pmaidhof

Sounds reasonable...

While a next generation fighter, the F-22, stealthy and all that, dare I say you can definitely see the lineage between the two when observed side by side.

THAAD, Aegis cooperate in anti-missile test By Kris Osborn - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Aug 13, 2008 7:26:27 EDT Traveling thousands of meters per second, a 20-foot Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor missile destroyed an advanced, separating warhead dummy target just beneath the 60-mile envelope of the Earth’s atmosphere off the cost of Hawaii during a June test at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai. The test intercept marked the first time the THAAD and Aegis radar systems worked together in a tactical scenario against a separating warhead, Missile Defense Agency officials said. “A separating warhead is not like a Scud which is a unitary warhead but rather a separating target which means it releases its warhead. It is more like the North Korean No-dong missile,” said Rick Lehner, an MDA spokesman. In the exercise, the THAAD and Aegis missile defense radar systems worked in tandem and cued one another rather than separately scanning a 360-degree field, MDA officials said. The Aegis radar enabled the THAAD radar to zero in on the target. “THAAD uses transportable X-band radar which can get a cue from a variety of sources. The X-band radar can perform very precise tracking of a warhead. The THAAD radar was able to direct and cue the Aegis radar. It was very significant for the missile defense infrastructure to be able to pass along radar cues to other platforms like Aegis,” said Lehner. “The overall goal is to be able to integrate all of the radars and command-and-control systems so that you have a truly layered missile defense,” he said. Lockheed Martin engineers have been working with MDA on further integrating different elements of the missile defense system. “We have been progressively integrating more of the ballistic missile defense system. Aegis took a cue from THAAD. The intercept itself was well within the needed specifications,” said Tom McGrath, Lockheed vice president and THAAD program manager. The integration between THAAD and Aegis is key to defeating more advanced separating warheads. “Longer-range threats separate from the booster. Any of the longer-range and medium-range threats all have separating re-entry vehicles for greater velocity. We demonstrated the radar information used to discriminate between what is a booster and what is the target. X-band radar can provide precise tracking and discrimination, then the on-board seeker takes over and that is how you are able to kill the target in the terminal phase,” said McGrath. “The seeker will decide what the re-entry vehicle is and go kill it. This gives you much more robustness in execution in making sure you kill the lethal object by using both RF [radio frequency] and IR [infrared],” he said. THAAD, designed with high-speed hit-to-kill technology, is engineered to intercept incoming missile threats in the final or terminal phase of its trajectory when it is closest to its target. In previous tests, THAAD has also demonstrated the ability to intercept incoming targets at the lower end of the “midcourse phase” beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. THAAD’s mobile launcher is an Oshkosh Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck A3 with on-board electronics able to fire in less than one minute when necessary, McGrath said. The launcher holds up to eight missiles. “This is a deployable asset,” said McGrath. A production contract for the first two THAAD fire control units was awarded to Lockheed Martin in late 2006. Production of the THAAD launcher and fire control and communications unit is under way at Lockheed’s manufacturing facility in Camden, Ark., and interceptor production is being conducted at Lockheed’s Pike County Facility in Troy, Ala. The Army will deliver THAAD by September 2009; the first deployment will come between 2010 and 2012 depending upon funding, Lehner said. The next test, slated for September, will fire two THAAD interceptors at a separating target in a realistic, tactical scenario, Lockheed officials said. In addition, upcoming flights tests in 2010, 2011 and 2012 are planned to prove the interceptor’s ability to discriminate targets from decoys. Find Army Times article here.

A picture (map) is worth a 1,000 words. Thanks Brad.

Video of a BBC coming under attack from an Su-25 Frogfoot. BBC

But you are the birthday boy today, so we'll let it go at that. Sorry for hijacking the thread.

Now MSNBC reporting that the strategically important city of Gori has fallen to the Russians.

Bouncing back and forth between the Airpower and AirStrike rules, I ran through Air Strike scenario G-12 at "Low Threat". Since it was solo, I rolled a d6 for the target map and the four surrounding maps, re-rolling for duplicate map numbers. The various targets were defended by one "A" and one "C" rated FCR assisted KS-19, one "A" and one "C" rated FCR assisted S-60 batteries, and four SA-14 MANPAD Teams. The attackers were two Su-25's carrying a DDS-A (10 Flares and 10 Chaff) and a small "Medium" rocket pod on weapon stations 1, and 10; and four 1100 BB on stations 2,4,7,and 9. Intially entering on one of the adjacent maps, the Frogfoots came in a T level, popping up to Alt 2 just before making their run on the randomly rolled target of two of the three runway hexes 0714, 0813,0914. The airfield was defended by an S-60 unit. The attackers were initially engaged by a non-taget area KS-19 unit, but it missed. Then a barrage of SA-14, the lead Su-25 took light damage from one of the MANPADs, the rest being decoyed away. One the attack run and over the target area, both aircraft dropped their BB loads, lead scoring 2D and Dash-1 getting a "Kill". Egressing from the target area, lead again took light damage from aimed S-60 fire, and Dash-2 took a proximity hit from an SA-14. The Russians won this scenario against the former Soviet Republic 13-9.

An aweful lot of games, guess I didn't scroll down far enough earlier. Thanks Peter. Long time no read. Hope all is well.

This looks very interesting. No known way to order it yet, but I will as soon as I can and report back. Zolfaqar's Blow

Everyone's a comedian.

Thanks for the pic's Silent Hunter.

Hmm... OK. Interesting.

Who is Charlie? Cause Charlie doesn't surf.

Still setting up the scenario. Visibility calculations: Maximum Sighting with Mk1 Mod1 Eyeball is 4x the A/C Vis#. MiG-21 sighting Crusader 4x6 = 24 hexes (8 miles) Crusader sighting a MiG-21 4x5 = 20 hexes (just under 7 miles) To sight, must roll the target A/C’s sighting number or less, subject to numerous modifiers. Range 16-20 = +3 Range 21-30 = +5 Tactics Master = -1 Novice = +1 Green = +2 To identify, the maximum range to do so is 2x the A/C Vis#, so: MiG-21 identifying a Crusader = 2x6 = 12 hexes (4 miles) Crusader identifying a MiG-21 = 2x5 = 10 hexes (just over 3 miles)

OK, transcribed missile stats from the "data source" to the Aircraft Log Sheets. The two F-8E(FN) each have a single Matra-550 Magic 1 on weapon stations 1 and 2. The two MiG-21 each have a single AA-2 Atoll on weapon stations 2 and 4. The Magic 1 is capable of side and rear aspect shots whereas the Atoll is rear aspect only. I also generated each pilot's attributes. French Pilot 1 is a "Regular" and Pilot 2 is "Green". Pilot 1 has average eyesight, fitness, and confidence. Pilot 2 has average eyesight and fitness, but excellent confidence - a rather brash nugget. While the regualr pilot has essentially no benefit or drawbacks, the green pilot will have various flight and fight restrictions. It also turns out that the regular Pilot 1 is both a "Tactics Master" and a "Combat Hero". The Yemen Pilots both came in at "Novice" ratings. Yem Pilot 1 has average eyesight, fitness and confidence while Yem Pilot 2 has average eyesight and confidence, but excellent fitness. Excellent fitness will assist this pilot in recovering successfully in GLOC and post-A/C egress situations. Both Yem pilots will also endure flight and fight restrictions due to their Novice ratings. More to follow.

Thanks BP, it was in fact a nice read. Still slowly putting together the same scenario, but using The Speed of Heat rule set this time to give a little more feel to the fight. Main continuing challenge here is that it will be played solo, so I have to continue to be fair to both sides.

Tony, while this is certainly tangential (is that a word?) set up a quick TacOps two-player scenario, place a couple of Red, Blue, and at least one othe color force units. Then enable umpire tools, and click Options/Rule Of Engagement... See how the different color forces can have differing "defense posture" modes assigned to it in relation to other color forces. Run a few turns and see how some forces will "ignore" each other unless fired upon, or will attack on sight. For example Blue can be considered "Free Fire" or "Self Defense": vs Red vs Yellow vs Gray vs Green vs Ivory vs Orange vs Gold Maybe this can provide some inspiration to the actions of neutrals and/or "undefined" forces within a battlespace.

Hey Now, with all due respect to the Legion, let's not go down that road. Hehe, I knew you'd take exception to that All in good fun, of course.

Hey Now, with all due respect to the Legion, let's not go down that road.

DDG 1000 program will end at two ships By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Jul 23, 2008 7:04:43 EDT The once-vaunted Zumwalt-class DDG 1000 advanced destroyer program — projected in the late 1990s to produce 32 new ships and subsequently downscaled to a seven-ship class — will instead turn out only two ships, according to highly-placed sources in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Instead of more 1000s, the Navy will continue to build more Arleigh Burke-class DDG 51 destroyers, construction of which had been slated to end in 2012. Top Navy and Pentagon brass met Tuesday to make the decision, which means the service will ask Congress to drop the request for the third ship in the 2009 defense budget and forego plans to ask for the remaining four ships. Each of the two ships now under contract will be built, according to the new decision. That means the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard in Bath, Maine will build the Zumwalt, DDG 1000, and Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, Miss., will construct the yet-to-be-named DDG 1001. According to sources, the Navy also considered canceling the second DDG 1000 and building just one, but potentially high cancellation costs led to the decision to keep the ship. The reprogramming decision was made at a conference Tuesday hosted by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and attended by Navy Secretary Donald Winter, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Pentagon acquisition chief John Young. Officials were busy throughout the day and into the evening making personal phone calls to senators, congressmen and government and industry officials notifying them of the decision. Initial reaction on Capitol Hill seemed to be largely positive. The move appears to be based on fears that potential cost overruns on the Zumwalts — estimated to cost about $3.3 billion for each of the two lead ships — could threaten other Navy shipbuilding programs. The service declined comment on the July 22 decision, but in a statement released July 17, Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss provided some insight. “We need traction and stability in our combatant lines to reach 313 ships, and we should not raid the combatant line to fund other shipbuilding priorities,” Doss said. “Even if we did not receive funding for the DDG 1000 class beyond the first two ships, the technology embedded in DDG 1000 will advance the Navy’s future surface combatants.” If the fears that rising costs could torpedo other new ships are indeed behind the decision, it is a tacit recognition that repeated warnings by budget experts from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Government Accountability Office that the ships face huge potential cost overruns — up to $5 billion each and more — were correct. Ron O’Rourke of CRS testified March 14 before the House Seapower subcommittee that cost overruns on the first two ships could drive their combined cost to $10.2 billion — an increase of $3.9 billion. Using CBO’s figures, O’Rourke pointed out that the remaining five ships, projected by the Navy to cost about $12.8 billion, would likely jump about $8 billion. “The combined cost growth for all seven ships would be roughly $11.8 billion in then-year dollars, which is a figure roughly comparable to the total amount of funding in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account in certain recent years,” O’Rourke testified at the hearing. Publicly the Navy has long resisted the notion of building more DDG 51s, noting no more of the ships were needed — the class had been planned to end with the 62nd ship — and significant improvements to the design were hard to come by. But in March acting Navy acquisition chief John Thackrah told an audience that the service was looking at working in to the design a new SPY-3 radar to replace the current SPY-1 Aegis arrays, and the Navy also has studied fitting the 155mm Advanced Gun System into the DDG 51 hull. Both systems are part of the DDG 1000 design. While it is not clear how many more 51s will be built, all sides seem in agreement that the majority of the hulls will go to Bath, which builds only destroyers. Northrop’s Ingalls yard, in addition to destroyer construction, remains busy building three classes of amphibious ships and the Coast Guard’s new National Security Cutter, and is still working to rebuild its infrastructure following damage from 2005’s Hurricane Katrina. “Bath will have to get the majority of these DDG 51s,” said one source familiar with the situation. “They won’t be able to go 50-50 with Pascagoula. Ingalls doesn’t have the work force right now and Bath needs them.” Depending on the price of the new 51s, anywhere from 8 to 11 ships could be provided over the six-year future years defense plan. “They may continue to build these for the foreseeable future,” the source said. “Nothing wrong with the hull, that is a good ship.” Find Navy Times article here.

Anti-submarine warfare? Seize and hold territory...spoken like a true grunt.

Wow, and your off until then Bummer.

Thanks Scott, I check those out and eitherway hope to post some 1/300 A-7 and F-4's soon.

Before the darker "Aggressor Gray", there appears to have been a two tone pattern for US naval aircraft, a white bottom side and a lighter than aggressor gray "gray" on top. Can anyone give me examples of Testor Model Master paint to replicate that USN gray of the guessing mid 70's to late eighties?