CV32

Welcome back! We're still here, though tempo of operations has dropped off quite a bit. You might say we're in a bit of a loiter mode at the moment.

I'm still reading em.

HUCE.

It can still make sense to turn perpendicular to the adversary in a BVR missile exchange, but no longer because of Doppler notch.

I feel the same way about Command. Good technical detail and such, but it is lacking that certain something that might make it a 'war game'. I think its the human decision making element, but I am not sure Command (or Harpoon, for that matter) could effectively make the leap to multiplayer in this day and age.

Right here, in the Downloads section of the website, you can find HUD4 v1.3.2

Dazzling Ships of the First World War (Wavell Room)

Two Type 909/GWS-30 radars on each Type 42 class destroyer, including HMS Coventry (D118), circled here in red. Each radar has three antennae, but you don't see those, of course.

Yep.

Updated to replace photos lost by the demise (sort of) of Photobucket.

Although the concentric green circles depict your passive sonar range circles (by CZ or convergence zone distance), it is by no means guaranteed that a target within those circles (or any circle) will be detected. The code runs a sonar detection check every 5 minutes, iirc.

Push your best ASW assets - that is, your towed array and good hull sonar equipped escorts, submarines, and your ASW oriented aircraft (e.g. helicopters with sonobuoys and dipping sonars, fixed wing aircraft with sonobuoys) - into the outer rings of your formation, especially along the expected axes of attack or in the areas where you suspect (or fear) enemy submarine attack. The Tactics 101 series on both naval formations and ASW will probably provide helpful background.

Picked up the Desert Storm DLC. Two minor complaints: 1. It doesn't seem like a great deal of effort was spent on play testing and proof reading. Lots of little errors, including minor annoyances like typos, as well as things like generic loadouts (e.g. Walleyes, Walleyes everywhere) and inclusion of platforms that aren't historically accurate (e.g. IDF F-15I Raam with AIM-120B AMRAAM). Also seeing a few bugs that seem more scenario based than GE based (e.g. aircraft unable to return to their home base and forced to divert.) 2. The scenarios seem heavily weighted on the hypothetical rather than the historical. Entirely subjective, of course, but I would have preferred to see a more balanced mix of (a) focused, historically accurate (or, a best attempt, as I realize it is a tough job) and (b) hypothetical scenarios. Side note: The more I play Command, the more I realize just how close it is to traditional versions of Harpoon in many ways. For example, AI behaviour is pretty predictable (e.g. if I knock down a P-3F Orion patrol, another will launch to take its place ... and meet its demise in short order); serious detail is hard to achieve (e.g. rather than thousands of armored vehicles strewn across the desert, the game can only really model dozens); most scenarios follow the same pattern (e.g. if you can survive the worst the enemy has to offer, usually concentrated in a few predictable attacks, then it usually quickly becomes a battle of attrition.) Scuds are easy to find, lol!

Russia moves more strike assets to Eastern Mediterranean (Jane's)

I forget the specific rule but the applicable modifier, 0.5x range per layer of depth, is on the same page as the passive classification table.

A response from Chris confirms that the HF sonar is deemed incapable of a passive classification. It's not necessarily impossible but so difficult to reach into the lower band frequencies, where passive classification tends to reside, that it makes better sense as a game rule.

Yes. Yeah, that's why I said that's how the table appears to read. Maybe it is intended that you do not proceed further than that. Maybe bounce an email off Larry or Chris?

Active sonar is not going to provide you with a target classification. And IIRC, its not that passive classification with an MF or HF sonar is impossible, but rather that the base classification probability against Quiet targets is zero. (Though I acknowledge that's how the base classification probability table seems to read.) I think that is just the starting point. Modifiers may then apply. For example, detections across depth layers are subject to 0.5x range modifier. (Its been quite a while since I looked at any of this stuff.)

Two words: passive sonar, i.e. the passive mode of the same hull sonar.

Two curious AI behaviours that I have noticed repeatedly: 1. Scenario: Cruising along in a US Navy SSN (in this case, a late model Los Angeles aka San Juan class) at 14 knots. Detect a submarine contact ahead at >20 nautical miles that is soon classified as a Russkie Victor III cruising at similar speed on an apparent intercept course. I assume at this point that I was detected first, and so I immediately slow to creep speed (5 knots) and change depth. The Vic III matches the depth change. Presumably my signature has soon faded, but the pattern continues to repeat itself. While creeping, I change depth. The Vic III does likewise. Over and over again. Both are passive the entire time. 2. Scenario: Following an exchange of BVR air to air missiles, my fighters turn for home. I am pursued by the enemy. When I go to high altitude, and afterburner, the enemy goes low and military speed. When I go back to cruise speed, he climbs and turns on the burner. I can typically hold him at bay by repeating this pattern, and he can never close the distance.

More proof positive of a longstanding maxim (to which I subscribe) that torpedo defence is still tougher than missile defence in the naval arena.

DOT&E delivers another scathing report on F-35 progress (Flight Global)

Thanks for sharing the experience and I am looking forward to your summary.

Hoping your 2019 is a good one.

Welcome to Fight Club: Wargaming the Future (War on the Rocks)