broncepulido

Don't worry, thanks a lot I'm very busy in a new job, but I hope I will put a new small scenario on a few hours ...

I don't know if it is reflected in the news reports or not, but someone says me Mubarak's family is in London with 90+ suitcases from a week ago ...

What Harriers ? Lend-lease US Harriers ? And about the next war, in our days is impossible any prediction, including short-time predictions, as if why ask someone in 1988 about the world situation in 1992 ...

And don't forget the demise of the Nimrod past and not-future fleet. No long range ASW/Maritime Patrol Force neither Nobody in the UK Government remembers the hard and longs years to close the Mid-Atlantic gap ???!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap Now, in 2011 and for the years to come, clear and painly it's another Mid-Atlantic Gap for the UK Forces: - No Very Long Range patrol/ASW aircraft (No Nimrod, only answer to purchase P-8A in mid-term). - No escort carriers/Invicibles/CVHs (We must attend to 2020, and just not for light CVH !!!! ). - Only stop-gap inmediate possibility the SSN force, but new Astute class SSNs aparently of doubtful reability (Aparently the same for the present Trafalgar class SSNs). Very sad.

More stuff, Presidential change in Brazil (in French): http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115156 In short, the new Brazilian President Dilma Roussef (of the same politic party than the former President Luiz Ignazio Lula da Silva) sembles to have her own ideas about defence. The previous President had a some clear ideas on defense, as purchase the Rafale fighter, support the local industry and create a fleet of SSN to protect the sea oil fields. The new Presidente apparently wants to re-think all the programs, in particular the Rafale purchase (the other contenders were Super Hornet and Gripen), the purchase of five 5000 tons frigates (previouly probably FREMMs), five 1800 tons OPVs (Probably Gowind), and one AOR (probably type Brave).

It's a scenario I'm thinking sometime on making it. Thanks ! Played ten times (short, fast and furious scenario), is a very though game to win ...

I think Gordon Thomas is a less than credible author, but I'm not sure (I've only peroused his books some years ago, I remember it full of leftist conspiration theories avant la lettre ). Some verification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Thomas_(author) Very scarce references for a "reputed" author. The co-author of some of his books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Morgan-Witts A personal memory, I've not read the book, but I remember his synopsis of perousing it some years ago: Shipwreck: The Strange Fate of the Morro Castle (1972) : This book is about the historical shipwreck of the line cruiser Morro Castle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Morro_Castle_(1930) (is a very detailed and studied shipwrecking where anything goes wrong) The author idea ? A conspiration of high mafia moguls and American local politicians set afire on the ship, and the captain, also in the conspiration, beached the ship on Asbury Park, New Jersey, for tourist attraction and increase theme park revenues !!! Other "enlighting" titles by the same author: Journey Into Madness: The True Story of Secret CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse.(1989). Seeds of Fire: China and the Story Behind the Attack on America.(2001 !!!). Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad (1999). Assassination of Robert Maxwell. Robert Maxwell: Israel's Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul.(2003)

Very good report. The next few months I must to write an academic paper about State of Fear, and one of the minor items will be personal arms control and his implications (but don't worry, I'm harpooning and databasing in my scarce spare time ... ). In particular, this part of the Tucson shoot-out remembers me another very similar situation and outcome, spontaneous citizens blocking the action of the shooter, but with more important historic implications, curiously I've not read none these days about the similar historical precedent: The historical precedent, the attempt of assasination of President-elect F.D. Roosevelt 17 days before the inauguration of his first term: http://digital.library.miami.edu/gov/FDRAssn.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zang...ination_attempt http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/timeline/1933-1935.html http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/...-who-saved-fdr/ ( I think I've read most of the Dick's works, but I don't remember this episode. Someone remembers those books? ). That woman, Lillian Cross, save the day, and probably the next war and the world future the following 50 years or so. I remember clearly this because recently I saw a filmed interview of Lillian Cross (She was apparently not a beauty, but a very tall and bold woman in the interview, and Zangara a short man. For me the Cross version is true) in the curious Philippe Mora 1975 film "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?", made with screpts of documental and fiction films of the 1920-1940 period, with minimum or none edition, aside the consecutive mounting of the screpts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother,_Can_..._Dime%3F_(film) My idea: security is in first and last instance responsability of the individual citizens (yes, I know it's a little off-topic, but I'm thinking longwhile about those problems).

Something the British cant do now, Indian Sea Harriers cross-decking in the Charles de Gaulle. Very sad: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115100

That is the original news report (in Spanish), Clarin (the Spanish word for Clarion) is a reputed Argentine newspaper, the situation is something hotter than when we begin this post thread: http://www.clarin.com/politica/Brasil-proh..._404959643.html Some perhaps trascendent highlights about the article: The aforementionated HMS Gloucester and at least another British warship interdicted enter in another time An announcement about a reinforced control by the Argentine Navy of the legal permits to operate from or to the Islands. In the quote, the legal concept expressed is more or less "the Argentine government demands a special permission to all the ships that should sail in his national waters, as the waters of the Falklands/Malvinas are considered to be national waters, the Argentine government will demand this permission to all the ships that should sail along waters of the Islands, and the Argentine Navy will try to make to fulfill such requisite". From the next Juny 2011, the sea container transport between Falklands and Rio Grande (Brazil) will be interrupted. The director of the company, Hamish Wylie, denounced before the island press to be "convinced" that it owed to “pressures“ on his associates so that the fishing industry of the archipelago “could not develop in the future". Also, it there joined the decision of the Union of South American Nations, in November of prohibiting to enter in his ports ships with the “illegal flag” of Malvinas (I don't known the Falklands flag. I suppose is a case similar to the Gibraltar flag), according to the declaration text. The text of the declaration about the flag, result of the Georgetown, Guyana, meeting at 26 November 2010 (previously unknown to me), in: http://www.ba.unibo.it/NR/rdonlyres/44C36C...4/ArtUnasur.pdf “the UNASUR member states promise to adopt, in accordance with international law and his respective internal legislations, all the measurements capable of to be regulated to prevent the access to his ports of ships that hoist the illegal flag of the Falkland Islands”. The Argentinian Foreing Minister, Héctor Timerman, emphasized that for the first time is used the term of “illegal flag” and, with this declaration, the countries of the block “commit themselves in the frame of the current international agreements, to inform the Argentine government on those ships or naval crafts with courses that include the Falkland Islands, Georgias of the South and Sándwich of the South with charges destined for the illegal hydrocarbon and/or mining activities in the Argentine continental shelf and of this way, to prepare or to prevent these activities from being consolidated”.

Just it time when I was thinking on post the same news report (in French): http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115050

Video watched (I see it has been played only 640 times, this comment is about the relative scarce number of people can be interested in the issue to watch the video the first day). Very clever the Chinese revealing the J-20 only after the F-22 program was axed. Anybody has any idea about the apparently retractable bulge over the fuselage, near the exhaust nozzles ? Test equipment ? I think this night I will command chinese food ...

I don't understand those hard critic opinions, and I don't understand as anybody can think the efforts of Tony and other game supporters are in vain. The game engine even has been expanded and adapted in the last recent years to things for which it was not foreseen to use it initially, as surfaced submarines or air-to-air guns. It's very difficult for me understand those critics as bona fide critics.

I can see merit in adding the J-20 to the HCDB as a hypothetical platform for fun of play and as appeal for new players, as in the T-50 PAK FA case. But if we include too many hypothetical platform and with the limited number of loadouts and platform entries, we known the result can be almost disastrous. Another answer can be introduce the J-20 in the DB, and if later it not attain production status, replace it with another equivalent/replacement future Chinese fighter. Scenarios produced with the future J-20, if not reach production status, should be played with the J-20 hypothetical future sustitutive in the DB and in the real world.

Thanks Wombat, your pictures are a very good complement for the Okieboat site. When I was very young the Talos missile was the maximum expression of technology and of the things to come, now, Talos and his launching ships are as oldtimer as steam engines

Yes, and also a guided bomb (or a dumb bomb) can be intercepted by a missile. But with the presente game engine, if we modeled a JDAM as bomb, his impact is automatic, and it's not interceptable by the defences (remember a British dumb bomb intercepted in the South Atlantic War by an Argentine Crotale). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_(missile)#cite_note-13

Don't miss it ! Some hours of in-deep and good reading. Very well researched, detailed and illustrated web site, browse about the ship and about the Talos missile: http://www.okieboat.com/ http://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20history.html The author, Phillip R. Hays PhD LT USNR-R, was a Nuclear/Special Weapons Officer on the USS Oklahoma City (CLG-5) from January, 1970, to April, 1972, as related in http://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20antiradiation%20shot.html

And don't miss NORAD's Santa http://www.noradsanta.org/

It's easy, select the base and go to the menu "change group position". They are also generic bases and airports in the DBs. And I remember in the Americas DB are a lot of South Atlantic DB, both of UK and Argentina.

Sealeak or obvious errour ? In http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11173266 is stated: 3.000 nm ? Or perhaps 300 nm and the sonar is ten Convergence Zones capable ? But from some time ago I think the real ranges of some sonar systems (Western types) are of a very long range from the 1960s. I think the capability was here, the problem was processing the confusing signals finded in a very long range. Some opinions about it ?

Very sad, the Harrier's homeland without Harriers In this month's Air International No 1(F) Squadron to be disbanded in 21 January 2011, the first and the last British squadron Harrier equipped.

That's a life, and not our ordinary lifes

Ok, I will try to put it in other more clear text.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question, but I see the problem from other viewpoint. For me, as in real outcomes of battles, it can be inconclusive, a draw, or an overhelming victory (with a lot of gradations, of course). Now in the game, with the presente victory conditions at our service, we could do apparently the same combinations: 1. None of the players obtain none level of Victory: as now, the game is a draw, neither side realizes a clear and decisive play (as example, sunk or shoot down a irrelevant number of enemy units) 2. One of the players obtain MinVic conditions: the game is a lesser victory, as in the real life (as example, sunk a main enemy ship, but of secondary value as target or in relation with the aims of the mission). Ever if the other player obtain after a TotalVic condition, the game is a a win for the first player (as example, the first player had obtain a MinVic sunking a enemy DD, but after the second player sunk a CV, specified as TotalVic, and with this succession of facts, the victory remains in the first player at the end of the game ) 3. One of the players obtain TotalVic condictions: the game is a total victory, as in real life (as example, sunk a main enemy ship, as a carrier, and that was the aim of the mission). But it's only if the other side has not obtain MinVic previously, as in the aforementionated example, for me that's an absurd outcome, and very usual in many scenarios. And for me clearly 2 and 3 are independent and different targets, is very usual as outcome a side fulfill 2 and the other 3, and it's not must to fulfill 2 for after fulfill 3. it can seem more entertaining to have to fulfill first the MinVic and after the TotalVic, but I see it unrealistic and of near impossible dificulty in a lot of cases. And now the draft of my idea. I suggest other "algorithm" or sucession of possible victory condition events, if the code permits it, and in my oppinion can do the game more interesting from the start to end, because no player will be sure of having obtained a definitive victory, since it will always have that it is attentive to that other does not go so far as to fulfill any of his conditions of victory, and multiply the number of outcomes: 1.None of the players obtain none level of Victory: as now, the game is a draw, neither side realizes a clear and decisive play. 2. One of the players obtain MinVic conditions and the other none: if the game concludes is a lesser victory, as in the real life (as example, sunk a main enemy ship, but of secondary value as target or in relation with the aims of the mission). 3. After fulfilled 2 (or ever simultaneous) the other player also obtains MinVic conditions: the game for me can be a draw at his end, if the victory condition is not time-sensitive, if not specified otherwise and both sides had similar or identical victory conditions. 4. One side (or both sides, simultaneous or not) had obtain MinVic conditions (i.e., fulfilled 2 or 3), but after one side (fulfilled previously MinVic condition or not) obtains TotalVic conditions, the game is a victory for this side (if the first side don't obtains another victory condiciont (as in the previous and very easy example, at this moment in the game, if the first side obtain a minor victory fulfilling a MinVic condition, as sinking a DD, and the second side fulfills a TotalVic condition, as sinking a CV, the first side ever win , with this alteration, the victory comes to the second player, as he a fulfilled a TotalVic condition after the first player a fulfilled early only a MinVic condition). 5. One of the players obtain TotalVic condictions, and the other none, or only MinVic conditions (it's fulfilled earlier 2, 3 or 4): the game is a total victory for this, as now in the game and as in real life. 6. After (or ever simultaneous, or ever after fulfilled in game the previous victory condition 2, 3, 4 or 5) the other player obtains also TotalVic conditions: the game for me can be also a draw at his end, if the victory condition is not time-sensitive, if not specified otherwise and both sides had similar or identical victory conditions (as example, the outcome of Midway, a lot of carriers sunked in both sides, the strategic implications is another issue, but it can be depicted specifying different number of carriers sunks for each side as victory conditions). Well, I see it can seem a little confuse, but the basic idea is very simple, and I think it's factible with the same structure of the victory conditions we have now ...

Hi Don, I'don read yesterday your post the test scenario was one of the test scenarios for fighters and dumb air-to-air rockets in the Korean Peninsula you have. Those with Tu-4 and Il-28 and assorted Soviet fighters coming from the north to annihalate the only blue base in the South. The latest iteration was that for testing the Genies. I don't remember very well the concrete scenario, all are basically the same with the same victory conditions, one write over the previous, but on it is based the "F-94C in Korea" scenario of http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=555 Now, returning to my research for "true" MiG-21, diverted yesterday when I finded info about Soviet nukes ...