broncepulido

I think the EU don't needs any natural disaster to break up ... And any political/natural disaster/alternative history excuse, slightly coherent and slightly well narrated, is good for planify a scenario (as the screenplay in the p*rn movies )

We known previously this splendid japanese site (in English!!!), but it's ever worth of mention, rigurous carrier deployment and carrier air wing composition, but not escorts : http://gonavy.jp/CVf.html

In a Clash of Arms' Harpoon SITREP they are rules and scenario in the Tokio Bay of Godzilla against USN and JSDF, as it was played in a Games Convention

Consider the Shackleton AEW.2 and Lightning F.6 added. I'll see what can be done about the Delta Dart. Thanks, Brad. When I peroused yesterday the loadouts in the DB, I was really afraid about the scarce ferry/patrol/cargo loadouts disponibility, I was thinking previously we can dispose/revamp a lot of them, but I see the answer is clearly "no". But I think we can refund a lot of loadout entries and make it common to some planes, as is reflected in the aforementioned Sea Harrier/AV-8A/C/S/Harrier GR.3 loadout entries, we can use only one of them for the three types. When I find other similar situations, I will prevent you about it. Thanks.

Others late Cold War ideas: The Shackleton AEW.2 in use 1972-1991 (and only replaced by the E-3D in 1991), with ESM and improved APS-20F(I) radar with 200 nm range and LDSD and SS capabilities. Clearly in the pretended scoop of the DB, useful in the North Atlantic scenarios, and without problem about the loadout shortage, we can use one generic Patrol loadout common to other plane, with a range near to 2650 nm (but I've checked Patrol and Ferry Loadouts and don't find none similar, perhaps we can use the loadout entry 56034 of the An-124 Condor (it has two loadouts), with 2790 nm range). Also F-106A Delta Dart (1972-1988) and Lightning F.3A/F.6 (1965-1988), both used to 1988 and the Lightning present in some legacy scenarios. And in both types with only an Intercept loadout is enought.

Some data about Sea Harrier finded in my notes a while ago: Initially with 2x120 USG drop tanks, from 1982 with 2x225 USG drop tanks. AIM-9M added near 1984. Sea Eagle added 1987. And a pair of not very known sites: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/types...sea-harrier.htm http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraf...SEa-Harrier.htm

Loadouts are a problem here. This is a possibility. Both of these appear in the HCDA, btw. Yes, thanks, but I'm thinking in North Atlantic/Mediterranean/Indian Ocean Cold War scenarios. About the Sea Harrier FRS.1 and the shortage of loadouts problem, I think we can use/revamp some of these loadout entries: 56557 Intercept (with 4xAIM-9L) of AV-8S (we only need another entry with only 2xAIM-9L but it's not a must, the loadout of 4xAIM9L was developed in the Falklands campaign, and deployed only after the war). 55364 GP-LR of Sea Harrier FA.2 55362 AAmr of Sea Harrier FA.2 55831 SEAD of Sea Harrier FA.2 55635 SEAD-LR of Sea Harrier FA.2 55833 ASuW of Sea Harrier FA.2 55363 CAS of Sea Harrier FA.2 55361 GP of Sea Harrier FA.2 56326 CAS of Sea Harrier Mk51 56327 GP of Sea Harrier Mk51 56328 GP-LR of Sea Harrier Mk51 56567 GP of Harrier GR.3 56568 GP-LR of Harrier GR.3 56569 AAmr of Harrier GR.3 56570 AAmr-LR of Harrier GR.3 Also, the range of the Harrier GR.1, AV-8A/C/S, Harrier GR.3, Sea Harrier FRS.1/Mk51 and Sea Harrier FA.2 is very similar, is basically the same airframe with almost the same real range, with the same internal fuel capacity, and progressive increased weight and engine power (the nose of the Sea Harrier is the only clearly bigger and heavier, but the empty weight of the Harrier GR.3 is 6140 Kg and of Sea Harrier FA.2 is increased to 6374, but the shortened range because increased weight was balanced with more powerful engines and bigger drop tanks, later extended to other Harrier variants). The AV-8B Harrier II and derivatives is a very different plane with very increased range and capabilities.

And the early Invincible-class version, with Sea Dart missiles and air complement reduced to 21 aircraft from the present times 24.

The old Royal Navy Sea Harrier FRS.1 ....

I agree, for that I think "micro-management" must be keep, at least as a game option.

Some references here: http://h3milsim.com/history/timeline.html These are the basic Harpoon 3 Paper Rules, my first Harpoon rules, edited then by GDW, now as the very modified Harpoon 4 by Clash of Arms.http://www.computerharpoon.com/about-agsi/...of-harpoon.html GDW games and modules: http://alsandor.net/jeux/gdw.html I'm the happy owner of: 0710 - Harpoon: Modern Naval Wargame Rules (boxed set) [1987] 0711 - Battles of the Third World War [1987] 0712 - Ship Forms [1988] 0713 - Sub Forms [1989] 0715 - Data Annex 1990-91 Edition [1990] 0716 - ASW Forms [1990] 0717 - Captain's Edition Harpoon (board game) [1990] 0718 - South Atlantic War - The Falklands/Malvinas 1982 [1991] (re-edited modified by Clash of Arms) Some images: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/GDW-Harpoon-DATA-ANN...=item483ddd4690 I will try to build some others scenarios, but you known this year I've very scarce spare time ...

Hi Don: No, no, sorry. The reference is to the Harpoon 3 Paper Rules of the late 1980s. The scenario was inspired in some small booklets about platforms and scenarios published between 1987 and 1990 for that paper rules ... Enrique

I've placed a scenario related with this topic, but a little too late ... http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=645

File Name: Submarines Galore 1989 !!! File Submitter: broncepulido File Submitted: 09 Apr 2011 File Category: GIUK Submarines Galore 1989!!! A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for the EC2003 Battle for GIUK Gap Battleset and the HCDB-130818 1980-2015 Era Platform Database. A submarine-only scenario without other diversions, inspired by some old scenario booklets of the Harpoon 3 series, good for testing submarines, submarine tactics, sonars, torpedoes and other ASW weapons. Perhaps the Western submarines are numerically over-represented, but it's reflecting the original and very reduced in number of submarines paper scenarios. Also it's configured as a vanilla scenario for lazy players wanting to enjoy a simple pastime, and with the aim of replayability thanks to the randomness of the starting positions and of the units presence or not presence. I think it's playable at the 10 or even 30 minutes time compression ... before any contact. At the start of the WWIII in the North Atlantic on 1989, the bad weather and also the political incertitude precludes the use of air and surface assets. To keep low the social unrest because the war, the opening naval actions are limited to the discrete submarine operations, in a situation remembrance of the 1939 Phony War and of the 1994 Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor (where both Japan and the United States are in war against the other, but both governments are occulting the fact to his respective public opinions to prevent the collapse of the stock markets), but these underwater actions are not less decisive or murderous than a full open war. Modification 10 April 2011, tough victory conditions changed to (both sides): Minimum Victory Condition eight submarines sunk, Total Victory Condition twelve submarines sunk. Modification 11 April 2011, increased presence probability of some subs because previous confussion about percentile addition. Modification 23 December 2011: some older variants of previous submarine classes now in the DataBase replacing erroneous period variants. Modification 19 May 2014: some older variants of previous submarine classes now in the DataBase replacing erroneous period variants.Modified presence probability of some subs because previous confussion about percentile addition, the probabilities are now more evently distributed between the submarines, but the probability of presence of a diesel-electric boat is now half of the probability of a nuclear boat. SSBN presence probability increased. Enrique Mas, April 2011 Click here to download this file

Some by the moment "fuzzy" ideas, after reckoning about Cold War scenarios: I known in the submarine DB they're the Cluster Bay/Gulf series of mines with their associated sonars, but like the ELINT Station (configured as a stationary ship), I think we can include some sea-bottom instalations (configured as mines/stationary submarines, of difficult location if they are placed with variable start points), as: - "Real" SOSUS or CAESAR installations, replacing sometimes that embedded in the maps. - Submarine communications cables and/or his nodes, habitually taped by covert submarine operations in the Cold War or destroyed in previous wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_com...gence_gathering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells - Weapons (as lost torpedoes(usually)/missiles/H-Bombs (Palomares 1966)/aircraft (remember the salvatage operation of a F-14 Tomcat) or other type of simulated submarine wrecks, including a whole sinked Hotel class/or generic SSBN/SSB/SSN/SS !!!) to be localized and recovered/"killed" by the player submarine forces/special missions submarines and surface ships. - The aforementionated auxiliary ships/submarines, as NR-1, Aluminaut, Alvin, Glomar Explorer, and the Soviet/Russian equivalent auxiliary submarines or surface ships, some of the auxiliary submarines are previously present in the DB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer Yes, some of the ship/submarines/sea bottom items are very specialized (as Alvin or Aluminaut), too rare (as Glomar Explorer) and of limited use, but I see it as a whole good idea. But I think we need previously a lot of research and development ...

Update at my forecast of 23 February 2011: Now on 9 April 2011 we can see more clearly Gadaffi (or his sons, I remember also some sons of Saddam Hussein were killed in combat for sake of Iraq post-war stability) will keep the power in Libya, perhaps with Libya divided in Tripolitania+Fezzan, ruled by Gadaffi, and Cyrenaica, ruled by the insurgents, but only with the previous support and ulterior stabilization by UN ground forces.

My forecast in the corresponding trend about the "Libyan protest" (this one must be only about the no-fly zone), on 23 February, was: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...12838&st=15 And: Now on 9 April 2011 we can see more clearly Gadaffi (or his sons, I remember also some sons of Saddam Hussein were killed in combat for sake of Iraq post-war stability) will keep the power in Libya, perhaps with Libya divided in Tripolitania+Fezzan, ruled by Gadaffi, and Cyrenaica, ruled by the insurgents, but only with the previous support and ulterior stabilization by UN ground forces.

Two more Rafale Marine F3 added to the Charles de Gaulle air wing in 7 April 2011 (Total now in the air wing 10xRafale, 6xSuper Etendard, 2xHawkeye): http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115841 Updated French air operations. Rafale Air, Mirage 2000D and Mirage F-1CR are operating from Solenzara, Corse. Latest targets destroyed: 1 April: 1xTank west of Misratah. 2 April: 5xAFV near Sirte/Surt. 3 April: 2xTank Transporters near Ras Lanouf. 5 April: 1xUnidentified military vehicle south-west of Brega. 6 April: 2xSAM sites, one south of Zlitan, another 100 Km south of Sirte/Surt. http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115870

Yes, but it think we must keep both options in future itinerations of the game, keeping the micromanagement option for small, very detailed and very time sensitive scenarios, as a "simple" attack in a "simple" SAM emplacement (as, for instance, a SA-5b SAM site in Sirte/Surt, Libya ). And thanks you very much for the whole great work, Tony

Another previously unreported source, with CVW and a small glipse of CVBG in some of the carriers deployments: http://www.uscarriers.net/cv64deploy.htm http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn65deploy.htm http://www.uscarriers.net/cv19deploy.htm http://www.uscarriers.net/cv34deploy.htm http://www.uscarriers.net/cv61deploy.htm http://www.uscarriers.net/cv14deploy.htm

I think I follow, but I'm not convinced it is always correct. Consider: two planes about the same size are at a bit less than visual limit, the plane's respective heading are about 90 deg apart with one plane approachinging the other and facing directly at it and the second plane heading 'across' the front of the first, ie an ideal situation for the first plane to cruise in behind the second on its tail and shoot. The approaching plane is seeing the second plane side on and its right in front, but for the second plane they are looking at the first front on and having to look right abeam (with maybe a wing in the line of site). The approaching plane is (in reality) in a very advantageous position. For me clearly your right, Don, but if the GE don't give us "faceting" of the platforms, I should think all the platforms are "flying saucer" shaped (i.e, they are shapened with radial simetry).

Very enlightening and short article evaluating recent air campaigns and comparing they with the Lybian one, from a not specialized media (finded the reference by hazard in Google News), but written by a deep-thinking professional (Major General Perry Smith, U.S. Air Force (ret) Secretary of the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation. He flew 180 combat missions over North Vietnam.) : http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/opini...t-air-campaigns

As was forecasted, apparently now is more clear the link between protesters and islamic extremists: from http://www.debka.com/article/20811/ (And yes, I known Debka can be a questionable source, but not in every case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debka.com) Against this opinion, this article in Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011...as_rebels_wrong