broncepulido

Yes, but my concern is for some allied forces, from Norway to Australia, F-35 will be the only type of combat aircraft, and if the situation comes, F-35 will be used as dogfighter .... at least to defend itself (the same fear sometimes mentioned in these fora about the operational use of LCS as FF or DD, as real fighting ships) And I think is a common fault of contemporary fighter design, I remember now also a conversation with a senior spanish Typhoon pilot the past september 2009 in a defense congress in Jaca, I supposed he don't want to say me Typhoon is a lemon, but, the smile frozed in his lips when I quest him directly after some drinks and some innocent aeronautical questions "Typhoon flies as bad as it sembles?", and his answer, hesitant and almost babbling, was "no, no, .... and we are improving her flying performances very much with the past of the time".

The expression remembers me from the previously mentionated article http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html this disturbing paragraph:

Not of serious historical or military interest, but I think the series and film Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea is worth of mention (when it was running on TV I was some 7 years old, and my parents have not TV, I'm downloading it now), at least for fans of Science Fiction as we are great part of us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the...Sea_(TV_series) And I forgetted a very curious 1959 film in the first list, The Atomic Submarine, because I've recorded it from other source, more SF than military theme, and relationated someways with Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atomic_Submarine

The Wing of the Eagles (1957) (Escrito bajo el Sol was the release title in Spain ) More or less about the genesis of naval aviation and carrier's theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wings_of_Eagles I don't like very much Midway, neither the final Banshee deck-crash (Are carrier films Galactica or Wing Commander ? )

For years playing computer Harpoon, and I had never think about that simple solution, it can reproduce also the present situation, CV or CVH Battle Groups without organic ASW planes, teorically protected by land based ASW planes, as P-3, Nimrod or Atlantic. Thanks Don.

I think Steve question can be about dipping sonar, not sonobuoys. When the helo is stationary, the dipping sonar deploys automatically.

Perusing near 4.900 warplanes books to edit warplanes in the diverse DBs (more of 41 GB), and also some old paper books My habitual reading are not military relationed (but some are defence, international politics or security relationed), and this year I've a lot of work in my real life. Habitually, in military topics books I only read the data or facts I'm searching, looking over casually the rest of the text. I'm very little spare time this year, to force myself to read something, I bring some paper books ever with me and I stay "al fresco" in some "terraza" in some bars (with mojito, beer or gin-tonic, and cigar). And this is a very cold winter, too. At home, almost only reading on PC. Now I'm ashamed because I'm reading Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol" (a not very good nor original book of course, but I want to know what the people are writing about these old topics). But little disposable time compelled me to not actually reading it I'm double ashamed because it, but I'm hearing it as audiobook (in Spanish) in the PC (Harpooning in the PC, watching TV, mostly History Channel, and surfing the Net) And, surprise, today I discover "The Lost Symbol" is defence relationated The research premises mentionated in the book are similar to the mentionated in these articles: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/da...uantum-effects/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/05/lockheeds-spook/ And no, don't ask me for more details, I don't understand it very well ... yet

Interesting game results. I think that's we are looking for in simulation games, and also some historical depth, historical/military/technological research, and an occuped brain ... After the Falklands/Malvinas was increased the interest in modern period wargame, then came Light Division and Gulf Strike (tokens with group of planes and group of warships), and after the # Fleet series (In this last series, tokens with group of planes and INDIVIDUAL ships. I was fascinated in both games series with the planes/warships tokes, I analyze the tokens and I've created a full range of warplanes and warships in the same game scale in scrap cardboard, and constated the inherent gamescale limitations, and the advantages of the basic play systems), and yes,also the card game "Modern Naval Warfare", they were Old Testament games. After that came HARPOON, Harpoon was the New Testament. Now we're living the times of PC games, but Computer Harpoon variants are not the Apocryphal Evangelies, they're the Second Coming, the Kingdom of the Heaven in the Earth (yes, I know a certain Lord Fisher wrote something similar a lot of years ago about OBBs, BBs, BCs and BCLs, but it's the same general idea). Incidentally, I see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fisher,_1st_Baron_Fisher worth a reading.

Great news. Retaining my old PCs meanwhile ....

ufff, I see it's an impossible task to embed a table in the forum. Some explanations: Well, the left value is the ROF number, the field called in the DB editor "Bursts per turn". It's not a directly applicable value. The center value is the number of "shots per minute" of the mount, per barrel (i.e. a twin barrelled mount shots two time X per minute). The right value is the number of seconds between shots of the mount. I hope these values will be of some valour ...

From my notes and tables about ordinary surface vs surface gunnery (after patch #24), with the game running with time compression = none (i.e. 1 second playing time = 1 second real time): ROF number in DB (field called "Burst per turn" in the DB, but not a directly applicable valour) Shots per minute = A shot every # seconds 0 1 60 1 1 60 2 1 60 3 1.5 40 4 2 30 5 2.5 24 6 3 20 7 3.5 17 8 4 15 9 4.6 13 10 5 12 11 6 10 12 6 10 13 6.66 9 14 7.5 8 15 7.5 8 16 8.5 7 17 8.5 7 18 10 6 19 10 6 20 10 6 21 not tested not tested 22 12 5 23 12 5 24 12 5 25 15 4 26 not tested not tested 27 not tested not tested 28 not tested not tested 29 not tested not tested 30 15 4 31-33 not tested not tested 34 20 3 35 20 3 36-39 20 (not tested) 3 (not tested) 40 20 3 41 not tested not tested 42 30 2 43-59 30 (not tested) 2 (not tested) 60 30 2 61-124 not tested not tested 125 60 1 126-254 60 (not tested) 1 (not tested) 255 60 1

I admite the limitations of the "modern oriented" game engine (guns, armor, communications and formations, basically), but I enjoy HCE more than other accuratte simulations because his "moddable" platforms and operative play. And the level of abstraction of the platforms makes accesible to everybody design or modify historical platforms or scenarios (and the construction of hypotetical campaings or platforms, with a lot of amusing research guaranteed )

May be a reason the Harpoon is flying at Very Low and the low height engagement limit of Mk 45 is Low ?

Clearly yes, but in a spanish newspaper I've read about it "anti-missile destroyers",

In the magazine "Marines & Forces Navales", october-november 2009, in an article about the Iranian Navy, a very short description of Jamaran says is a reversed engineering Vosper/Saam FF, 1420 tons, 76mm Oto-Melara alike, 4x20mm guns, 4xC-802 antiship missiles, diesel propulsion, 28-30 knots (the original Vosper/Saam was gas turbine equipped, with 40 knots top speed), and no traces of the second unit in the class.

iam afraid your'e right,ill just have to change tactic's. i wont use frigates with only point defense missiles as shotgun escorts anymore (hugging a high value target with a escort ship carrying only essm's) I think that's as in the real world, CGs and DDGs escorting CVs, not FFG or DD escorting CVs

Thanks ! For years thinking about those odd placement of "carrier capable" flags

I known many people don't like Kopp and associates' analysis, but I see is an interesting and up-to-date article. Also with some clean photos, I can count, I think, 4xWeapon Bays in the underfuselage, perhaps for 8xAA-12/KTRV RVV-SD, two in tandem in each bay. Incidentally, in the DB the 30mm gun allocated to PAK-FA is (I think is a mishap) the Su-25 gun, not the Su-27/30 gun.

From my notes, I suppose have read it in an Air Forces Monthly issue (2009), the Naval Strike Wing for HMS Ark Royal in strike mission is: 16 x Harrier GR7/9 4 x Sea King ASaC7 2 x EH-101

Now we're living in a very changing and multipolar world, indeed (something similar to pre-WWI ?). In short, a Chinese/Brazilian accord to train chinese naval pilots in the Brazilian CV Sao Paulo, previously to the delivery to the chinese navy of the CV ex-Varyag. In correspondence, Brazil obtains (at least) the Chinese support to obtain a permanent membership in the UN Security Council: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=112412

I think a contemporary submarine is a very complex machine, and for mantain a efficent force we need a very specialized, motivated and professionally qualified crew and supporting military organization and industry, and without a clear and present menace, we're falling the guard (remember also UK, next to a situation without maritime patrol/ASW planes) 50 years ago very few countries have submarine force. In our times, a lot of countries are trying to stablise credible submarine forces, sometimes for prestige, sometimes as menace to a potentially stronger agresor (remember 1982, the attention payed by Royal Navy to a dubious operative Argentine sub) but without clear success. Traditionally first line countries, as USA, UK, Germany or France (we can remember, between other issues: welding in US Subs, reactor issues in UK subs, hull issues in German and French subs, fire control problems in UK and German (at least export subs, remember 1982) have experienced great problems in submarines construction and maintenance, we can't expect more of newbies. The SS Collins is based in Swedish technology (and the Swedish submarine construction is very experienced and with prestige), and they're some 10 years of irresoluble fire control issues, the same for the UK/Canadian Upholder/Victoria. I think is a reflect of a very poor training and maintenance organization, same in previous post about the US subs welding/maximum depth issue. My grand-father was submariner, but I think in 1929 the things were a lot easier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_submarine_C-3 Reflect of the Malaysian Scorpene (of French/Spanish design and building) topic in MerEtMarine, called "minor technical issues": http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=112419

Thanks, but I see computer science is yet a bit too deep for me ....

It's mean we must mantain a 16 bit computer and after export the scenarios to a new 64-bit computer, or in due time we can enjoy a 64-bit scenario editor ?

A possible future hypersonic strike weapon: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...10/02/04/02.xml

Nice photos, thanks for sharing. The Gettysburg photos remember me about other lifes, other worlds and other battles, beyond Harpoon ...