broncepulido

And the game keeps live and realistic, thanks Grumble!!!

Very, very impressive :)

Some minor issues in the HCDB-130527 iteration: Dolphin II has a max submerged speed=2 Entry 6480 Sierra I (945/1992) lacks sensors. Entry 6482 Charlie III (686) has BaseSourceLevel=0 Entry 6483 Oscar I (949/1981) lacks sensors. Entry 6484 Typhoon (941/1981) lacks individual ship names. Entry 3988 Al Hussein Bty lacks individual battery names.

A very interesting and concise entry on Wikipedia About USAFE, full of ideas for Cold War scenarios: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Forces_in_Europe

Test scenario attached in the issue tracker: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/tracker/issue-20-has-been-deleted-the-air-to-ground-capacity-of-aircrafts-guns/

My idea is the air-to-ground option was deleted to avoid near suicide attacks (by the IA controlled player) with any plane armed with a gun against a well defended target with effective ground-to-air missiles or guns, but I'm not sure. I want to make some test scenario to this and other issue ...

Playing the drone scenario, when I try to use the AH-64 gun against terrorist groups, the gun is not engaged to ground targets! (I think it should be also the case in the 30mm GAU-8 burst of the A-10 Warthog). I think I remember air-to-ground guns were desactived some time ago, but I'm not sure ... If this is the case, we must replace air-to-ground guns in the DBs with the gun variants as ordnance (as 30mm Mk4 Aden, as instance) ...

I saw very scarce publications and with few data about naval decoy launchers evolution and history. This page probably has interest about the topic, and yes, now the automatic translators do well his job and almost anything is understable later. http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/usanavy/E-countermeasure-SRBOC.htm I used this translator in the site of the Spain most popular newspaper, but it is probably the versión of any other of common use, and I think you can use also any other: http://servicios.elpais.com/traductor/?sl=es&tl=zh-CHS&slurl=es&tlurl=zh-CHS 起源 在1960年代，美國海軍使用的艦載誘餌是CHAFFROC ，主要彈種為MK-76金屬干擾絲火箭，改裝自空Zuni 五吋空射火箭彈。CHAFFROC主要採用擾亂（Distraction ）模式操作，在敵方發射反艦飛彈或敵反艦飛彈鎖定之前就先發射，在空中構成幾個假目標；敵方反艦飛彈雷達尋標器開機時，就會立刻偵測到好幾個目標，進而被迷惑。如果在佈放CHAFFROC誘餌之前，敵方反艦飛彈雷達尋標器已經完成鎖定，則美國海軍艦艇會先用主動電子干擾系統（當時為ULQ-6）對敵方反艦飛彈實施干擾，迫使其脫鎖並重新進行搜尋，此時敵反艦飛彈就有很大的機率鎖定雷達截面積大得多的干擾絲。這種模式的問題在於，如果敵方反艦飛彈已經鎖定並且迫近才被發現，船艦很可能已經沒有時間發射誘餌並用電子干擾讓敵反艦飛彈脫鎖 ；此外，反艦飛彈雷達的尋標器為了降低被迷惑的機率，鎖定主目標之後，就會啟用閘鎖定（角度、距離）功能，只追蹤在主目標附近的範圍，而類似CHAFFROC的傳統誘餌在發射後會飛行一段時間才引爆並散佈鋁箔，與船艦本身距離較遠，可能無法保持在反艦飛彈尋標器的閘鎖定範圍之內。 And as result (it's Traditional Chinese, if you choose the Simplified Chinese posibility, you get a lot less translation): Origins in the 1960 's, United States Navy shipborne decoy used is CHAFFROC, main rocket bombs such as MK-76 metal interfere with wire, modified from an empty five-inch Zuni air-launched rockets. CHAFFROC is mainly made to disturb (Distraction) mode of operation, the enemy launched anti-ship missiles or enemy anti-ship missile lock first before launching, constitutes a false target in the air; the enemy radar homing anti-ship missiles when powered on, it detected several targets at once, and confounded. If, before your cloth CHAFFROC bait, enemy radar homing anti-ship missiles have been completed locks, United States naval vessels will use Active electronic jamming system (ULQ-6) interference committed against enemy anti-ship missiles, forcing it off the lock and repeat the search, when enemy anti-ship missiles are a big chance of locking radar cross-section much larger interference. This mode of problem is, if enemy anti-ship missile has lock and approaching only is found, ship ship is may has no time launches bait and electronic interference let enemy anti-ship missile off lock; also, anti-ship missile radar of found marked Manager to reduced is confused of chances, lock main target zhihou, on will enabled gate lock (angle, and distance) features, only track in main target near of range, and similar CHAFFROC of traditional bait in launches Hou will flight a time only detonated and spread foil, Distance with the ship itself, may not be able to keep anti-ship missiles within the range found gates locked.

Very little changes in the scenario 22 May 2013: Yemeni OOB changed to reflect Ukrainian Odesaremservis updated MiG-21bis AA-11 Archer/R-73 capables, with Sura helmet-mounted sight. Also irregular forces (AQAP, Iranian-backed Hezbollah) is now equipped with more appropiate Iranian MANPADS.

I forgetted my Battle of the Ebro air operations scenario, now, when someone types "Battle of the Ebro" in Google search he or she should find in 25 position my HCE scenario, hehehe http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/files/file/521-battle-of-the-ebro-summer-1938-air-operations/

File Name: Attack of the Drone Clones, mid-2013. Hypothetical Scenario. File Submitter: broncepulido File Submitted: 19 May 2013 File Category: Middle East Attack of the Drone Clones, mid-2013. Hypothetical Scenario. Image: A MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle prepares to land after a mission in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The Reaper has the ability to carry both precision-guided bombs and air-to-ground missiles. Photo by U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson. Source: Wikipedia. A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for the Middle East Battleset and the HCDB-130505 1980-2015 Platform Database. This scenario is designed to be played mainly from the Blue/CIA-Saudi Arabia side. You should play many times first the Blue side to avoid spoilers, and only later play a few times the Red/AQAP-Yemeni side, if you've interest on it, but I think the victory conditions are almost impossible to get for an AI-controlled Blue side. These aircrafts of many names, sometimes called pilotless, remotely-piloted vehicles (RPV), unhabited or unmanned air vehicles (UAV) or simply drones, were they of remote controlled or of autonomous flight, were in the aviation history from his begin, from the very early not manned flying prototypes (as the Samuel Langley's Number 5 of 1896), but those facts are not usually remembered. And later, from the First World War era Low Aerial Targets, Kettering Bug and Larynx, to the inter-wars Reginald Denny experiments and to the long series of Ryan Firebees from 1951, employed fully operational in Vietnam War (particularly for SAM sites hunting), in the Arab-Israeli Wars and in China overflights. As example to illustrate the extensive and widely use of drones historically, at least 578 drones were lost in action over China and North Vietnam between 1964-1975. From the 1980s advances in electronics, computing, remote sensors technologies and the Digital Revolution made more factible practical application of them to air vehicles and to the current use of pilotless aircraft. They're the Drone Clones. From Cold War end about 1991 and more from the September 2011 World Trade Center attack, the changing international situations and climate and the Global War on Terrorism recommend and permit the widely use of drones first on intelligence missions and supporting special forces operations, and later in strikes against terrorist and his leaders. As stated, previously his limited previous use not was cause of technical limitations, the determinant fact for his employ is the political approval (tacit or explicit) of his use in countries harboring terrorists, and as stated a drone is a nimble, of not very instant manoeuvre and fragile aircraft and habitually without RWR, and if it's detected easy prey for a fighter (as demonstrated in the few occasions this has happened, as in Georgia in 2008 or in Iraq in 1999), as consequence his use requires the connivance of the state in the strike receiving end. As conclusion, at the current state of art, drones strikes only can succeed on air supremacy conditions, without any opposition of enemy fighters. But only on the last years, from the early November 2002 Yemen drone attacks against Al Qaeda terrorist leaders, with the diffusion of the Predator series and the targeted killing tactics and strategies the mass media do attention to these aircraft on his headlines. This scenario is based on historical facts and has place in a very exotic country, with reminiscences of the Arabian Nights, near the Queen Balkis old Kingdom of Sheba and the skyscrapers of Sana'a, traversed by frankincense caravans or Three Wise Men, and south of the Empty Quarter Desert where perhaps lurk some innominate things without face neither soul near the nameless lost city of Iram of the Pillars, things without face neither soul as the headless aircrafts nowadays flying on his skies. On this scenario the air supremacy is not guaranteed. Because the menace of radical Islamist compelling the Yemen government to prevent drone incursions targeting his leaders and militants, with the excuse to avoid risk to the Yemeni civilian population, the Yemen government in this scenario is forced to used his armed forces to prevent the drone incursions. This scenario pretends also to show contemporary power relations and proxy actuations in the Arabian Peninsula. Unnamed places are: Saudi Arabia: ATa Tabuk/King Faisal AB, TUU/OETB AUa Jeddah/Prince Abdullah AB, JED/OEJN AXb Jeddah/King Faisal NB, -/OEJF Yemen: ZFa Al Anad AB, -/OY74. ZTa Al Hodeida IA, HOD/OYHD. ZUa Taiz IA, TAI/OYTZ. ZVa Sana'a IA, SAH/OYSN. Notes: this scenario is qualified as historical because it shows the complete Saudi and Yemeni air OOB in 2013, and with 104 aircraft in the USAF inventory, MQ-9 Reaper is probably the armed drone employed by CIA from his not so secret base in Saudi Arabia for the attacks in Yemen. Enrique Mas, May 2013. Click here to download this file

I'm not sure if we known this site with construction number details: http://www.uswarplanes.net/index.htm http://www.uswarplanes.net/c130.HTML

The use of drones is on the media headlines from 2002, but they were in the aviation history from his very begin. A few known fact is they were extensively used in the Vietnam War. As instance, at least 578 were lost over North Vietnam and China between 1964-1975. A very interesting report about it of ACIG here: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_344.shtml

Terrible and beautiful. Curious wide retractable blast deflector in USS Lake Erie. No hit-to-kill technology. And remembrances of the Apollo program launches ...

Don't forget the very easy modelling of C-17 SOLL II Special Operations variant using present loadouts, NOE capable, as per Air International March 2002 issue, the IOC probably was November 2001, we can use the basic loadouts of C-17, only add NOE capability: http://airforce.americanspecialops.com/special-operations-low-level/

The Cold War is over, definitely.

Another simple idea: To add loadout #57050 of the MQ-9 Reaper to the Avenger jet UAV, it's theorically armed, but we don't now his armament, yet.

I've not special interest on the Sea Apache concept, and it's an hypothetical platform (as MH-64J), but at least we can add to it for ASuW with 2xHarpoon loadout #55537 (of the also hypothetical SV-22 Osprey) without major complication.

Absurd outcome of absurd planification, that not semble German mode of thinking

:D

Another little issue: installation entry 52477 Dammam airfield should have East coordinates, not West (if not is emplaced out of the Middle East map).

Oh, don't worry, clearly a "experimental and for scientific research" carrier air wing

Some minor issues in the HCDB-13050 iteration: Entry 3963 Grigorovich (1135.6) lacks the sensors. (Also, she should had 3xSA-N-12 Grizzly VLS x12, not only 2. I think russian-ships.info is erroneous on this point, it's a non sense the installation of VLS for the same amount of missiles, and the 3xSA-N-12 Grizzly VLS x12 is confirmed in the Russian and English Wikipedia, at least). Entry 19060 SM-6 ERAM has the ranges interchanged, and stated as "air range =1,5, surface range=130", it should be somethng as "mínimum range=1,5, air range=130". (Also the air range probably should be near 200 nm, as in the others SM-2ER Block IV derivatives, with shorter and wider booster, and stated by the own USN in their Fact File http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2 ) Entry 6472 Type 095 has the same 55 damage points as the precedent Indian Kilo, a typo clearly, it should be some 100, or not? Now I see in the Type 093 and other Chinese submarines damage points smaller than expected, they're some modification added to hull construction of Chinese vessels? Oh, and great entry the Chinese Yu-6 (2005+) heavyweight torpedo, thanks!