broncepulido

Missing link (true?): http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Dozens-of-Russian-generals-in-Syria-killed-after-a-car-bomb-hits-their-military-base-445975

"Dozens of Russian Generales" killed in car bomb attack near Latakia:

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/israeli-drone-feeds-hacked-by-british-and-american-intelligence/

And

#47342 HELRAS DS-100 is at least two convergence zone capable: http://www.l-3mps.com/oceansystems/helras_ds-100.aspx And very probably also #47300 AQS-22 FLASH/ALFS: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/content/mh-60r-fleet-introduction-ceremony-alfs-outstanding-performances-rewarded-us-navy http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/alfs/

Observe Level 3-100% and Level 2-75% coincides with the damage of ordinary warships the first and amphibious the second. As consequence, not major alterations in true warships combat.

One of my motivations was to do the system capable to sunk merchant ships with surfaced submarine guns (I need to retrieve historical data on it, perhaps this summer. i.e. how many gun shell were used by surfaced submarines in WWI and WWII to sink a merchant, and perhaps Q-ships. Also I want to revise battles of auxiliry cruisers, as that between Carmania and Cap Trafalgar).

Reading this very interesting USNI article, I was thinking in something similar to this for a new damage point calculation based in the named "Navy’s Survivability Instruction 9070.1A are taken into account in designing U.S. Navy surface ships to three survivability standards", affecting mostly auxiliary and low-value ships (analogy can be applied to other navies/ships), as for me many civilian/merchant ships (also in other time periods) receive too many damage/hit points: Level 3: CVN, CG, DDG (and decommisioned BB, CV, CVN, CG/CGN, DD/DDG, FF/FFG?). I think this Level 3 can keep 100% hit points derived from her standard displacement, as usual (previously to construction type and build year considerations: aluminium, wood, etc.). Level "2.5": LPD-17 San Antonio-class. I think this Level "2.5" can keep 75% hit points, as usual (previously to construction type considerations: aluminium, wood, etc.), as has a dock well, but is apparently stronger than other LPDs. Level 2: Some underway replenishment ships and rest of amphibious (LHD-1 Wasp-class, LHA-6 America-class, LSD-41 Whidbey Island-class and LSD-49 Harper's Ferry-class). I think this Level 2 can keep 75% hit points, as usual (previously to construction type and build year considerations: aluminium, wood, etc.), except those classes with aft dock well, probably reduced to 62,5% hit points. Level 1: LCS, others underway replenishment ships, mine warfare ships, patrol crafts and support ships/ancilliaries. I think this Level 1 should receive only 50% hit points of those derived from her standard displacement (previously to construction type and build year considerations: aluminium, wood, etc.). Level "0": navy vessels build to mercantile standards. I think this Level "0" should receive only 25% hit points of those derived from her standard displacement (previously to construction type and build year considerations: aluminium, wood, etc.). Level "-1": pure civilian/merchant ships. I think this Level "-1" should receive only 12.5% hit points of those derived from her standard displacement (previously to construction type and build year considerations: aluminium, wood, etc.). Source: http://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/essay-when-in-comes-to-ship-survivability-prayer-isnt-enough

#Montford Point ESD (ex-MLP) class should be a two-ships only class. USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-ESB-3) and Hershel "Woody" Williams (T-ESB-4) are more aviation-oriented ships capable of 4xCH-53: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Lewis_B._Puller_(T-ESB-3)

First Atlantic crossing by an Italian-built F-35A: http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/05/f-35-makes-first-transatlantic-crossing/79901306/

Japan doubles the number of F-15J based at Naha, Okinawa, to some 40 planes, near disputed Senkaku islands: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/31/national/japan-doubles-number-f-15s-okinawa-amid-senkaku-incursions-china/#.VrXZevnhDIU

I like it very much, but I did not exhaustive test on it.

Modifications 1 February 2016: SPOILER ALERT Added up to 6xSu-35S, as reported in the news, detached from the 23rd fighter aircraft regiment of the 303rd guard combined aviation division of the 11th Air Force and Air Defense Army of the Eastern Military district, stationed atthe Privolzhsky airfield in Astrakhan. Sources: http://theaviationist.com/2016/02/01/russia-deployed-su-35-to-syria/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRG7MFslas&index=1&list=LLY2OGGi7xhwHQ2CmNo9O-Pg

Probably up to 6xSu-35S deployed in Latakia from late January 2016 (reported bort numbers 01 and 02): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRG7MFslas&index=1&list=LLY2OGGi7xhwHQ2CmNo9O-Pg

Probably up to 6xSu-35S deployed in Latakia from late January 2016 (reported bort numbers 01 and 02): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRG7MFslas&index=1&list=LLY2OGGi7xhwHQ2CmNo9O-Pg

Speculations in Mer et Marine about if the Super Etendard, after his retirement in late 2016, could be transferred to Argentine (I doubt it very much, because budgetary and political questions): http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/une-seconde-vie-en-argentine-pour-les-sem-de-laeronautique-navale

NATO AGS Global Hawk (IOC 2017): Five UAVs to be based in Sigonella, Sicily. Based in RQ-4B Block 40. Equipped with "Northrop-Raytheon “MP-RTIP” sensor for ground-looking synthetic aperture radar imaging and ground-moving target indication (GMTI), the unmanned air vehicle offers similar capabilities to the Northrop E-8C “JSTARS" we can assume a radar similar to APY-7. This UAV can be allocated in the #10930 RQ-4E Euro Hawk, cancelled in 2013. Sources: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/natos-new-ags-global-hawk-achieves-first-flight-420228/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Ground_Surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-76#AN.2FAPY-3 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Jumped-up-JSTARS-MP-RTIP-Technology-for-Ground-Surveillance-Planes-05156/

Type 23 Duke-class frigate and Type 23 CUP Duke-class frigate. Apparently all were updated to a similar CUP configuration, the last in 2012, but the five older ,HMS Montrose, Monmouth, Iron Duke, Lancaster and Argyll are not scheduled to receive Sonar 2087 to replace Sonar 2031, and can form a separate entry. In consequence: #2206 Type 23 Duke (1989-2013): Norfolk: decommissioned 2005, to Chile. Grafton: decommissioned 2006, to Chile. Marlborough: decommissioned 2006, to Chile. Northumberland: CUP conversion 7/2004-7/2005. Richmond: CUP conversion 6?/2005-10/2006. Iron Duke: CUP conversion 2007-3/2008, no Sonar 2087. Somerset: CUP conversion 2007?-2009?. Monmouth: CUP conversion 2008?-2009?, no Sonar 2087. Sutherland: CUP conversion 2008?-2009?. Montrose: CUP conversion 11/2008-2/2010, no Sonar 2087. Westminster: CUP conversion 2009?-2011?. Argyll: CUP conversion 10/2010-3/2011, no Sonar 2087. Lancaster: CUP conversion 9/2010-3?/2013, no Sonar 2087. Portland: CUP conversion 1?/2012-4/2013. Kent: CUP conversion 12/2010-6/2013. St. Albans: CUP conversion 5/2013-5/2014. #2972 Type 23 CUP (2005+): Northumberland: CUP conversion 7/2005+. Richmond: CUP conversion 10/2006+. Somerset: CUP conversion 2009?+. Sutherland: CUP conversion 2009?+. Westminster: CUP conversion 2011?+. Portland: CUP conversion 4/2013+. Kent: CUP conversion 6/2013+. St. Albans: CUP conversion 5/2014+. Possible new ship entry, Type 23 CUP without Sonar 2087 (2008+): Iron Duke: CUP conversion 3/2008+. Monmouth: CUP conversion 2009?+. Montrose: CUP conversion 2/2010+. Argyll: CUP conversion 3/2011+. Lancaster: CUP conversion 3?/2013+. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate#Sonar_2087 The conversion dates come from individual ship stories in Wikipedia and other sources, and can be controversial and incomplete. Jane's 2009-2010. Also, Radar 997 Artisan 3D is replacing Radar 996 (AWS-9) from 2013 in both sub-classes, first ship was Iron Duke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate#Artisan_3D_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_997_Artisan_3D Also #2206 Type 23 Duke (1989-2013) is classified as FF sub type and #2972 Type 23 CUP (2005+) is classified as FFG sub type, but both have the same basic weapons (Sea Wolf and Harpoon), and I think the difference FF/FFG can cause some errours in the victory conditions in some cases.

Great article, thanks for sharing.

Perhaps something of interest here (I'm not sure if 100% lawful): http://www.libramar.net/

Strange article and conclusion.

Spoiler alert. Considerations about USN SAGs doctrine change: How I suspected and reflected in these two historical scenarios, the US destroyers were operating for years alone and vulnerable, as confirmed in this USNI new report, but the procedure will be changed, and in near term we should count with three destroyers surface action groups: http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-01/we-are-headed-right-direction Historical scenario featuring USS Ross (DDG 71) operating alone: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/904-new-battle-of-sinop-23-december-2015-alternate-history-scenario/ Historical scenario featuring USS Farragut (DDG 99) operating alone: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/873-the-maersk-tigris-incident-28-april-2015-alternate-history-scenario/

Spoiler alert. Considerations about USN SAGs doctrine change: How I suspected and reflected in these two historical scenarios, the US destroyers were operating for years alone and vulnerable, as confirmed in this USNI new report, but the procedure will be changed, and in near term we should count with three destroyers surface action groups: http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-01/we-are-headed-right-direction Historical scenario featuring USS Ross (DDG 71) operating alone: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/904-new-battle-of-sinop-23-december-2015-alternate-history-scenario/ Historical scenario featuring USS Farragut (DDG 99) operating alone: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/873-the-maersk-tigris-incident-28-april-2015-alternate-history-scenario/

How I suspected and reflected in these two historical scenarios, the US destroyers were operating for years alone and vulnerable, as confirmed in this USNI new report, but the procedure will be changed, and in near term we should count with three destroyers surface action groups: http://news.usni.org/2016/01/13/a-year-into-distributed-lethality-navy-nears-fielding-improved-weapons-deploying-surface-action-group http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-01/we-are-headed-right-direction Historical scenario featuring USS Ross (DDG 71) operating alone: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/904-new-battle-of-sinop-23-december-2015-alternate-history-scenario/ Historical scenario featuring USS Farragut (DDG 99) operating alone: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/873-the-maersk-tigris-incident-28-april-2015-alternate-history-scenario/

Swedish and American CB 90 patrol boats, involved in the two days ago incident with Iran (but not a priority, I can´t imagine a scenario): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB90-class_fast_assault_craft