CV32

War Over the Warthogs (Time, Swampland)

Navy Completes Initial Development of New Carrier Landing System (USNI News)

Statistical Bulletin Series 4 provides figures on the equipment of the United Kingdom Armed Forces and gives international comparisons. (PDF)

New carrier GERALD R FORD “underway” for 1st time (DefenseNews, Intercepts blog)

China details performance of 'carrier killer' missile for JF-17 (Flight Global)

Firstly, welcome to HG. I will be the first to admit that it is not something I would have ever expected to see, but here's to hoping for respectful, intelligence discourse. It happened again (worse, actually) in Op Allied Force. Especially with relatively short legged tankers like the Viking. I had set up a tanking mission/patrol area too, so I was surprised to see it happen. I will see if I can get a savegame from scratch. Oh, and I don't know if it has been mentioned on Matrix, but forcing a RTB while being refueled doesn't appear to prevent a recipient aircraft from continuing to take on fuel, even if that recipient is many miles from the tanker. Thanks. SA-2 did not attempt to intercept HARM, afaik. And I should add that its nice to see that much modeled. Fairly certain that I did see SA-3 do so, but I cannot be sure. Even with the obviously more advanced capability found in something like SA-10b, I was surprised to see pH rates of >75%, but I suppose that's a DB philosophy issue. Yep. Ask the USS Chancellorsville. (Too soon?) I think that would be a welcome modification. Virtually every time I detected a sub, they were creeping or moving at relatively slow speed. Sometimes it happened at very close range to a friendly warship (which is nice from the sub's point of view, I suppose) but the sub didn't seem to have any idea of its proximity to the ship. This was in Op Brass Drum and in Canary's Cage, in particular. My comments are preliminary, so I will try other scenarios, for sure. I enjoyed that one. Sub vs sub action there was markedly better, imho, than ship vs sub. That's understandable. Although when the scenario forces the player into a small scale action (like an amphibious landing), the issue starts to glare back at you. Yes, I understand and appreciate that. It wasn't intended as a criticism of CMANO so much as perhaps our own limited ability to write scenarios. As it turns out, real life is often lop sided. Certainly, adding a logistics model to the mix changes everything. Tony can tell you how much I've clamored about that issue.

US-Israel David's Sling Aces 2nd Intercept Test (DefenseNews)

Thank you, Enrique, for keeping a torch burning for this database.

Indian Army Successfully Tests BrahMos Block-III Deep Penetration Variant (The Diplomat, Flashpoints blog)

Damage Assessment Still Underway After Target Drone Collision with Navy Cruiser (USNI News)

I have no problem drawing a distinction between early generation, 50+ year old (and perhaps more importantly, low maneuverability) systems like the S-75 (SA-2) and modern day, high maneuverability (60 G) systems like Aster. For example, Harpoon assigns ATA ratings of 1.0-3.0 for the various flavours of SA-2, but even the new, high end systems (like Aster) top out at around 7.0. What I am saying (and I stand to be corrected if something is going on under the hood, or I am missing something obvious in the die roll calculations) is that there does not appear to be any accounting in CMANO for the difficulty of the target. A straight and level, subsonic 160 ft long heavy bomber is NOT the same target as an incoming, supersonic, diving 13 ft long missile.

Why Would Russia Sell China Su-35 Fighter Jets? (The Diplomat, Flashpoints blog)

Yes, the effects of prudent use of jamming are apparent and useful. It may be under the hood, but I am not seeing any calculations for more difficult targets like ARMs (or crossing targets, terminal diving targets, etc). While I am liking the final pH rates for AAMs (usually down around 50-60% or less), it doesn't seem to be carried over to the SAMs. pH rates of 75-90% are too high, imho, especially against fast moving ARMs and the like.

Two old foes unite against Tehran (Sunday Times)

Acknowledged.

New big-deck amphib AMERICA (LHA 6) takes to the sea for the first time (DefenseNews, Intercepts blog)

India to commission Russian carrier (DefenseNews)

Here's to hoping that they get built, without too much controversy or budgetary nightmare. Too much to ask? Joint Support Ships To Be Named HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay (Ottawa Citizen, Defence Watch blog)

Satellite imagery reveals mystery 'supergun' in Chinese desert (Jane's)

Chinese nuclear force modernization (FAS) Chinese nuclear forces, 2013 (pdf, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

A story that has been catching a lot of attention in recent days. Egypt Looks Beyond the USA for New Arms (Defense Industry Daily)

Unless you're a scenario author.

** SPOILERS APPLY ** A few comments in a rudimentary sort of AAR: * While the automation of the refueling process is a big help (in this scenario you have to 'shuttle' land based air from Spain to the Canaries), there is some smoothing that needs to be done with the way Bingo fuel is calculated. I lost more than a few aircraft (including a precious KC-130H tanker) to a miscalculated Bingo. * Land based air cover for your SAG and PHIBGRU is a must. You will run out of AMRAAMs aboard ship for your sea borne Harriers and, well, AIM-9JULI sucks. * I-HAWK is a serious threat, but SA-3 is meh. Can't tell what is going on under the hood, but it seems to me that CMANO (like Harpoon) still makes shooting down attacking ARMs (like HARM) too easy. * Pop up threats such as sub launched UGM-84 Harpoons and massed SSM fire from fast attack craft are very dangerous. I really like how CMANO seems to model the real threat posed by sea skimmers, and the difficulties in detecting and defending against them. * I am NOT a fan of how submarine launched torpedo attack is modeled. Reducing the range of the sub's heavyweight torpedoes (presumably to reduce a target's escape zone) has a sort of theoretical sensibility to it, but it really defangs a submarine's power. As a sub you have to get very close (if you manage to escape detection) to shoot, and you will almost certainly be greeted by an instant counter-fire that isn't hampered by a reduced engagement range. * I am likewise NOT a fan of how easily submarines are detected and killed. Other than the UGM-84s mentioned earlier, enemy submarines did not pose much of a threat to me. And they should have. I was able to find and kill subs - even at close range - when they ought to have had the jump on me. * The ability to undock and launch amphibious landing craft is very nice. Though I see "land ships" is not something suffered only by Harpoon. * Laser guided munitions appear to be modeled very well. Plinking is fun. * Once the AI runs out of aircraft to throw at you, this scenario is pretty easy. (Sound familiar?) I think I would have made the amphibious landing part a little more challenging.

Japan mulls F-15MJ upgrade (Jane's)

Finished up with 'Major Victory' and 3 h 32 min to go. Putting the landing craft into the LZ does the trick, but they have to be there for at least a couple of hours, it seems.