broncepulido

I was in the Brussels NATO HQ near 2006 and the building (I dont know it was "provisional" from 1967) and I was very surprised because it was actually in very bad condition. I understand they need a new building.

Crystal clear for me.

Probably some rare facts of interest in parts of this site: http://rusnavy.com/science/sor6.htm

I think these comments are worth to be registred: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/02/my-f-35-question.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information+Dissemination%29 Basically the points are on: Quote: •The surveillance capabilities of the F-35 and associated systems are so impressive that the politically problematic aspect of BVR engagement disappears. •The services expect to be able to muscle civilians into accepting their preferred ROE (perhaps using the F-35 as a cudgel in this effort). •The integration of technological means with political ends has not been fully worked out. •Some of the above.

Mmmm, about that and the Sea Monster: - Mother ships, small fying saucer figthers and martian tripod walkers implemented on the HCE DB but of very limited use. - Sea Monster proposed in some old SITREP and conventions, but not implemented.

Casually reading some few hours ago about the US initial strike plan against Soviet ABM sites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Projected_U.S._ABM_suppression_strike,_1968.png

Solid, logic and evolutionary projects apparently, not as in the Iranian or ..... US case (LCS, JSF ...), omg !!! Observe the hypothetical two rotors chopper in the LPD aft platform, I think it's only a prop, not a project, it's smaller than Ka-28!

At least is a naval site unknown to me some minutes ago, at least this HMS Illustrious and derivatives entry is very complete and interesting: http://navalistica.com/index.php/royal-navy-united-kingdom/19-ukcv/151-2105-illustrious-fleet-aircraft-carriers-1940-1941

A first deployment of the CVH Cavour with 8xHarriers on the East Mediterranean (near to Syria?) with her new 76mm guns, lots of clear pics, from Mer et Marine (in French): http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/la-flotte-italienne-se-deploie-en-mediterranee-orientale

Now we have a extense knowledge of Soviet/Russian AGI/spyships, as reflected on this aforementioned site, and implemented in Harpoon Classic in the HCDB and in the Cold War DB: http://russian-ships.info/eng/intelligence/

I was on travel, I hope the next time ...

I say "no", it's only a very bad ejecuted mock-up, absurd intake, absurd wings and wings tickness, absurd canopy .... http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/slideshow/18305497.cms

A curious and detailed site about scarce known campaings (in Portuguese language): http://www.guerracolonial.org/index.php?content=360

Wondering for years about the implementation of some more realistic SOSUS with fixed subs platforms long range sonar-equipped, analogous to mines, but I've not enough data. Also, SOSUS was a strategic sensor no linked to tactical commands.

Dont worry Brad, perhaps the next game system ...

Oh, now the F-22 super-stealth fighters need helmet and very advanced short-range IR AAM (in EXTERNAL carriage), if not can be easy prey to old fighters ??? Poor F-35 ....

Just some days ago wandering in the Cold War DB B-47 variants, and the variants of the DB of Divefreak and me ...

Atlantique 2 employed to drop GBU-12 on Operation Serval, but without self-designation capability (perhaps from 2017 ...): From Mer et Marine (in French): http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/au-mali-les-atlantique-2-servent-aussi-de-bombardiers

All this stuff of the limited maneouvrability of F-35 was posted here some two years ago, F-35A sustained turn rate Gs is reduced in two years from 4.95 to 4.6, and 4.95 was a bad thing ... : http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/topic/8482-apa-assesses-the-sukhoi-pak-fa/ Quote (On reference to February 2010 article): The expression Quote: "eating F-35s for breakfast" remembers me from the previously mentionated article http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html this disturbing paragraph: Quote (February 2010 article): “The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet. The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D. So the F-35A’s aerodynamic performance is ‘retrograde’ when compared with 1960s legacy fighters. The consequence of such inferior JSF performance is that its DAS might detect an incoming missile, but the aircraft lacks the turn-rate to out-fly it. As the F-35 also lacks the performance to engage or escape, repeated ‘freebie’ shots from the PAK-FA could inflict high losses. Expect the exchange rate to be of the order of 4:1 in favour of the PAK-FA, possibly much higher.” No news for us, or actually even worst performances .... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/ Quote of the Flight Global article January 2012: The US Department of Defense's decision to relax the sustained turn performance of all three variants of the F-35 was revealed earlier this month in the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 2012 report. Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to five sustained g's. Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. "What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[it's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

Some years ago everything was OK (2010), evaluating Standard SM-3 and Arrow (for the Israel-Iran scenario). Last weekend I tested to nuke Japan with a Golf SSB with the Cold War DB (for play with the new nukes employing the Halibut scenario), and yes, everything OK (No ABMs), but I needed three low yield SLBM to damage only a 19% with the third missile the north Japanese base. I like the new low yield nukes, I think are more realistic, the launching platform is not destroyed everytime (I've increased the range of gravity nukes in my DBs to 6 nm, as conventional bombs are a 4 nm range on them) and the game with nukes is now more playable.

Sad,but clear in those circunstances.

29 January 2013: another minimal change, another little course change to avoid another sub to going aground (a lot of diminute Islands in the Kurils, also, I adjusted too much the courses,and the Soviet submarines are going aground some miles of distance of them ...).

Edited 29 January 2013: changed the loadout Be-12 Tchaika/Mail to the hunter/killer variant, increased the ASW patrol pattern of Be-12 Tchaika/Mail.

Edited 29 January 2013: small course changes to avoid two Soviet submarines to going aground in some alternate start points.

Tested more in deep the Cold War database with this greater scenario. I think the change in sonar detection to long range and probability of detection 25% is more interesting than in the standard DB (medium range and 50%), apparently more range of detection, and more uncertainty in the correct range and angle of detection, as in the real world. Also, reducing the nukes yield (divided by factor of five?) is also more realistic and more playable.