pmaidhof

Hi Peter, I agree that decoys primarily should effect infrared guided missiles while jammers should effect radar guided. I was not able to locate where in the 4.1 rules that states when one, the other or both countermeasures should be calculated. I was probably staring right at it, but could not see it. Any rule reference? Thanks as always, Pete

I found this very interesting link while cruising around ConSimWorld. It's an open source analysis of Taiwan's SAM Networks with plenty of maps and other images. I though it might find a home in HG/Weblinks/Sources, but was not able to post it there. Either way, some interesting information. Taiwanese SAM's

KC, Looking at this through the 4.1 rules, provided that they are each detected, within range and within optimal missiles parameters (same level), the F-15C firing an AIM-9M (Gen3, ATA=6.5) sidewinder at a Mirage 2000 (Man Rating 4.5, 3rd Gen D) would calculate: Sidewinder ATA 6.5 - 6 (4.5 Mirage Man Rating + 1.5 3rd Gen Decoys) = +0.5 or Air to Air Combat pH = 35%. Conversely, the Mirage 2000 firing a Magic2 (Gen3, ATA=5.5) at an F-15C (Man Rating 4, 3rd Gen J&D) would calculate: Magic2 ATA 5.5 - 7 (Man Rating 4 + 1.5 3rd Gen Jammers and +1.5 3rd Gen Decoys) = -1.5 or Air to Air Combat pH = 15%. It appears that the Sidewinder AIM-9M's superior ATA and the F-15C's extra ECM prove decisive. It's been a while for me so if anyone notices any errors, please chime in. Thanks, Pete

KC, Are you using 4.1 or the new Trilogy Air Rules?

Good News.

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy U. S. Naval Institute March 31, 2009 Find USNI article here. With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned. After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers. First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km. The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces. The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike. Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes. Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets. The ASBM is said to be a modified DF-21 While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages. If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack. Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat. After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses. As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog: "The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat." In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

Hi KC The Annex T (ithink) from SAW2 is woefully incomplete. It does give you british and argentines, as well as a US battalion and soviet MRR. High Tide has some more soviet stuff, some Naval Infantry and some Danes, etc. Some time ago I put together a Soviet/Russian Parachute Battalion: Glueck Ab! That said, part of the Admiralty Trilogy Unification is a new GCS. Also an ongoing MBX also has home brewed GCS for many forces but probalby wont see that for some time. [EDIT:Me] Also a USMC MEU and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Infantry Brigade in Harpoon Naval Review 2003.

Barrett Tillman, I believe.

Excellent form, recommended to all.

Hadn't looked for it for some time now. Sounds like you got a steal.

NICE Hmm, after you are through, perhaps we will have to institute the Inter-Harpgamer Book Loan Program.

Well...it's already over for the NY Rangers. First time in their history to lose a series after leading 3-1.

Nevermind, unzipped to desktop and viewed it. Pretty cool rendering. Guess it was a falklands type of exocet that did not explode on impact.

And for the techno-impaired, the puter wanted to open the .avi file in notepad of all things. How best to view?

How would he ever be certain of this? There could be an ASW plane maneuvering above him, trying to get to point blank range (= instantaneous auto-kill). The is no way with complete certainty to know if he is undetected, however in my opinion if the skipper is confident of his boats capabilities and his crews proficiency, and after going into harms way, now has a big fat juicy carrier in his crosshairs, he'd likely throw everying including the lawn furniture to sink or mission kill a carrier.

Computer Harpoon3xxx Advanced Naval Warfare...something like that.

Visual Flight Rules?

Those are the tubes that hold the torpedoes, not the weapons themselves so you won't find them in an annex. Look to the notes on the submarine entry itself for firing info (which will probably come down to the generation of the electronics where # of torpedoes at a time is laid out). iirc it is two torps for the early LAs, all four tube for later LAs. So for an LA Class SSN typically 20x Mk48 torpedo and 6x Harpoon. (Page A-43 H4.1 Data Annex)

While as far away as empirical data can be, if a sub commander was undetected and with a big juicy aircraft carrier directly in his sights it would take some "fire discipline" not go for the kill and then run silent and deep getting away.

Hi KC, Quite an attack. While I do not have my rules with me, I would only bring up a questions About the F-15's attacking the croatale missile battery. Was the missile battery detected prior to launching the mavericks? Perhaps you gamed a ground spotter with eyes on? Medium altitude for B-52's just seems "low" for them at first read. I have never employed B-52's in H4 so I could be way way off on this. I imagine them well up in the air, with them being long gone by the time the bombs they dropped hit the target. There are a few most likely flawed examples here in the three H4 subfolders of my attempts to engage low to moderate air defenses in the 2005-2007 time frame as well as the French air strike on an airfield from just a few months back. Good Gaming, Pete

Oh the pressure ....I hope you enjoy it as much as I still do. I dug it out earlier this week for some info.

Roughead says Chinese carrier would be concern By Ken The - The Associated Press Posted : Tuesday Apr 21, 2009 12:56:10 EDT QINGDAO, China — A future Chinese aircraft carrier may worry neighboring navies because Beijing has not specified what role the warship would play in the region, the U.S. chief of Naval Operations said Tuesday. China, meanwhile, said a more powerful navy would not pose a threat as it mulls adding its first aircraft carrier to an increasingly sophisticated fleet. The comments by Adm. Gary Roughead came amid growing signs that China plans to build a carrier as the country puts on a major display of naval weaponry this week in the northern port of Qingdao. The show was part of celebrations for the Chinese navy’s 60th anniversary. Long a goal of Chinese military planners, a carrier would bring much desired prestige to China’s navy and could embolden it in asserting Chinese territorial claims, particularly in the South China Sea, analysts say. A carrier would also better allow Beijing to defend sea lanes crucial for the safe passage of trade and natural resources. “If it is not clear what the intent is of the use of an aircraft carrier, I would say that it may cause concern with some of the regional navies and nations,” Roughead told reporters in Qingdao, where he held talks with his Chinese counterpart, Adm. Wu Shengli. Wu did not comment on a possible Chinese carrier. In earlier comments to The Associated Press, defense analyst John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org said an aircraft carrier could bring China into conflict at sea with other regional military powers, including the U.S., Japan, South Korea and India. “The main barrier [to operating a carrier] is deciding what role such ships would play in China’s maritime strategy,” Pike said. Vice Adm. Ding Yiping, the Chinese navy’s deputy commander, reiterated China’s contention that the People’s Liberation Army does not pose a threat to other nations. “The PLA Navy will continue to make contributions to maintain world, regional and maritime peace,” Ding was quoted as saying by the official Xinhua News Agency. A total of 21 foreign ships are attending the Qingdao naval display, the first of its kind for China. Thursday’s international fleet review is to feature vessels from China and 14 foreign nations, including — for the first time — Chinese nuclear submarines, according to Ding. The types of vessels were not specified. The People’s Liberation Army, controlled by the Communist Party, has traditionally kept its best weaponry tightly under wraps, but recent years have seen a growing openness as it seeks to take its place among the ranks of modern, professional militaries. China’s 225,000-member navy operates more submarines than any other Asian nation, with up to 10 nuclear-powered vessels and as many as 60 diesel-electric subs. The country’s nuclear-powered Jin- and Shang-class submarines are considered just a notch below cutting-edge U.S. and Russian craft. Its diesel-electric Yuan class also boasts an indigenously developed air-independent propulsion system that allows it to remain submerged for weeks. In comments to foreign commanders gathered Tuesday, Wu said world navies need to work together to confront non-conventional security threats — a reference to the multinational anti-piracy mission off the Somali coast. He encouraged all navies to make maritime peace their “unshakable mission.” China’s deployed its anti-piracy patrol in December to Somalia in a rare joint operation with navies from other countries. It was the first time the communist state dispatched ships abroad on a combat mission. Wu reiterated China’s insistence that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea guide the resolution of all maritime disputes. China says the convention gives it the right to restrict the collection of military intelligence within its 200-mile exclusive economic zones, and has dispatched boats to harass U.S. Naval vessels within that area. “We must abide by the principles and the regulations of the United Nations Charter when handling maritime affairs and carrying out military operations on the oceans,” Wu said. The U.S., however, insists on the right of free passage in international waters, and says the convention specifically gives warships and naval auxiliary vessels immunity from being stopped, searched or boarded, while allowing military operations within the economic zones. Find NavyTiems article here.

I primarily do harpoon via paper. Right now it is restricted to the Surge in the Barents PBEM/CPX. If I put anymore detail it would have to be redacted. Looking forward to your AAR.

Memorial to remember battleship Iowa explosion The Associated Press Posted : Sunday Apr 19, 2009 14:28:27 EDT NORFOLK, Va. — Hundreds are expected at Naval Station Norfolk to mark the 20th anniversary of the explosion onboard the battleship Iowa that killed 47 crewmen. Sunday, people whose lives were touched by that deadly day will remember the men who died more than 300 miles northeast of Puerto Rico. The names of the dead will be read aloud. At first, Navy investigators accused a crewman of causing the accident because he was depressed over a relationship with another crewman. He was later cleared and the cause was blamed on a combination of inexperience and problems with the powder. Survivors say there are still members of the Iowa crew suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder because of the tragedy. Find NavyTimes article here.

Find NavyTime article here. No more enemy combatants, no more combat operations, what next...back to a kinder and gentler term forward deployed forces. It's ok though, we were in MEU's and on ARG's and were no less dangerous. Amphibs, warships split up by new plan By Philip Ewing - Staff writer Posted : Monday Apr 20, 2009 10:49:18 EDT The Navy is breaking up the deployments of amphibious ships and surface combatants formerly known as expeditionary strike groups, part of a top-down review that could have far-reaching consequences for how sailors and Marines spend time at sea. For the past six years, ESGs paired a big-deck amphib and two small-deck gators with two or three surface combatant escorts. Now, the gators and warships will go separately. As of March 9, the gator groups were renamed “amphibious ready groups,” reviving a term that was shelved several years ago, and combined with the name of their accompanying Marine expeditionary unit, said Lt. Cmdr. Phil Rosi, a spokesman for Fleet Forces Command. Although these were the first changes to come from a joint Navy-Marine ESG working group, they won’t be the last, he said. “The name change and the deployment construct is the first step in the process — we have, in conjunction with the Marine Corps and [the] ESG working group, been working through roles, missions, capability, training ... there’s a lot more that still is being worked out.” For example, the Navy would have called the amphibious assault ship Boxer’s group the “Boxer ESG,” but now it’s called the “Boxer ARG/13th MEU.” But ESG isn’t going away entirely. An ARG/MEU still can be called an ESG, Rosi said, if it’s being commanded by an admiral or general officer. Under normal circumstances, a Navy captain will command the ships and a Marine colonel will be in charge of the leathernecks. Rosi said Fleet Forces Command and the ESG working group still are determining who will decide when an ARG/MEU’s mission requires a one-star officer and elevates the unit to ESG status. The Navy decided to break up the previous ESGs because the amphibs and combatants usually didn’t work closely enough on their deployments to justify sailing together, Rosi said. So surface combatants will begin sailing separately as “surface action groups” — another older term — although officials don’t yet know how that could affect their deployments. He also said it wasn’t clear yet whether the surface groups would include set numbers of ships — a certain number of cruisers, destroyers or frigates — or how their missions could change. “There’s no definite cookie-cutter construct,” Rosi said. Rosi said ARG/MEUs and surface groups will retain their ability to operate together when needed, but they won’t sail in groups as they have since 2003. Retired Capt. Jan van Tol said it’s “unfortunate” that the Navy is returning to an older style of surface deployments, but he said he wasn’t surprised because top commanders never fully realized a strategy to deploy amphibs with warships. “It’s completely back to the future. I guess ESGs weren’t as useful as we thought,” said van Tol, who commanded three ships, including the amphibious assault ship Essex, before becoming an analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. ESGs were ideal groups for handling low-intensity missions such as the international campaign against piracy off Somalia, he said, because they combine the speed and firepower of surface ships with many “lily pads” for helicopters on the gators. The amphibious assault ship Boxer, for example, is operating with the destroyer Bainbridge and frigate Halyburton off the Horn of Africa. What’s more, ESGs were a way to overcome the “artificial divorce” in the surface force between amphib and “cru/des” sailors, van Tol said. He recalled a time when he was the captain of the Essex and his ship participated in a missile-launching exercise with the destroyer John S. McCain, giving the ships’ crews a chance to work together. Then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark pushed for ARGs to become ESGs in the early 2000s, based on an earlier concept from the 1990s called an Expeditionary Task Force. But with Clark retired, few top-level Navy and Marine Corps leaders stayed committed to pairing amphibs and combatants. “It’s dying due to lack of interest, which is a pity,” van Tol said. First ESG deployment The Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group deployed Aug. 22, 2003, from San Diego, returning March 9, 2004. In addition to the amphibious assault ship Peleliu, it included the dock landing ship Germantown, amphibious transport dock Ogden, frigate Jarrett, destroyer Decatur, cruiser Port Royal, submarine Greeneville and the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Navy officials in 2003 touted the deployment as a demonstration of the benefits of augmenting an amphibious ready group with surface combatants and a sub, noting that the additional ships would provide “capabilities similar to that of a carrier battle group.” Source: Navy Times research.