broncepulido
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by broncepulido
-
8 December 2014 modification: - At last as intended Keflavik-based 57th FIS F-15C are represented by F-15A (to prevent ahistorical use of AIM-120 AMRAAM). Was my original idea, but I lost his trail somewhere and placed erroneously F-15A/C capable to use AIM-120 AMRAAM. Very detailed data about 57th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron "The Black Knights of Keflavik" here: http://www.verslo.is/baldur/Blackknigths.htm - Replaced absurd MIG-29A SIOP loadouts and patrols with correct Intercept loadouts and patrols. - Also added one almost irrelevant waypoint to Soviet surface group YNR to reduce risk to go aground.
-
7 December 2014 modification: - Added missing Formation Air Patrols in Valkenburg and Nordholz. - Added some few missing Soviet aircrafts in Kaliningrad (some one sixth of the VMF and PVO-Strany fast jet types historically based at Kaliningrad in the time period).
-
A big scenario started some years ago. Only now can I finish it, with the new memory capabilities of Harpoon HCE/HUCE.
-
File Name: Harpoon 3 Battles of the Third World War, May 1991. File Submitter: broncepulido File Submitted: 05 Dec 2014 File Category: GIUK Harpoon 3 Battles of the Third World War, May 1991. A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for the EC2003 Battle for GIUK Gap Battleset and the HCDB-140909 1980-2015 era Platform Database. Image: Soviet CVH Baku circa 1988. US Navy photo, from Wikipedia Commons. This scenario is designed to be played from the Blue/Allied side or from the Red/Soviet side. You should play a few times first the Blue side to avoid spoilers, and only later play the Red side. A North Atlantic-GIUK scenario inspired by some old scenario booklets of the Harpoon 3 series of the late 1980s edited by GDW, good for testing generic tactics and weapons. Actually is a mix-up of individual sea-operations centred scenarios as only the Computer Harpoon can provide. And reflecting all the knowledge acquired the last years in some matters, as about Soviet/Russian platforms, OOBs and Soviet/Russian carrier air wings composition. The scenario is settled at the start of the conventional WWIII as was forecasted in the North Atlantic for about May 1991 in some of the GDW edited booklets, the opening movements and contacts, and the first days of open combat. Enrique Mas, 5 December 2014. Click here to download this file
-
Harpoon 3 Battles of the Third World War, May 1991. A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for the EC2003 Battle for GIUK Gap Battleset and the HCDB-140909 1980-2015 era Platform Database. Image: Soviet CVH Baku circa 1988. US Navy photo, from Wikipedia Commons. This scenario is designed to be played from the Blue/Allied side or from the Red/Soviet side. You should play a few times first the Blue side to avoid spoilers, and only later play the Red side. A North Atlantic-GIUK scenario inspired by some old scenario booklets of the Harpoon 3 series of the late 1980s edited by GDW, good for testing generic tactics and weapons. Actually is a mix-up of individual sea-operations centred scenarios as only the Computer Harpoon can provide. And reflecting all the knowledge acquired the last years in some matters, as about Soviet/Russian platforms, OOBs and Soviet/Russian carrier air wings composition. The scenario is settled at the start of the conventional WWIII as was forecasted in the North Atlantic for about May 1991 in some of the GDW edited booklets, the opening movements and contacts, and the first days of open combat. Enrique Mas, 5 December 2014. -
Installation 52309 and 52310 Wattisham (to 1992 RAF Wattisham) should change his Longitude from West 0 57,2 to East 0 57,2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wattisham_Airfield
-
More about the evolution of Bloodhound Mk II missile sites and deployment: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/w/wattisham/index.html At the very interesting Subterránea Britannica web site (not only UK sub sites, also matter as Soviet underground secret facilities): http://www.subbrit.org.uk/
-
A deployment map on a very interesting site: http://www.anti-aircraft.co.uk/Bloodhound_map.html
-
Modifications 25 November 2014: At Brad's sugestion, generic Tug (ocean going) (her previous identity as MB-93 was only my informed guess) replaced by historical present Foty Krylov. At Russian Ships Info: http://www.russian-ships.info/eng/rescue/project_5757.htm About her historical presence in the operation: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/russian-warships-heading-for-australia-as-putin-prepares-to-attend-brisbane-g20-summit-9855308.html Also light modification in Red Victory conditions, now Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre counts in the victory conditions as "Base", and not as "Armour" (In the first scenario sketch I employed another type of target to represent it, a bunker perhaps, but then it failed to be showed in the map, when is clearly a known and fixed place. I did replace it by a "Large Building" (classified as "Base" and not as "Armoured") to keep it present all time on the map,but I didn't change it on the Victory Conditions).
-
Yeah, from years on my personal DB SSQ-77 is CZ capable=1, but I don't see any clear difference. But I don't understad clearly how and when CZ is implemented in Harpoon HCE/HUCE, and I also think it's because I keep the SSQ-77 range in 1.7, and as only from above that range value CZ is clear and usually showed in the GE, I don't get any consistent result on his use.
-
I saw a few years ago (and because a comment in the CMANO forum I recall it now) SSQ-77C (as passive omnidirectional sonobuoy) is stated on the manufacturer PDF as "convergence zone receive beam" capable. And probably should be more CZ capable sonobuoys. I think we should implement that capability on SSQ-77 and probably other sonobuoys. I see also VLAD states for Vertical-line Array DIFAR (a pity, it's not Vlad Tepes related! [ ] ) (I think also that capability should be one of the USSR demise causes, showing the Soviets the futility of his submarine force). Thoughts? http://traktoria.org/files/sonar/sonobuoy/AN_SSQ-77C_VLAD_Sonobuoy.pdf
-
As it: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-12/Archangel-2ndEdition-2Feb12.pdf
-
-
Entry 6414 Swedish Neptun-class submarine has not any sensor. No references in Jane's 1953 or Conway's 1923-1946 about her sonar. Perhaps we should use active and passive generic sonars.
-
One piece more.
-
Sharing it. Thanks.
-
Audio-Reading this crime fiction book "The Troubled Man" by Swedish author Henning Mankell, featuring police inspector Kurt Wallander (I don't like crime fiction/noir, literature neither movies/series, too many close to real thing on my job and usually too much unreal and not life-like), but this book has submarine/naval element centred on the Swedish Submarine Incidents, and is at least palatable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubled_Man
-
As predicted on the modified scenario script 9 hours ago, Putin quits prematurely the Brisbane Summit (Has played decoy actually, the missiles will come the next hours??? hahahaha): http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/putin-to-quit-g20-summit/1474724.html
-
Yeah, is another view, not bad either.
-
Thanks Tony. Of the little table data, four hours sembles a middle value for (mostly) passive sonobuoys. Active sonobouys apparently, because more energy expenditure radiating echo sounds, last less time, between 0,5 or 1 hours, but in some probably the passive element persist useful more time (also remember the sonobouys type Julie, not strictly active sonobouys, they are advanced passive sonobuoys type Jezebel, but not only passive, they are also programmed to analyze the echo provoked by echo generating explosive charges also dropped in the wáter by ASW aircrafts or helicopters). If we can only choose one value, I vote for four hours persistence. About the 768 number of sonobouys limit, clearly remove it, but it's not a priority because also I think very few scenarios are running with more than 768 SB deployed at once.
-
First time I check the sonobuoys persistence time, it's one hour only for all types, not too bad. I supposed this time is fixed and determined by the Game Engine, and we can only change this value for all the sonobuoys, and not fix a time for each time of sonobuoy, also not too bad. Is not a priority, but I think we should change this time persistence value to a longer and more realistict value, perhaps four hours persistence time (if two times are possible , perhaps 4 hours for passive sonobuoys and 30 minutes for active sonobuoys). As consequence, ASW and submarine tactics will be probably altered. Here some sonobuoys persistence times (from data on my personal tables, compilated for years from many open sources): SSQ-2 (1951), 1.5 hours. SSQ-38 Jezebel/LOFAR (1964), 72 hours (probably a reference to waiting time on the water, inactive or sleeping). SSQ-47/947/522/HQS-31 (1968), 30 minutes (is active, because that his short persistence). SSQ-53/B DIFAR (1969), selectable for 1, 3 or 8 hours. SSQ-53D, selectable for 0.5, 1,2,4 or 8 hours. SSQ-53F (2010?), selectable for 0.5, 1,2,4 or 8 hours. SSQ-57 (1972?), LOFAR selectable for 1, 3 or 8 hours. SSQ-58, 100 hours, surveillance, moored, for detect small crafts and scuba divers. SSQ-75, 3 hours passive. Greater than A-size. Cancelled FY93. SSQ-77C VLAD, 0.5, 1, 2, 4 or 8 hours. Convergenze Zone capable. SSQ-79 SVLA, 4-8 hours, not produced. SSQ-981 BARRA, selectable for 1, 2, 3 or 4 hours. SSQ-904 Mini-Jezebel LOFAR (1980), 1 to 8 hours. SSQ-906 Jezebel (1988), 1 to 6 hours. SSQ-907, 1 to 6 hours. SSQ-954 (1985), 1 to 6 hours. SSQ-954B DIFAR (1988), 1 to 6 hours. DSTV4(TSM 8010)(1970), 1 to 8 hours. TSM 8040 (1986), 30 minutes. TSM 8050 (1989), 30 minutes. TSM 8062 (1992?), 1 to 8 hours. RGB-1/A(BM-1?)(1967?), 3 hours. RGB-2 (1976), 3 hours. RGB-3, 2 hours, unreliable. RGB-15 Julie (1979?), 2 hours. RGB-25 (1979?), 40 minutes. RGB-55 (1979?), 1 hour. RGB-48 DIFAR (2006?), 24 hours. RBM-81, 6 hours (has MAD sensor, not Sonar). RGB-N Iva (employed 1955 to 1975?), 8 hours. RGB-56-NM(RGB-64-N?)(1956), battery for 4-5 days but sunks at 24 hours. Tadpole (2000), 8 hours (is an Indian type sonobuoy).
-
Researching about the Brisbane G-20 Summit 2014 I found the MU-90 are not implemented and will not in Australian AP-3C and SH-60B, they will keep the use of Mk46 Mod5 to end of operational life. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MU90_Impact#Exports http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2012-2013/Remediation-of-the-Lightweight-Torpedo-Replacement-Project/Audit-summary
-
File modifications 15 November 2014: - Light text changes: Putin will attend the Summit, but will he lure the other world leaders on the cage? - Light changes in the ship formations, reducing range circles (more about sonabuoys use in other post). - MH-60R replaced by SH-60B-2. The Australian MH-60R will be in service only from 2015 (also discovered Australian SH-60B-2 and AP-3C are not and will not equipped with MU-90, they keep the old Mk46 Mod5. See separate post on the HCDB section forum). - Added HMAS Sirius and HMAS Sydney to the Australian forces, as reported here: http://www.news.com.au/national/third-australian-warship-sent-to-halt-russian-flotilla-bound-for-g20-in-brisbane/story-fncynjr2-1227122396768
-
Yeah,I agreed. Thanks, Brad.
-
Oh, and as deducted on the scenario, the today news reports say the AP-3C Orion are as predicted on the scenario provisionally deployed to Amberley!
