broncepulido

I think RWR and ESM are instruments of very different sensibility, I suppose very old RWR, like the RWR of MiG-17 and MiG-19, can't detect modern radars, and I suppose they're a broad variety of capabities of detection in RWR and ESM. Another example, the Indian Il-38, modernized with a big (and failed) ESM complex about the cockpit, replacing old ESM, and almost rejected (the new ESM system) by the indians. If the new ESM are very deficient, how deficient is the old ESM ? I think is good thing in the new data annex the suppresion of ESM capabilities in most of the aircrafts.

I think we never will know the actual name of russian equipment. I remember in the SALT-II talks, the soviets designate the soviet warplanes with the NATO names, for sake of no reveal the real names. Another question is the connaisance of the confuse GRAU numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRAU And in WWII, the names applied by the germans to soviet equipment was more complete and rationale than the russian names !!

LANTIRN provides the aircraft with terrain following (not terrain avoidance) capability. For me, an aircraft with FLIR haves not "per se" NOE capability, no difference for the pilot between visual flight with Mk I eyeball and visual flight with FLIR, the same speed, the same manual control, the same probability of navigational error and crash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANTIRN I think some years after implementation, LANTIRN navigation and TF pod is discontinuated, modern AESA and PESA radars, like RB2E, APG-77, APG-79, APG-80 ABR, APG-81, have real and simultaneous search and TF capability,without additional antennas or radars (Tornado, F-111, A-6, Su-24 Fencer-D are among the first few aircraft with real TF capability, and they've separate radars and antennas for the TF radar and for the (bigger) search and tracking radar. Terrain following radar contours the ground obstacles, links the aircraft to one predeterminated height over the ground. Terrain avoidance radar only climb the aircraft when it find a ground obstacle, requires manual input to return to NOE flight. One of the first planes with Terrain Avoidance radar was the old faithfull F-105D).

I think is a representation of the "embedding" of the ship in the sea, radar must discriminate between the ship signal and the clutter effect of wawes and the continuos of the sea surface. The aircraft, on opposite, is a clear target flying, without entouring elements with clutter effect.

In the wikipedia, OOB of the Greek Air Force, including inventary of missiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Air_...e#Modernization

I think we need an indication of the year/version we're owning/playing. We're playing Harpoon for 20 years, and we'll playing Harpoon for the next 20 years, at least. The last years, there're a lot of confussion about the versions in Harpoon Classic (I don't like and don't play Harpoon II/ANW variants, and they're another lot of confuse/incompatible variants), and I don't want that confussion the next 20 years !! In my PC, I solve the problem with carpet files denominated "Harpoon CE" (for Commander's Edition), or "Harpoon Classic", for the old version. We must keep it very simple, I think. For me, is enough something like "HC 2009", and we can add something as paper rules 4.1, as in "HC 2009/PR 4.1".

The exotic XF8U-3 Crusader III: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF8U-3_Crusader_III http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f8_19.html Also, updated F-5E called as Tiger III in chilean service: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_46.html http://www.airliners.net/photo/Chile---Air...5c17d410948bc5f Also, the F-5E Tiger IV ill-fated update program: http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aircra...ted-States.html

I almost remember that game and Fifth Fleet, in some wardrobe at my parents house, I hope ... And Gulf Strike, I think the first game in the series, but more ground combat centred.

I think the change is tecnically almost impossible, or not cost effective. But the propulsion problem is about the transmission gears, not about the very compact, safe and effective nuclear reactors (not as in the UK subs ...). Two GEC Alsthom PWR Type K15 reactors in Charles de Gaulle and one in Le Triomphant: http://www.radiationworks.com/nuclearships.htm#france http://www.netmarine.net/bat/porteavi/cdg/caracter.htm http://www.netmarine.net/bat/smarins/triompha/caracter.htm And we can't forget France is a very advanced country in nuclear technology, with 59 civil nuclear plants in service, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France At last, Charles de Gaulle operative again in september 2009: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=110157

I remember pretty well the times when if you're commanding a sub with 4 torpedo tubes, you only can shot 4 torpedoes, and after you must to wait a reasonable amount of time for the next salvo of 4 torpedoes, no the full load of 24 or so torpedoes like in the current HCE .... !!!

I remember the SAM in Nanuchka I are SA-N-4, command-guided ...

I think we need a civilian generic fast superferry (see Harpoon Naval Review 2009), as new MERCHANT, similar to HSV-X1 Joint Venture, HSV-2 Swift, TSV-1X Spearhead or HMAS Jervis Bay. As example, the spanish owned superferrys Alboran, Milenium, Milenium Dos, builded after 1999. 96-98 meters long, 42 knots (loaded, I suppose), 6.346 tons gross tonnage, I suppose near 940tons standard, as HSV-2 Swift (another "98 meters"), and 14 damage points (- 50% for merchant ship, -15% for aluminium construction). Some data and ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_ferry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incat http://www.incat.com.au/ (fine site) http://www.ferry-site.dk/ferrycompany.php?...222&lang=en

Mystery unveiled: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/a...s/20090403.aspx

A old and fine site about defence and brazilian defence (in portuguese): http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/

I've read today in spanish papers a press release of Airbus Military about his "compromise" with the A400M program, but I don't see it in the official site, without new news from december 2008: http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html I only find the press release in spanish, and I think is a repetition of another of february 2009 !!! http://laatalayainformativa.wordpress.com/...cion-del-a400m/ http://www.revistaaerea.com/2009/03/30/ead...cion-del-a400m/ http://www.aviaciondigitalglobal.com/notic...p;NotDesignId=4 Reference to the february 2009 press release, the same headlines :http://www.eleconomista.es/economia/notici...grama-A400.html I think is EADS who needs the "total compromise" of the governments and purcharsers, and not the inverse thing, I also want to sell inexistent productos to candid governments

That's real globalization ! Smugling of weapons from Iran to Gaza strip via Sudan , and interdiction from Djibouti And yes, I known there're other US air units in Djibouti, but we should remember the "resident" fighter unit and his her history: http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/au_coeur_de...asse_3_11_corse Only 7 x Mirage 2000C and 3 x Mirage 2000D And some other travel and scenario edition tips about Djibouti ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Lemonier

Yes JMS, this was one of articles for my "personal" rule of

More or less, and from other sources, as "Cold War Submarines", but I'm sorry is only a informed opinion about very elusive information, I supposse I can remember some battles in WWI with data about those limitations, as the performance of the BC Lion in Dogger Bank, 2 knots over her maximum speed (The phrase in question is "В ходе испытаний мощность ЭУ ограничилась 80% от номинальной. При этом впервые в отечественном подводном флоте была достигнута длительная скорость подводного хода 28 узлов./During tests power was limited 80 % from the nominal. Thus for the first time in national underwater fleet long duration speed of an of 28 knots was reached", but I've read in other place the same data, and the comments about similar limitations for not wear the steam ducts, boilers or transmision gears). But the idea is, as aproximative values, and if we can only fix one value/proportion for our ships/subs: x time travelling at flank speed, implies after 18x time with speed limitated to "full". We can replace 18 with the value of our choice, of course.

As example, the speed of November class SSN (project 627A) is rated at 28 knots at 80% power, and 30 knots at 100% power (confusingly, the head of the series (project 627) is rated in some sources as maximum speed 30 knots and the rest of the class (project 627A) as 28 knots, but this is the explanation. The maximum speed of the project 645, a November hull with a diferent type of nuclear reactor, liquid metal cooled, is rated as 30,2 kn.). i.e. a November SSN can sail without time limits at 28 kn., and I supposse at 30 kn. at flank speed for a while (20 minutes?), after the 20', risk of overheating of the primary and secondary water circuits increases, and the risk of breakdown (rupture of the steam conducts) also increases. As an informed guess, sn the November SSN the time limit of flank speed can be stated at 20', and after this time, the sub is forced at a maximum speed of 30 kn. for 6 hours (for verification and normal maintenance of the steam conducts). I think this values can be transfered, without more complexities, to all ships with steam (turbine or alternative engine), And for me, as this is a very complex topic (very different power plants, new and olds, different types of nuclear reactor (less fiable the soviet reactors), different types of steam propulsion (turbine and alternative engines), gas turbine, diesel, electric transmisions in very old and new ships with electric/podded engines,maintenance in different navies and countries, etc...), the best answer is to implement the maximum and flank speed in the Future Harpoon as customizable values, similar to the readiness time in the aircrafts in ANW. http://submarine.id.ru/sub.php?627 Another very important topic, relationed with the implementation in the computer Harpoon of flank speed values, is the sea state effect in the maximum speed of surface ships, I remember various situations in WWI and WWII in North Sea and North Atlantic, when in surface engagements, the capital ships outspeed the DDs because the sea state, and this determinates the outcoming of the engagements. In some of my personal databases I introduce some disminutions in the maximum speed linked to the displacement, for sake of moderation, as another no real limitation in HCE is the unlimited range of the conventionally propulsed units. Also, I increase lightly the maximum speed of nuclear powered surface units, as implementation of her unlimited range and greater acceleration rates.

More data, schematic of the breakdown, and the feeling of a major damage in the propulsion system .... http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=109763

Penetration of a hollow charge ?

At least the incident not is very "hot", the chinese no use real warships neither:

About the same topic, some interesting reports with good photos: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=109568 (hangar and weapons photos, and a SEM in Afghanistan with an unusual load of assimetrical of 2x GBU-12?) http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=109569 (full of aircraft pictures). http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=109564 (short history of the french carriers).

Some type of smoke curtain previous days? the story of the "falling container" in the mid-atlantic: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=109563 The first echo of the new, dated february, 6, 2009, a day earlier than in the UK : Mocking title "La dissuasion nucléaire française doit-elle craindre les conteneurs immergés ? /Must the French nuclear dissuasion fear the submerged containers?": http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=109467

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...02&hl=cheat I don't see the cheat mode combination ....