can fill in details about how this works in the code). Technically, I suppose, your dipping sonar should only be employed in the hover, but you will probably notice that helos performing formation patrols are happy enough to dip their sonars while cruising along at Low altitude.

Just to recap our discussion on IRC, Pete, I haven't had this problem. I always have the Unit window highlighted when manually deploying sonobuoys. I don't usually use the numpad key to drop em, but it will work for me. Ditto with the dipping sonar. Do you have the active sonar range circles turned on ?

Yeah, hover at Low or Vlow and energize that dipping sonar. Be sure to have your active sonar range circles turned on. I like a nice, bright yellow.

As I am sure you can imagine, its plenty difficult to model exactly the DP value of a typical ground forces formation, say a division. I'm not sure where the 3000-5000 DP value came from, but IIRC, it was Fred and I who decided where to start when we first had the opportunity to create them in an editable database. As always, I'm open to modifying the values, but there's much more to it than just adding up the number of tanks and getting a total value. Consider, for example, the composition of the Soviet 79th Guards Tank Division, circa 1988, when it was based in the GDR with the GSFG: 3 x Tank Regiments, each with: 94 x T-80 43 x BMP-2 4 x 2S6 4 x SA-13 18 x 2S1 That's 282 tanks, 129 IFVs, 24 AA vehicles, and 54 self-propelled artillery pieces. Then add the following, from a component motor rifle regiment: 142 x BMP-2 40 x T-80 4 x 2S6 4 x SA-13 18 x 2S1 9 x BRDM-3 And the artillery regiment and SSM battalion: 48 x 2S3 18 x BM-21 4 x SS-21 And the air defense regiment: 20 x SA-15 21 x SA-7/-14/-16 And the reconnaissance and engineer elements: 6 x T-80 13 x BRDM-2 12 x BMP-2 3 x BRM 8 x TMM 6 x GSP 18 x PMP 12 x K-61 4 x BTM 2 x MTK 3 x GMZ And a helicopter squadron: 6 x Mi-24 Hind 6 x Mi-8 Hip 6 x Mi-2 Hoplite That's NOT counting a multitude of trucks and other support vehicles, and the soldiers themselves. The 57th Guards Motorized Rifle Division, also in East Germany, comprised: 3 x motor rifle regiments, each with: 142 x BMP-2 (or 156 x BTR-80, for two of the three regiments) 40 x T-80 4 x 2S6 (or 4 x ZSU-23, for two of the three regiments) 4 x SA-13 18 x 2S1 (or 18 x D-30, for two of the three regiments) 9 x BRDM-3 Add a tank regiment, with: 94 x T-80 43 x BMP-2 4 x 2S6 4 x SA-13 18 x 2S1 And another tank battalion, with 51 x T-80, and an anti-tank battalion, with 12 x AT guns and 9 x BRDM-3. That's 265 tanks, nearly as many as the tank division above, plus from 497 IFVs or APCs (depending on type), nearly four times as many as that contained in the tank division. Then add: An artillery regiment and SSM battalion, with: 72 x 2S3 18 x BM-21 4 x SS-21 And an air defense regiment: 20 x SA-15 21 x SA-7/-14/-16 And the reconnaissance and engineer elements: 6 x T-80 12 x BMP-2 13 x BRDM-2 3 x BRM 8 x TMM 6 x GSP 18 x PMP 12 x K-61 4 x BTM 2 x MTK 3 x GMZ And the helicopter squadron, with: 6 x Mi-24 Hind 6 x Mi-8 Hip 6 x Mi-2 Hoplite Again, that NOT counting the trucks, other vehicles, or soldiers. The sheer scale of trying to model a division, whether tank or infantry, is huge. For argument's sake, let's assume it takes a single 500 lb GBU-12 (with 17 DP) to take out each individual vehicle represented here (not including trucks and such). Our example tank division contains 922 such targets, thus requiring 15,674 DP ! The infantry division has even more. That's not considering that the various elements of the division might be dug in, on the move, camouflaged, spread out, etc, etc. You see my problem ?

Yes, that's pretty much how they work. All mobile land units (MLU's) are found in the Ships Annex of the PE. You set courses for them just as you would with a ship. Tony can be more technical about the model. Both, I suppose. The vehicles, for example, have the appropriate cannon and machine gun armament. By reference to both the H4/4.1 rules, which contain some limited DP data (I forget the exact page), and by comparison with the DP values assigned to typical anti-armor weapons like Hellfire.

To recap the question: Circa 1980, you are a pilot with the PVO's 787 IAP. Suddenly, the klaxon rings, and the coded alarm call comes ... Jastreb ! What is happening ? The answer ... You are the pilot of a MiG-25PD "Foxbat" interceptor based with the 787th Fighter Regiment at Finow-Eberswalde airbase in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR, commonly referred to as East Germany). The alarm signals the approach of an American SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft, probably just minutes away and travelling along track X-027 (a route that ran parallel to the GDR/Czechoslovakian borders and was intended specifically to monitor Warsaw Pact troop rotations in the Autumn). The "Jastreb" alarm later came to signify the approach of any high altitude, very fast movers. Cool, eh ? More information can be found in Sowjetische Fliegerkrafte Deutschland 1945-1994 (Soviet Fighter Aircraft in Germany 1945-1995), edited by Lutz Freund.

Hehe ... I wondered how long it would take you to show up.

Hmmm, that must be because the Super Bug is such a terrible aircraft, right ? Where are all its detractors those days anyway ?

From Aerospace Daily & Defense Report U.S. Navy's Super Hornet Program Proposes Buying More Jets By Marc Selinger 11/17/2005 08:13:45 PM The U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program is proposing to buy up to two dozen more fighters than currently planned, according to a program official. While the Navy now is slated to buy 550 Boeing-built Super Hornets, Capt. James Wallace, the service's F/A-18 international programs manager, said the program believes the Navy could use another 20 to 24 of the high-demand aircraft, or enough to equip two squadrons. Wallace, who spoke Nov. 17 at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement's fighter jet conference, said the case for more jets is being made to higher-ups. Wallace said, however, that arguments for more Super Hornets have been complicated by the uncertain fate of the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Navy plans to buy the stealthy F-35's carrier variant to complement the Super Hornet, but the Defense Department has been studying a range of options for the multiservice JSF, including slowing the program, speeding it up and killing the carrier variant. For the Super Hornet, more Navy orders, along with international sales, could strengthen the case for pursuing a third multiyear procurement contract. The Navy is buying 421 jets under the first two multiyears. Although the Super Hornet still is looking for its first export customer, Wallace said he is talking with several potential buyers, including one unnamed country that recently signed a "letter of intent," signaling it is "very interested" in buying the aircraft. India, which is evaluating several fighters, including the Super Hornet, recently asked for a classified briefing on the Super Hornet's new Raytheon-built APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. The U.S. government is expected to decide in January or February whether to approve that request, Wallace said. Granting the briefing would indicate the United States is willing to approve the radar's sale to India. Besides seeing the potential to export hundreds of new Super Hornets, the Navy would consider making 58 of its used jets available for sale to foreign customers, Wallace said. The U.S. Navy has taken delivery of 245 Super Hornets so far and has used them extensively in Iraq. The Navy's planned Super Hornet purchase is expected to sustain the production line until 2013. The Super Hornet's current price for the Navy is $53 million per aircraft. The Navy ultimately hopes to cut the cost to about $50 million.

From DefenseNews U.S. Navy To Shift Carrier George Washington to Japan By ANDREW SCUTRO A newly overhauled aircraft carrier George Washington will be home-ported in Asia. “The Navy has slotted George Washington to relieve Kitty Hawk in 2008 in Yokosuka,” a senior U.S. defense official told Navy Times. The official announcement from the U.S. Navy is expected in the next few weeks, pending shifts in the massive restructuring plan known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. “Navy is waiting until there’s closer understanding of how the QDR is coming until they make a final carrier force distribution,” the official said. News of the move ends speculation about which Nimitz-class carrier will move to Japan. The decision was first reported Nov. 18 in The Virginian-Pilot newspaper of Norfolk, Va. For years, Japanese officials refused home-porting a nuclear-powered carrier due to the American atomic bomb attacks in 1945 as well as other political and environmental concerns. Recent published reports also noted Japanese sensitivity to such ship names as Truman, the president who decided to drop the atomic bombs. Such resistance put Navy planners in a bind. The conventionally powered Kitty Hawk was commissioned in 1961 and needs replacing, but there are no other viable non-nuclear carriers in the inventory. But in late October, the U.S. announced its firm intent to replace a scrapyard-bound Kitty Hawk with a Nimitz-class carrier. “When she comes out of Japan, the Navy will decommission her,” the official said. Current Navy planning positions five carriers on the East Coast and keeps six in the Pacific. With the QDR underway, further shifts are possible. Certainly tied to the QDR are plans to retire the 38-year-old John F. Kennedy, the other non-nuclear carrier. Earlier in the year, federal lawmakers tied the Kennedy’s fate to QDR results, forcing the Navy to hold off retiring the ship until six months after the QDR concludes. As Kitty Hawk winds down, George Washington has been gearing up. It’s reaching the end of a yard period in Newport News, Va., that began in January. The GW is due to rejoin the fleet in early 2006. Part of the decision to send the GW forward had to do with carrier maintenance schedules, according to a Navy source. The GW will leave the yard in mid-December, making it ready for deployment when Kitty Hawk is due to come out of Japan in the summer of 2008. Lt. Cmdr. Bill Speaks, the GW public affairs officer, said the ship has undergone major upgrades while in the yard. The $400 million overhaul installed 1,000 new computers, 16 servers, a new computer operating system, a new Close-In Weapons System, a Rolling Airframe Missile launcher, communications and radar upgrades, as well as a refurbished and improved flight deck. Speaks would not comment on any upgrades to the GW nuclear propulsion system that might allow it to stay forward. As for the big news on the waterfront, Speaks would not confirm whether or not the crew knew anything about the plans for their ship. “It’s a rumor, so it’s not something I discuss,” he said by telephone.

From DefenseNews U.S. Discussing Missile Site in Europe with Poland, Others By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, WASHINGTON The United States is discussing with Poland and other countries possible sites in Europe for a missile interceptor base capable of protecting the continent against long-range missile attack, a senior defense official said Nov. 16. The official said the discussions have been under way “below the radar screen” since 2002 but indicated the U.S. government is now nearing the point of making decisions on whether and how to go forward with such an initiative. “There have been a handful of countries — Poland is one, but there are several others — with whom we’ve been having discussions,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in an interview with Agence France-Presse and another news organization. The talks with Poland were first disclosed earlier this week by Gazeta Wyborcza in Warsaw, and were not denied by Polish Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz. “We will analyze everything thoroughly and at the appropriate moment say whether it is good or not for Poland,” Marcinkiewicz said on the private television station TVN. The U.S. official declined to identify the other countries with which the United States is discussing the missile site. “We have the most mature dialogue with Poland because they’ve expressed continuing interest in the subject,” he said. “There are other countries that remain interested in the dialogue on the possible emplacement of interceptors in Europe.” He said the site could be very similar to the U.S. site at Fort Greely, Alaska, where half a dozen ground-based missiles are positioned to intercept potential long-range missile attacks from North Korea. A similar site in Central Europe would provide both the United States and Europe protection against long-range missiles fired from the Middle East or North Africa, he said. “The analysis is fairly preliminary at this point. So there is no final determination, but a single site would probably provide pretty good protection,” said the official. He cautioned that many issues remain to be worked out, and a U.S. decision to go forward would lead to more intensive consultations with U.S. allies on how it might work. “Ideally, you’re probably looking at the end of the decade for some initial capability,” the official said.

From DefenseNews Canadian Government Hears Airlift Procurement Plan By DAVID PUGLIESE, VICTORIA, British Columbia Canada’s Defence Staff chief is hoping to convince the government to approve an airlift procurement plan that would see the purchase of new helicopters, tactical transport aircraft and search-and-rescue planes in one overall package. Gen. Rick Hillier briefed senior government ministers on the plan Nov. 14. The proposal would see the purchase of at least 50 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Defence Minister Bill Graham has confirmed he supports the plan. Graham hopes that getting government approval for three different aircraft programs all at once, instead of separately, will cut down on procurement times for the planes. Government ministers made no decision at the end of Hillier’s briefing. Industry officials originally put the cost of the package at 6 billion Canadian dollars ($4.8 billion), but some estimates are double that. That higher cost, however, includes contracting out maintenance and support of the aircraft over a 20-year period, said one industry source. A possible upcoming federal election has put any decision on moving forward with the package temporarily on hold. “We don’t make major procurements during elections,” Graham told reporters Nov. 16. A federal election is expected in December, January or February, but no date has been set. Hillier told Defense News last month that airlift, particularly tactical airlift, is his No. 1 priority. Canada operates 31 CC-130 Hercules aircraft to handle its tactical airlift needs. But 18 of those are older models, some with the distinction of having the most flying hours of any C-130 in military service. Some have 30,000 to 40,000 flying hours and are more than 35 years old. The Canadian Air Force has cut back on its C-130 fleet’s flying hours to help ease the stress on its aircraft. Hillier said he did not plan on detailing specific aircraft he wants, but would outline the types of capabilities each would be expected to perform. But industry sources say the Canadian Forces has its preferred aircraft and is looking at the purchase of 15 to 20 Lockheed Martin C-130J transport planes, 15 C-27J search-and-rescue aircraft and 20 CH-47 Chinook helicopters from Boeing. The C-27J Spartan is built by a joint venture of Alenia Aeronautica, Rome, and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Marietta, Ga. Officials with EADS Canada as well as Bombardier have voiced concerns that they are being frozen out of billions of dollars worth of potential sales. Both companies had hoped to enter their aircraft in the competition for a new search-and-rescue plane. EADS Canada had planned to offer the EADS CASA C-295 for the search-and-rescue program and potentially the A400M for tactical airlift. Bombardier hopes to enter its Dash 8 as a contender for the fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft program. Agusta Westland International also is interested in offering its EH101 for Canada’s program to purchase medium-lift helicopters to transport Army and special forces troops. Sikorsky Aircraft has said its H-92 and CH-53 helicopters can fit Canada’s requirements for a tactical lift helicopter. The Canadian Forces operated seven Chinooks but took those out of service in 1991 as a cost-saving measure. They were sold several years later to the Dutch government, which had them upgraded to the CH-47D standard.

From DefenseNews France, Italy Sign Multi-Billion-Euro Frigate Deal By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, PARIS NATO allies France and Italy on Nov. 16 signed a deal initiating the first phase of a joint program to build 27 naval frigates — Europe’s largest naval construction project. The agreement to start the 11-billion-euro ($13-billion) project — known as Renaissance in Italy and FREMM (European Multi-Mission Frigates) in France — was signed on the morning of Nov. 16, French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said. “The contract for the development and realization of the multi-mission frigates was signed this morning, after three years of efforts. “Europe’s largest ever naval program is now under way,” Alliot-Marie told parliament during a question and answer session. In Rome, Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino welcomed the deal, which was finalized despite the fact that France and Italy are both running hefty public deficits that put them at odds with European Union budget rules. “While expressing his satisfaction, Minister Martino underscores that the signing of the document expressed the government’s intention to respect commitments to develop a European project of great strategic, operational and technical value, despite the existence of budget constraints” from European Union criteria, an official statement said. French President Jacques Chirac and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi agreed last month to launch the joint project. The deal was to have been signed during a high-profile summit in Paris but was put off at the last minute when Italy’s Finance Ministry failed to release the funding necessary for the project to begin. The naval program is one of Europe’s most ambitious ever and represents a key step toward the development of European and NATO rapid reaction forces, which would rely on the ships to project military power. It calls for 27 ultra-modern frigates to be built, entering service between 2010 and 2020. France is to take 17 of the vessels — some which will be suited to land-attack missions — while Italy will take 10. The frigates are set to be conventionally powered vessels outfitted with automated systems requiring about 100 crew members. Measuring 140 meters (460 feet) long and 20 meters wide with a draught of five meters and a weight of 5,600 tons, they will be capable of a top speed of 27.6 knots and can carry a helicopter. Each will have sophisticated electronic detection and defense systems featuring radar and infra-red technology, communications gear, sonar and anti-aircraft and anti-submarine missiles.

It's perfectly OK to dissent as long as you don't mind being wrong ... ... sorry, just kidding. I understand what you're saying, but for me it falls into the same category as peeking at the installation's status in the GE by clicking the Full display button. That is something which I do not generally do unless I have overflown the enemy base in a strike, or I have conducted a recon mission that passes close by. So I suppose the DP information could be put in there, but otherwise I don't want to know it. I have a lot more fun finding out the old fashioned way - watching my strike lead pickle his bombs off and they go boom.

I definitely would NOT use a hard and fast rule of placing mines at Deep. The problem with it is that the best places for emplacing minefields are usually chokepoints (narrow or constricted waters) where Deep depth might not be available. So, how deep you place your mines always depends on exactly where you plan to put them. Here's a tip: Use two or more minefields in the same area, but place them at varying depths.

No, the DP value of any installation is not shown in the Platform Display. Personally, I think this is a good thing in the sense that it adds a degree of realism. After all, how many air commanders are able to instantly calculate that "X" amount of type "Y" munitions will be sufficient to destroy Target "Z" ? One can always check the PE, of course, if you really want to know the DP of a particular target, but I have found that experience is a good teacher and eventually you will get a "feel" for what you need to destroy a given target.