CV32

Image Emerges Of What Could Be A Chinese Knock-Off Of Russia's Su-34 Fullback (Foxtrot Alpha)

Israel’s all-inclusive F-35I deal doesn’t grant full tech access (Flight Global)

Further details emerge on China's first indigenous 'aircraft carrier' (Jane's)

Why We Still Need a Nuclear-Armed Cruise Missile (War on the Rocks)

U.S. Navy To Pass Within 12 Miles Of China's Man-Made Islands Within 24 Hours (Foxtrot Alpha)

Russian Navy To Replace Flagship Cruiser With Nuclear Guided Missile Cruiser By 2020 (Defense World)

I would much rather see the ECM field in the Aircraft annex become useful than to start using up the valuable space in the Loadouts annex (and in turn, elsewhere) with individual specific entries for decoys.

Lots of good suggestions there, Enrique. I am most interested in the features that address existing gaps or provide some measure of 'leap ahead' game play. Some of those that are ranking highly (subject to edit): * ESM generations * RCS aspect * torpedo countermeasures (whether decoy or hard kill, or both) * waypoints/re-targeting * armor penetration for bombs * snorkel/AIP flag for subs

I am thankful for all those possibilities, and welcome any input or commentary the community may have to offer. The flags and PE fields are especially attractive. Things like ESM generation, RCS aspect, etc have massive potential.

Yep, I am leaning towards '91 because of the global political changes, new era of conflict, and the advent of new game changing technology. In due course. Yes, that is the impetus.

Yes, that's the intent, only those hypotheticals that might actually find good use in scenarios.

As discussed in the other thread, I am toying with the idea of a new, revamped HCDB that would look to fully exploit the new increased entry limits in the DB annexes. This new version of HCDB would depart from the stock scenarios supplied with the sim and from all scenarios created with the DB up to the point of departure. The old version of HCDB (1980-2015) would be maintained in place to preserve compatibility with those older scenarios. Goals for the new HCDB would include: * a focus on the post Cold War period (post 1991) * getting rid of the large amount of duplication in the Installations annex (no longer necessary now that we can rename units and bases) * more differentiation and separation of platforms by point in time (so that a single entry would only contain weapons, sensors or loadouts relevant to that point in time, instead of all weapons, sensors, etc available to it over a long period) * have a global focus (so, including the Americas) but probably omit or pay reduced attention to very small countries * more attention paid to including images (and in time, perhaps some room for backwards implementation into the old HCDB) * more room for hypotheticals Thoughts? Comments and input welcome.

Many reasons, including: the current DB covers the period 1980-2015, and it will soon be 2016; the Installations annex is full of unnecessary redundancy; the Loadouts annex is full of accommodations made due to the limited space; some platforms have the old and the new (especially weapons capabilities) in the same entry, despite wide separation in time; etc; etc. Yes. Exactly when, I am not entirely sure yet. Many smaller (or non-factor) countries might be excluded altogether. If I went ahead with it, the 'new' DB probably wouldn't be available for at least a few months.

Yes, the 'old' HCDB would be frozen in place for the sake of existing scenarios. The 'new' philosophy would probably include a focus on post Cold War platforms, more differentiation between platform versions by specific time period, and a bit more allowance for hypotheticals.

I should add that the 'new' HCDB would also have a different approach in the sense of time periods covered and maybe a little bit of a change in philosophy too.

one of the scenario "excuses" is (Israeli/Blue side orders): as consequence, the Israeli side only can use more or less a 25% of the Israeli Air Force inventory, excluding F-15I and F-16I, and limited to the F-16C/D based at Ramat David, and some few F-15 for air cover. If the Israeli Air Force could use all their aircraft the Russian/Red side should be very few playable! Yes, I was aware of the reasoning behind it, and commenting on how the Russians might be thankful for it.

Might be a good juncture to put forward an idea regarding HCDB, especially with the expansion of the annex sizes. I am contemplating a revamp of the DB that would see, in particular, a fresh start in the Installations annex. More specifically, get rid of all the dupe (Red, Blue, etc) entries. This would mean, of course, that older scenarios (including stock) would no longer be compatible with the 'new' DB. Thoughts?

You sir are the Man. On a day filled with post election blues, you have made it much brighter.

Spoilers apply! * * * * After Action Report - Latakia Bastion Playing as the Russian side, I had two defensive priorities in mind - (1) to safeguard the Moskva group and (2) to protect the Russian contingent at Latakia. Offensively, I knew I would be facing some of the IDF's premier aircraft (although the F-16I Soufa was missing from the OOB, thankfully?) and precision guided munitions, that the Israeli air defences were stiff, and there would be likely be submarines. My immediate priority was to blind Israeli AEW&C and to neutralize their SAM network. There I would use the Syrian Air Force as a distraction force, and the Russian Air Force contingent as my strike force, concentrating firstly on SEAD/DEAD and thereafter on precision strike. Most Syrian radars on the frontier were shut down to avoid death by HARM, and I used SyAAF MiGs as a means of attracting and soaking up attention from IDF F-15s and F-16s. RuAF Su-30SM Flankers would conduct 'sweep and escort' behind this distracting wall. With the first wave of IDF air attacks neutralized or defanged, my own SEAD efforts launched a massive strike against Israeli defences around Haifa and Ramat David. All of my Su-24 and Su-34 assets were armed for the effort. At sea, the Moskva group was directed north firstly, to avoid being exposed to attack. Later, when I was satisfied that the immediate danger had passed, I would bring her south again. Having no submarine of my own in the area, I was wary of stumbling into a spread of torpedoes. The strategy worked very well. Any attempt at Israeli air attack was blunted, and losses were minimal in the air battle. I had two areas of difficulty dealing with the Israelis. First, although I was never able to find the offending submarine, a sub launched cruise missile attack was launched at Bassel Al-Assad. A single Popeye Turbo penetrated and struck the airfield, causing only minor damage but destroying some half dozen Russian aircraft on the ground. A Syrian fast attack craft also fell victim to a sub launched Harpoon. Second, there was very nearly a repeat of the 1973 battle of Latakia. Israeli missile craft were sweeping north and I had no ASuW assets immediately at hand to deal with them, save my own Syrian fast attack craft. Sure, there were Russian aircraft capable of dealing with them, but they were deeply occupied with hammering enemy airfields in northern Israel. Fortunately, having air superiority in the area and good situational awareness allowed me to locate and dispatch the Israeli vessels without too much damage. Only the Russian spy ship was lost. With Haifa and Ramat David severely damaged, I allowed the SyAAF to join the fray to finish them off. A huge political coup for the Assad regime and a humiliating defeat for Israel. The Moskva group also came south again, launching its antiship missile load against the two Eilat class warships and destroying them handily. I have continued the advance southward, destroying Israeli bases in turn (probably not the best idea in reality, as provoking an Israeli nuclear response would not be wise) but with about 2:30 to go, major victory has eluded me thus far. Update: Destroyed two more bases, all surface ships and all aircraft, but still no major victory. I am guessing it is tied to the submarine but I haven't peeked into the SE to find out.

Russia’s Arsenal in Syria: What Do We Know? (War on the Rocks)

Achieved min vic at 11:29 to go, albeit with heavier losses. Total vic is proving more elusive. I will try and put together a more substantive AAR in due course.

Orlan-10 seems to be the early consensus. But a rather diverse group of UAVs are flying in the region. And it wouldn't be the first time that a fighter has shot down a UAV, by any means.

Achieved Min Vic at 11:49 to go. Total Vic followed at 7:33 to go. Lost 2x aircraft.

Thanks for this, Enrique. I have a couple of my own scenarios in the works regarding the Russia-Syria intervention but I don't know when I will get time to finish them. Please post on Matrix as well as if you haven't already.

No reason why not. This sim is timeless. Calling the resident computer expert ... Tony?