pmaidhof

Fun, scratch multi-player TacOps game the past two evenings between Tony and Brad. Glad to see these two naval warfare gurus mixing it up, getting dirty with LAV-25's, LAV-AT's, LAV-M's, M60A3's, AH-1W, BTR-80's, T-54's, T-72M's, HIND-F's, 125mm Anti-Tank guns, and various off map arty and airstrikes. Much fun guys, thanks for letting me host, watch the battle-royal, and chime in with bugle calls from time to time.

Was not aware of that...the map covers the AO now?

Per Page 97, South Atlantic War II. Islas de los Estatos, AK Displ: 3849 grt Prop: Diesel Crew: 110 Size: Small Signature: Small/Noisy Advance per 45 degree turn (Speed Loss) Standard Rudder: 400 yards (2) Hard Rudder: 300 yards (3) Acceleration/Tac Turn from 0-50% Max speed: 8 Acceleration/Tac Turn from 51-100% Max speed: 4 Deceleration/Tac Turn from any speed: 4 Navigation Radar: 30/19/12/5/3 SS ESM: None ECM: None ACM: None Remarks: Ex-MV Trans Botica purchased for use as military transport. Mercantile construction, special damage modifier 0f -50%. Sunk by HMS Alacrity 10 May 1982 during Falklands War. Damage and Speed Breakdown: Kts: 14/11/7/4/0 DP: 13/27/40/48/53 Sunk Total DP: 53. Hmm...HCE-Falklands anytime soon?

I'll look for my SAW II book tonight Brad. I'm sure that it is described in there. Wasn't this the unlucky ship that was met by a British ship making the initial transit of between East and West Falkland?

Wow, Harpoon5! Sneak Preview in the Clash of Arms support folder over on ConSimWorld See them here

JSF program faces steep cost overruns [Me: eek! and even more delays] By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer Posted : Saturday Mar 15, 2008 7:49:23 EDT The Joint Strike Fighter program is facing $38 billion in cost overruns and could be delayed by more than two years, according to a government report urging defense planners to re-evaluate the program. The delays could affect the Navy’s schedule for the carrier variant of the plane. The service is already facing a fighter-jet gap with F/A-18 Hornets projected to die out before they’re replaced by the JSF. Service officials say they plan on buying more F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to bridge the gap. The almost $1 trillion program — the largest in defense history — has already ballooned more than $23 billion during the past year of development because of changes in procurement costs, according to the Government Accountability Office’s March 11 report. Additionally, three separate defense offices found that initial cost estimates for the program were understated by $38 billion and that development will be delayed by 12 months to as much as 27 months, the GAO said. It’s a red flag warranting an independent, life-cycle cost-estimate review of the entire program, the GAO said. Such a review should come before a review already planned for 2013. Shift from testing could create problems Last year, program managers put into place a Mid-Course Risk Reduction Plan, since they feared almost-certain cost overruns in the plane’s development phase. That plan shifted money away from testing and toward management reserves, which cover expenses related to technical issues that can emerge in development — engineering drawings, production materials and labor, for example. But the decision to put that plan into place came with a consequence, the GAO said. Moving the money increased the risk of not completing testing on time, and not finding design problems early enough to prevent them from becoming costly, the report states. Furthermore, the report says the plan did not take up the issue of why the cost overruns were occurring in the first place. “Two-thirds of budgeted funding for JSF development has been spent, but only about one-half of the work has been completed,” the GAO reported. Concerns such as these in early government assessments could spell trouble for the services counting on the aircraft in the long term, said Bob Work, a defense analyst for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The JSF program’s reach across the services is wide. The fighter’s F-35A version, which will perform conventional takeoffs and landings, and the F-35C carrier variant are favored by the Air Force and Navy, respectively. The Marine Corps wants the F-35B short- takeoff/vertical-landing variant. The Navy Department plans to buy 680 F-35s, which covers both Navy and Marine versions. The first operational Marine version is scheduled to join the fleet in 2012, and the first aircraft carrier version in 2015, Lockheed Martin spokesman John Smith said. Smith said he didn’t have a Navy/Marine breakdown of the total 680 number, but Marine Maj. Eric Dent said the Corps plans to buy 420 aircraft. Delay may be disaster for Corps Delays with JSF delivery will exacerbate the problem of aging aircraft, Work said. “How the JSF goes will really have an impact on all the services’ plans,” he said. Furthermore, significant delays could threaten the Corps’ STOVL version, already under the gun because of disagreements among Navy and Marine leaders as to how it should be incorporated into the fleet, Work said. “The Marine Corps has pretty much bet the farm on JSF,” Work said. The magnitude of the JSF program prompted a congressional mandate that the GAO review its progress incrementally. The attention could be just beginning. “Any hint of an overrun is just going to raise the level of scrutiny and interest,” Work said. Despite the findings in the GAO audit — one of about a dozen assessments the program undergoes each year — the JSF program remains on target, countered a project spokesman. Even if the total cost for the F-35 over its planned 35-year service life does adds up to $1 trillion, as the GAO report indicates, that’s still less than the total cost for operating all the varieties of aircraft it’s replacing, Smith said. The F-35 Joint Program Office prepares an annual Selected Acquisition Report, which estimates the procurement cost, Smith said in an e-mail. The next report will be issued “in the near future,” he said. “The bottom line is — and I’m not being flip about it — we have to take a step back and, if you remember our job is to produce all these things we described and do it in a responsible manner, this is one of the most cost-effective programs out there.” Find NavyTimes article here.

Ship named in honor of 9/11 to be christened By Alan Sayre - The Associated Press Posted : Friday Feb 29, 2008 16:21:38 EST AVONDALE, La. — Standing before the massive New York, Jennifer Adams seemed moved by the spirits of the 2,750 people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks at the World Trade Center. “Our angels will watch over the men and women serving on this ship so the events of Sept. 11 will never happen again,” said Adams, who co-founded an association of family members and friends of 2,974 people who died when terrorist-hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers in Lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, and of survivors, recovery workers and volunteers. The New York, an amphibious assault ship built for the Navy and incorporating steel recovered from the collapsed World Trade Center, will be christened Saturday at the New Orleans-area shipyard where it endured Hurricane Katrina. The vessel was built by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding. It is the fifth in the LPD San Antonio class of ships designed to carry Marines into assault operations. Dorthy England, wife of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, will swing a bottle of champagne from a New York vinyard against its hull in the traditional ceremony. Other dignitaries on hand will include U.S. Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., chief of naval operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. The $1 billion, 25,000-ton vessel is 684 feet long and 105 feet wide. It can carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 Marines, who can be delivered to shore by helicopters and landing craft. When terrorists crashed two airliners into the World Trade Center in 2001, the ship was on the drawing board but had not been assigned a name. At the request of then-New York Gov. George Pataki, the Navy in 2002 agreed to commemorate the disaster by assigning the name New York. It was then decided that World Trade Center steel would be used in the bow stem, the section of the hull that slices through the water. More than 20 tons of steel salvaged from the disaster site were brought to Amite Foundry and Machine in Amite, La., where the 7.5-ton part was cast in 2003. The bow stem was installed in August 2005, shortly before Katrina, and the remaining bow section was lifted into place in March 2006. “We’ve had other special ships in the Navy — the Constitution, the Iwo Jima, the Pearl Harbor,” Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said. The New York, he said, will join them in honoring and reminding Americans of a defining moment in history. The sentiment wasn’t lost on former New York firefighter Lee Ielpi, whose son, Jonathan, was one of 343 firefighters who died in the Sept. 11 disaster. “The ship can’t bring back our loved ones,” he said, but the New York “shows the strength of our country.” The incomplete vessel was anchored at Avondale on the Mississippi River just west of New Orleans when Katrina struck on Aug. 29, 2005. The New York escaped serious damage and construction resumed two weeks later. The commissioning ceremony in New York, scheduled in 2009, will be a much bigger ceremony, officials said. The ship will be based at Norfolk, Va. The New York revives a name held by at least four other Navy ships, including a Spanish-American War-era cruiser, a battleship that served in World Wars I and II — including the Battle of Iwo Jima — and a nuclear submarine retired from the fleet in 1997. The first three ships of the San Antonio class — San Antonio, New Orleans and Mesa Verde — have been delivered. Green Bay is under final construction at Avondale and is scheduled for sea trials in May. Another ship in the class, the Anchorage, also is building at Avondale. Find NavyTimes article here.

Cute

Breaking news reported over on msnbc.com that there has been a launch and a hit.

Sounds like a bait 'n switch. Oh...you wanted new MiG-29's?

Jumping right into the dogfight part for fun, 6x J-10 fighters attempt to sweep away the 4x MiG-29K CAP. The first time I tried Competent vs Competent. The dogfight begins with the 4x Indians firing 1x R-77 at sparate targets, shooting down 1x J-10. The five surviving J-10's launch 1x PL-12 each at the four MiG's, knocking down three! In the second round, the surviving MiG tried to escape the dogfight but fails, while the J-10's all miss. In the third round the surviving MiG succeeds in his escape attempt. 2nd run through, the 4x MiG-29K's are elevated to experienced, while the PLAN remains at competent. Previous attempts at this combination have had the MiG's wiping up the floor with the J-10's...Not today. The first round has MiG's and J-10 exchanging one hit. In round two the remaining MiG's all miss with their R-77's while the J-10's score two more hits with their PL-12's. In the third round, the surviving MiG-29K pilot believing his superiority charges into the fray firing two R-77's which both miss, the 5x J-10 pilots humor him before shooting him down as well. The day goes to the "heroes" of the PLAN, probably clearing the way for the JH-7A Flounder attack aircraft.

Ohio sub a new twist on underwater warfare By Eric Talmadge - The Associated Press Posted : Friday Feb 15, 2008 17:17:15 EST ABOARD THE USS OHIO, SOMEWHERE IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN — Capt. Andy Hale has just worked out and is still in a sweaty T-shirt and shorts as he stands in the battle command center. He watches a flat screen display that shows what’s happening outside on the bow and the aft. His billion-dollar submarine — the Navy’s newest twist on underwater warfare — is hovering just below the surface off the Pacific island of Guam as a submersible disappears into the dark waters, carrying a team of commandos. The Ohio is the first of a new class of submarine created in a conversion from 1970s vessels by trading nuclear-tipped ICBMs for conventional cruise missiles and a contingent of commandos ready to be launched onto virtually any shore through reworked missile tubes — against conventional forces or terrorists. The sub’s cruise across the Pacific comes as China builds its submarine fleet into the region’s largest as part of the bulking up of its military. The voyage is the Ohio’s first deployment since the makeover, and Hale is in the odd position of showing the ship off. It’s odd because the sub is all about stealth. Hale can’t talk about where the ship is going. The aft end of the ship, where the nuclear power plant is located, is off limits. The leader of the SEAL commando contingent aboard can’t be named, and the commandos themselves can’t be photographed in any way that shows their faces. But, over the next few months, the Ohio will be making a very public statement, training intensively in some of the world’s most crowded and contested waters and joining in exercises with America’s Asian allies. Instead of hiding them, the Ohio will be showcasing its abilities to elude detection and operate too deeply and quickly to be tracked. Then it will likely do what it does best — vanish. “Submarines are the original stealth platform,” Hale told the Associated Press, the only news agency allowed on board. “Submarine forces have always viewed the Pacific as a very important strategic area ... it’s certainly grown in importance in the last 10 years.” Just about every country with a coastline in Asia wants or has subs. China, Japan, Australia, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh and South and North Korea either now have or are planning to acquire them. Most don’t pose much of a threat to the more advanced American fleet. But that is changing. While Russia continues to be a factor, China now has the biggest submarine fleet in the region, with nearly 60. The U.S. has upped its presence in the Pacific, and now has more ships — and more subs — in this part of the world than in the Atlantic. But they are still outnumbered. “There are many challenges in the Pacific,” Hale said. “China is certainly one of them, but it is not the only one.” China’s subs are mainly diesel-powered, meaning they must come up for air more frequently than U.S. nuclear-powered vessels, and their crews are not thought to be as well trained as American submariners, who spend several months at a time at sea. China’s fleet is also highly focused on patrolling its own coastal waters and on dealing with potential hostilities over Taiwan, rather than with “projecting force,” or trying to control faraway shipping lanes. But its long-term goals remain opaque. In 2006, a Chinese sub shocked the Navy by surfacing within torpedo range of the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk near the Japanese island of Okinawa. Beijing claimed the sub was in international waters and was not “stalking” the carrier, which was taking part in a naval exercise. The growing rivalry was underscored in November, when Beijing refused a scheduled port call by the Kitty Hawk’s battle group to Hong Kong, forcing thousands of sailors to spend Thanksgiving at sea. In January, however, China allowed a visit to the port by another U.S. Navy vessel. Washington has repeatedly expressed concern that China is pouring money into expanding its forces. Beijing increased its military budget by nearly 18 percent to about $45 billion last year, the largest annual hike in more than a decade, and U.S. officials think actual spending is greater. The Chinese, meanwhile, are closely watching to see how U.S. concern translates into changes in the U.S. Navy. When the Ohio, which is based in Bangor, Wash., docked at Guam last month, China’s official Xinhua news agency called the submarine a “warehouse of explosives” and a “devil of deterrence.” “If the Ohio turns west from Guam, it would need only hours to travel to the coastal waters of many Asian nations,” it said. “The U.S. Navy believes the power of the cruise missile-armed nuclear submarine will be tremendous in a future war.” That is exactly what the Navy wants China and others to think, and why the Ohio is in the Pacific. “The advanced capabilities that we have brought to this ship make it a premier front-line submarine,” said the Ohio’s executive officer, Lt. Commander Al Ventura. “This has taken the submarine force to a whole new level.” The Ohio has both vast firepower and the ability to deploy quickly to wherever it’s needed. It has 24 launch tubes, 15 of which have been fitted for multiple Tomahawks — more than 100 in total. That’s more than were launched in the entire first Gulf War. From an offshore position in the Pacific, it could strike Pyongyang, North Korea. From the Indian Ocean, it could hit anywhere in Afghanistan. The switch to conventional missiles is a concept borne of necessity. Under a 1992 disarmament treaty, the Navy had to give up four of its 18 “boomers,” huge submarines that have for decades served as mobile launch platforms for long-range nuclear missiles and were primary players in the Cold War game of cat-and-mouse between Washington and Moscow. Instead of scrapping the ships, however, the Navy converted them. The nuclear weapons were replaced with conventional Tomahawk guided missiles and several of the launch tubes refitted to deploy the Navy SEALs in submersible boats. Because of the sheer size of the sub — it’s 560 feet long — it has more room for its 160-member crew and dozens of commandos than an attack submarine. While still cramped and claustrophobic, sailors have bigger beds and several places for working out, which the SEALs do constantly. Among the SEALs, stealth remains a way of life. In a wardroom just yards from the Tomahawk missile tubes, the head of the SEAL contingent agreed to be interviewed, but only if he wasn’t identified or photographed, lest he or his family be tracked down by terrorists, for whom killing a SEAL would be a major propaganda coup. “We go places,” he said. “Let’s just leave it at that.” While near Guam, the SEALs conducted operations simulating an undersea launch in their submersible and a landing to assess a fictitious terrorist threat. Guam was dubbed “Backwateria” and the terrorists called the “Al-Shakur.” The names of the terrorist leaders were taken from a popular TV cartoon. The island could just as well have been Taiwan, or the shores of North Korea. The SEAL commander said the simulations were not aimed at any particular country. Still, he said, it’s not just idle training. “This capability has been used before, and it will probably be used again,” he said. Find Navy Times article here.

Apparently the US has made it known that it will shoot it down in March. Breaking New found here on MSNCB dot com I wonder if I should stock up on duct tape and plastic sheets.

Probably be the most effective option.

I've followed this story, and the cynic in me says that while the US should shoot it down as part of, or an extension of, an ABM system, they would hate to state that they were going to and then end up missing.

LCS delays could send UAVs to other ships By John T. Bennett - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Feb 12, 2008 21:29:41 EST If the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships are delayed, the service may debut the Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned rotorcraft “on another air-capable ship,” said William Balderson, the service’s program executive officer for air programs. That “would allow us to not delay the Fire Scout even if LCS slips” and would also allow the service to begin integrating the vertical-takeoff UAV onto a working ship, driving down “integration risk” when it moves to the littoral ships, he said. That plan, however, is still “pre-decisional,” as PEO aviation officials and Fleet Forces Command mull other ways they might deal with LCS delays, Balderson said Tuesday at an Aviation Week-sponsored conference in Washington. The Navy recently canceled the third and fourth ships of the program – one each of separate designs being built by prime contractors Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. And the 2009 defense spending plan sent to Capitol Hill last week showed major changes, including buying four fewer ships than the six initially planned in 2009, alterations spurred by soaring costs. But other senior Navy officials at the conference made clear the sea service remains dedicated to the planned buy of 55 ships. “We need the full 55 LCSs to do the mission that’s out there right now,” said Vice Adm. David Architzel, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition. Later the same day, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway told the conference that he and Navy leaders have agreed that 33 amphibious and massive transport ships will be needed for forcible-entry missions that require moving two Marine brigades and their tools of war ashore under fire. Their agreement stipulates 11 big decks, 11 amphibious transport docks and 11 dock landing ships. Conway said this is not exactly what the Marines view as optimal, because some of those ships will be older vessels with less transport capacity than newer amphibious haulers. Meanwhile, another Navy UAV effort could clear a major hurdle next month, Balderson said. Early in March, the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program is slated to go before the Defense Acquisition Board for its milestone B review. Find Navy Times article here.

Bah, my detection numbers are off. It would be a max detection range of 75nm if the targets were "Large". My data shows the MiG-29K as Small signature, while the J-10 as Very Small. Needless to say, I had some exchanges with Paul K who has some late breaking info which jazz's up all of my radar stats and re-classifies the J-10 a Small. MTF

4x Experienced MiG-29K at High Alt. and 6x Competent J-10 at high altitude (flying top cover for the JH-7A's), both at cruise throttle, detect each other at 71.5nm. Both groups of fighters accelerate to FMP and close. Both the Indians and Chinese fires long range missile fire at a range of 34.3nm. 6x R-77 and 4x PL-12. Due to the same distance and speed, the missiles all reach their targets at approximately the same time. R-77 ATA 7.0 -4.5 (J-10 Man Rating) -0.5 (J-10 3rd Gen Decoys) -0.5 (J-10 VSmall Target) = 1.5 Missile Index -1 row due to Experienced vs Competent. pK = 50% 4 Kills rolled. PL-12 ATA 6.5 -5 (MiG-29k manual rating) -0.5 (MiG-29K 3rd Gen Decoys) = 1.0 missile index +1 row due to competent vs Experienced. pK = 40%. All four roll as missed. This possibly allows, on this night, the MiG's to jump the raiding Flounders before they can launch their retalitory strike on the Indian SAG. hmm...

F/A-18s intercept Russian bombers near carrier By Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press Posted : Monday Feb 11, 2008 17:08:47 EST WASHINGTO — U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers flying unusually close to an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend, The Associated Press has learned. A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 buzzed the aircraft carrier Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 50 nautical miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret. The Saturday incident, which never escalated beyond the flyover, comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia over U.S. plans for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Such Russian bomber flights were common during the Cold War, but have been rare since. The bombers were among four Russian Tupolev 95s launched from Ukrainka in the middle of the night, including one that Japanese officials say violated their country’s airspace over an uninhabited island south of Tokyo. U.S. officials tracked and monitored the bombers as two flew south along the Japanese coast, and two others flew farther east, coming closer to the Nimitz and the guided missile cruiser Princeton. As the bombers got about 500 miles out from the U.S. ships, four F/A-18 fighters were launched from the Nimitz, the official said. The fighters intercepted the Russian bombers about 50 miles south of the Nimitz. At least two U.S. fighters trailed the bomber as it came in low over the Nimitz twice, while one or two of the other U.S. fighters followed the second bomber as it circled. The official said there were no verbal communications between the U.S. and the Russians, and the Pentagon has not heard of any protests being filed by the United States. Historically, diplomatic protests were not filed in such incidents because they were so common during the Cold War era. This is the first time Russian Tupolevs have flown over or interacted with a U.S. carrier since 2004. Find Navy Times article here.

More commentary from Yahoo AT. Three second rule effecting CIWS hitting ASM's. Will have to check, I do believe that it would have applied here. Automatic Detection of Raids 1 and 2 due to all three Indian surface combatants radiating. This may have assisted, but I am of the uneducated opinion that it probably would not alter the end results in this engagement.

Received feedback that the Barak SAM's director can only guide on one target at a time (per ship of course as all three had Barak systems), so things may not have ended so rosey for the Indian ships - INS Rajput excluded. I also noticed as I played through this engagement, the Barak only had 8 missiles per mount and only a 50% pH versus these incoming missiles, which was lower than both the Gadfly and Goa. I suppose their strength lies in their abilities at close range. I was definitely surprised about the basically no re-load of the eight cell Barak mount. Another clarification was that SAM minimum range is "adjudicated" as per the range when the SAM is fired, not when it interecepts. I'll need to read that myself in order to feel completely on board with that. ** I have completed data forms for the Indian MiG-29K, Chinese J-10, and their assorted R-73, R-77, PL-8, PL-11, and PL-12 AAM's. Expect some air battle results over the next few days.

Yep, I chuckled as they actually rolled that way. It is worse than written there cause while it was 1x locked onto Delhi, it was 7 locked onto Rajput. Raid two was more of a equal opportunity strike with 3-3-2 for the DDG-DDG-FF.

Well... The 4x JH-7A Flounders were ordered to strike at a distance of 325nm away after the Indian SAG (Delhi DDG, Rajput DDG, and Brahmaputra FF) was detected by a PLAN maritime patrol aircraft. The Flounders were a LOAD2 with 4x YJ-82K (C802K) and one 790 liter drop tank each. This gave the strikers an endurance of 1615nm. The strikers took off from their airfield once they reach cruise speed, the continued to climb to high altitude of 7501m, before quickly beginning their descent. As it played out they probably should not have attempted to get to high altitude since there was not enough time to get back below the RLOS before all four aircraft being detected at a range of just over 90nm. The four attacking Flounders each launched two salvoes of 2 YJ-82K’s in successive tactical turns, 0636 and 0639. At their EP’s Raid1 rolls 1 missile at Delhi, 5 at Rajput. Raid2 rolls 3 at Delhi, 3 at Rajput, and 2 at Brahmaputra. The Indian SAG detects 6 of the 8 incoming Vampires of Raid1. INS Delhi was the first to launch one SA-N-7a Gadfly from each of its launchers in the 2nd fire phase of 0639. At this point Raid1 was 7.25nm and Raid2 12.25nm away. 0639.5: After 1st Move, R1 now 4.75nm, R29.75nm and the 2x Sa-N-7a’s intercept Raid1 with 2 hits. First Fire, the Indians launch two more Gadflys, 4x Baraks, and 2x SA-N-1a Goa’s. They detected five more incoming missiles, one from raid one and four from the second raid. In the Second Move Phase, Raid1 is at 2.25, Raid2 is 7.25. The two Gadfly’s and four Baraks intercepted Raid2, while the Goa’s intercepted Raid1. 2nd Fire Phase, 2x Gadfly, 2x Goa, and 8 (4 and 4) Barak are launched from Delhi, Rajput, and Delhi/Brahmaputra. Resolving the intercepting Gadflys and Goas, they each scored one hit, while the Baraks took down two. Raid1 is now three missiles, and Raid2 is now seven. In 0640.0 1st Movement Phase, the three remaining missiles of Raid1 reach Rajput. In the 1st Air Attack Resolution, the AK-230 30mm CIWS destroyed one of the incoming missiles, the AK-726 76mm was an automatic miss due to not be SSC and the VSmall RCS of the YJ-82k’s. In resolving the missile strikes, one YJ struck the Rajput, while the other was seduced by the countermeasures and missed. 33DP were inflicted on Rajput causing critical hits to its forward Volna SAM Launcher, one of its Volga [Don Kay] SS and MR-500 Kliver Big Net] AS radars, and flooding (rolled as “severe flooding”). 2 Gadflys account for one more missile of Raid2, while the 8 Baraks take down 4 Raid2 missiles. During the 0640.0 1st Fire Phase, 2x Gadflys and the last 4 Baraks are launched. Raid2 is now down to 1 YJ-82K whose seeker has acquired Delhi. The final 2 Gadfly’s miss, the final four Baraks all miss as well. The Delhi’s AK-630 30mm CIWS fires at 60% -15% for the VSmall RCS and misses. The final YJ was then seduced into the sea by the 2nd Generation J&D of Delhi. In the end, it was INS Rajput, the launcher of the BrahMos missiles that struck the PLAN Type-956EM, that was in turn struck by a single YJ-82K. Rajput was down its forward SAM launcher, most of its radar suite, and suffered severe flooding. It was last seen beginning to list and struggling to move. After some study of this situation, the lack of an area air defense ship among the Delhi, Rajput destroyers and the Brahamutra FF would become problematic. Even though the attackers were all detected early, the Indian radar personnel could only watch the attackers close with them and released their missiles, before any of the Indian ships could engage, and then only the arrow, not the archers.

New mission for Corps relies on amphibs New deployment strategy stresses Navy-Marine link By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer Posted : Friday Feb 8, 2008 18:24:45 EST The Marines want to get back to their expeditionary roots — and they’ll be taking amphib sailors with them. According to a recently approved operational concept, the Marine Corps plans to keep nine infantry battalions forward-deployed at all times, with the remaining 18 battalions in training. For the Marines, it means new advisory missions on top of existing requirements. And for sailors, it will mean a steady reliance on the amphibious fleet. In recent years, with Marines committed to long-term presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy’s gator force has at times deployed without Marines on unique missions, such as chasing pirates off Africa or serving as a floating health clinic in Asia. But that may soon be adjusted under the new operational concept known informally as “The Long War brief,” which was signed sometime in late January or early February by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway. In comments to reporters Feb. 1 in Washington, D.C., Conway said long-term commitments ashore have dulled the Corps’ sharp seagoing tradition. “We now have a generation of men and women who do not have a complete understanding of what ‘expeditionary’ is,” Conway said. “That people now believe that three square meals a day courtesy of KBR and a cot is expeditionary, that is just not true in most of the environments where we would expect to find ourselves in the early going of a contingency.” It’s back to the blue/green team. Based on a force of 27 active-duty infantry battalions, the new “operational employment concept” puts nine infantry battalions forward at all times: three with Marine expeditionary units, three forward-deployed on Guam and Okinawa, Japan, and three with newly conceived, region-specific foreign military training missions, known as a “security cooperation Marine air-ground task forces.” The SC MAGTF would provide security assistance and conduct civil-military operations with the intent of helping cooperative but less-developed nations. “Among these changed practices is the implementation of a regional focus for units that source this new capability [sC MAGTF],” according to a Conway-signed forward to the document. “Through this initiative, changes to manpower policies will enable the development of linguistically adept, culturally aware units for training foreign military forces.” As a more detailed vision of the “soft power” elements in the new Maritime Strategy, released in October, the SC MAGTF is similar in spirit to Navy’s global fleet station — a ship or group of ships deployed to a specific region with embarked local-language speakers and training cadres. The most recent GFS set sail in mid-October, when the Little Creek, Va.-based dock landing ship Fort McHenry steamed for the west coast of Africa to serve as a floating partnership station, building relations with the militaries and civilians in the nations of the strategically important Gulf of Guinea. It was joined recently by the high-speed vessel Swift. According to the 52-page “Long War” document, “mission success” for continually forward-deployed Marines will rely on available transport via naval forces. Those new sorts of missions are similar to a new Marine/Navy configuration proposed by Frank Hoffman, a former Marine officer and currently a national security analyst. In an article for the May 2007 issue of Marine Corps Gazette, titled “Rethinking Naval Forward Presence,” Hoffman called for a new mix of forces in the post-Sept. 11 world order. “Everything should be back on the table,” he said. In the Gazette article, Hoffman proposes modifying the expeditionary strike group and embarking a scaled-down MEU aboard the amphibs for forward presence, training and crisis response — possibly without artillery or tracked vehicles, to free up cargo space in the ships — while keeping surface combatants and/or submarines in the U.S., but “available ... if needed.” He terms the new force a “Maritime Security Group.” “I just don’t see the need to employ these ships on a day-to-day basis in the way the Navy is doing,” he said in an interview. “The Navy is not suffering with the same operational tempo so they are spitting out the same deployment rotations.” While the new Marine concept may provide greater definition in similar future scenarios, the recent past has shown creative uses for “green-free” amphibs. In May, the amphibious assault ship Peleliu steamed from San Diego on Pacific Partnership, a floating four-month humanitarian assistance/civil affairs mission throughout Southeast Asia. Before being decommissioned in 2007, the amphibious assault ship Saipan deployed with only an embarked Navy helicopter detachment in August 2006 as an “expeditionary action group.” Bob Work, a former Marine officer and now senior defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the new operational concept will mean plenty of work for the amphibious fleet. “The Marines are thinking really hard about getting back into the naval expeditionary mind-set. Right now they just don’t have a lot of slack to do it,” he said. “The amphibs are not going away.” For Norman Polmar, longtime naval analyst and author, the very versatile amphibious ships should be deployed, but with a good purpose. He takes issue with the Peleliu deployment last year on a medical mission, saying that’s the job of the hospital ships such as Comfort and Mercy, not a “first-line warship.” Further, swift and deadly surface combatants such as cruisers, destroyers and frigates are ideal for catch-all maritime security operations, he said. “But a 40,000-ton LHD with a crew of 1,000 sailors doesn’t do maritime surveillance and patrol.” Find Navy Times articale here