pmaidhof

....The basic rule would be stay deep at creep and let the bad guys come to you... Warhorse, in this case, the Indian group was steaming at 28-29kts directly away from San Juan. San Juan was about midway between the Indian SAG and my CVBG. San Juan and the CVBG could barely keep up. It was only towards the very end of the scenario when the Indian group approached coastline to their north that they made their fateful decision to turn eastward twoard the Pakistani port of Karachi and was then forced to turn back into the US force, allowing the sub to take a shot or two with torpedos, still missed , and the CVBG to close within a more comfortable strike range. It was also turning into the US force that I guess the AI realized its fatal error and unleashed a killer of a sunburn missile strike, before succumbing to multiple strike packages. I used up slightly less than one day of the five day time allowance. I suppose I could have been more patient. Definitely a fun scenario.

Played this one through this afternoon/night. US force had to withstand a massive airstrikes from airbases on the Indian mainland early on, which are off limits to counter attack. Once the Bears and Backfires are dealt with there is low to medium air activity from then on until you come into contact with the Indian SAG. Then Su-33 from the carrier air wing keep you on your toes. The SAG was bigger than anticipated, with gear you can expect from an enormous Indian naval build-up. Think wish-list. Indian subs are active and even with me looking for them, I lost one ship for each sub, a Kilo and a Victor III. Indian SAG at that point took off at max speed and I could only hope to keep up. I was continually launching strikes at the very limit of the strikers endurance. Re-fueling operations were weak at best as I forgot the alt-r combination when I needed it most. My sub, USS San Juan was also pedal to the metal trying to get into position all game long. I need to get a grip on HCE sub operations, I have yet to break the code on this in my years of off and on play. Basically I suck. In the end, the SAG trapped itself between my sub, my CVBG, and the pakistani coast off of Karachi. Eventally they turned toward me (south) launched a massive Sunburn strike taking out Olendorf, and then taking their body blows, losing everyone in succession. I will try and fill in more details tomorrow as it is late and I have the log with me tomorrow. Final Tally: 3 US Ships lost (Donald Cook Burke Class DD to a Kilo Class sub, Bunker Hill CG to Victor III, Olendorf an Improved Spruance by 2 Sunburns) 27 Aircraft - a combination of fighters fighting off the hordes early on vs Bears, Backfires, MiG-29s and Su-33's, and attrition during the many long ranged strikes. 6 helo - luckless souls carrying out ASW ops, wrong place at wrong time. 1 Indian Carrier Lost (Charles de Gaulle by 10 harpoon missiles) 7 other Indian ships lost (Godavari by harpoons, Taragiri a Modified Leander by harpoons, Rajput a Kashin II by harpoons, Sovremenny 4 harpoons, Rana a Kashin II by 4 harpoons, Delhi by 6 harpoons, and a Neustrashimmy by a lone harpoon. 2 submarines (Kilo and Victor III lost to an S-3A) 91 aircraft 23 helo Good scenario Fred G.

Thanks Fred

Took this out for a spin today and was quite surprised. Having been a bit rusty with HCE, I was not prepared for what took place. The initial aircraft loadouts on Kittyhawk are not condusive to what needed to be accomplished. Despite my shortcomings, it appears to be a very good scenario, and my only constructive comment at this point is to provide a little more intel in the mission data-dump. I had started a written log but was quickly overwehlmed and will need to re-set this badboy. Thanks Brad.

OK I do not want to underestimate them. While the current leader is nowhere near squeaky-clean, I still will hold my opinion that it would be lower ranks of the military/intelligence service co-opted by the extremists who pulled this off. [Edit:] Who had the most to benefit from this in-fighting between the non-extremists?

Here is my promised debrief of Lock 'n Load Games platoon level World War III game series. I played the first scenario yesterday afternoon. The rules take up about 12 pages, simple without being simplistic. Each hex of the map is 125m. Each turn is 5-15min. The game is set in the Summer 1985. Each unit involved in a scenario US company or USSR battalion has a formation chip which is placed in an opaque container - I used washed a cake frosting container I stashed away after wifes birthday earlier this month. Each turn chits are pulled one at a time, each time activating a formation. Once the units of a formation have been moved/fired etc, another formation chit is pulled. Adding uncertainty to the game is a number of end turn chits mixed in. In the scenario I played, there were two end turn chits mixed in. During the coursr of a turn, the first end turn chit is a "warning", the second ends the turn. It may happen that a sides formation(s) do not activate in a turn. Also, representing better command and control, US formations often (may always) have two of each formation chits in the container. This could allow for a US formation to activate twice in a turn. If in the right sequence even three times is possible due to Oportunity Fire. The gameplay flows nicely. Each unit has either an Armor Piercing, a High Exposive rating, or often both. Each unit obviously has defense and movement ratings. Movement is straight forward. In Combat the attacker rolls the number of d6 equal to his Firepower Rating. Each result equal or greater to his To Hit Number counts as a Hit on the target. The target consults his Armor Value, which is the number of d6 to roll. Each result equal to or greater than his save number counters one on the attackers hits. The first hit inflicts "Disruption" which can be counteracted by rallying at the start of the next turn. Second and third hits result in step loss and elimination resprectively. Other than tanks platoons, mechanized infantry, armored reconnaissance, attack helicopters, air defense and HQ units are also represented. Indirect Fire consists of HE, DPICM, and Smoke and are provided in scenario specific amounts. In the scenario played yesterday the T72 equipped 1st Tank Battalion attacked to capture an MSR which lead through twon towns, Bergengipfel and Eisenbach, and across the a river that I believe to be the Salle River (a town on which elements of my family are from). The defense was provided by two M1 (105mm versions) platoons, an M-113 mech platoon which a dragon team, and one ITV vehicle of Team Yankee. In the end the 1st Tank Battalion fell upon the guns and missiles of Team Yankee - their high water mark being the hexes just outside of Eisenback before the survivors broke contact and fell back upon Bergengipfel - two platoons and the HQ. The game is quick moving and fun.

To play devil's advocate, would the extremists want...to eliminate someone who was a vocal opponent of both themselves and the current regime. Then they can just sit back with a smile and watch the Bhutto's supporters further weaken the current Musharraf regime. It plays both of their opponents against each other. It all works to their benefit and furthers the chaos in country, which is edging dangerously closer to becoming a failed state with nuclear weapons.

Well...?

Frohe Weihnachten unsere Harpoon-Freund Ralf.

Holiday Greetings to all the participants of Harpgamer. May all your ASM's/AAM's home true. All the best in 2008.

You dirty old man...I thought that was what you meant. It might just be all the sweet smells coming from the kitchen, we have turned it into a 48 hour cookie factory, which are clouding my mind.

Ah...what?

If you have 7 minutes and twenty-eight seconds to burn, this clip is entertaining. Land Rover vs Challenger2

Found and posted by Paul AV8RMongo on another forum. B0-105 Nap of the Earth here.

Navy decommissions last coastal minehunters By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff writer Posted : Sunday Dec 16, 2007 9:00:05 EST The Navy bid adieu to its last four Osprey-class coastal minehunter ships Dec. 1, leaving the service to rely on 14 Avenger-class minehunters and the nascent Littoral Combat Ship program to fill the niche mission of surveying shallow coastal waters for mines. The decommissioning ceremony was held at Naval Station Ingleside, Texas. The ships — Black Hawk, Cormorant, Kingfisher and Shrike — were capable of clearing harbors and other coastal waters of various types of underwater mines. The ships were commissioned between 1996 and 1999. The Navy began decommissioning its 12 coastal minehunters in June 2006. The Greek and Egyptian navies each own two of the ships; the rest remain in storage in Beaumont, Texas, according to the Navy. The roughly 200 total sailors assigned to the last four ships have been reassigned, Naval Station Ingleside spokeswoman Fifi Kieschnick said. A “large portion” of these sailors will remain in the mine warfare community, but the Navy was unable to quantify how many sailors were going where, Kieschnick said. The service retains its fleet of 14 Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships, which are stationed in Bahrain and Japan. The MCMs were designed for deep-water minesweeping, hunting and neutralization, and have a longer range than the Osprey ships. The first of these ships is slated to leave the fleet in fiscal 2016. Lee Hunt, vice president for academic affairs for the Mine Warfare Association, said the departure of the last coastal minehunters robs the service of the ability to survey domestic harbors for mines. “The loss of the Navy’s 12 [coastal minehunters] means that we have no capability to survey our harbors against terrorist mining,” Hunt said. But Navy spokeswoman Lt. Jessica Gandy said the service is confident its other assets — including the Avenger-class minesweepers and helicopter anti-mine units — can respond to a harbor terrorist threat. The service should purchase additional Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull, or SWATH, boats, such as the one used by Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 7 in San Diego, to fill the gap, Hunt said. The boats are relatively inexpensive, roughly $2 million each, and require a crew of five, he said. However, the service has no plan on record to purchase more of these boats. The Navy’s mine warfare plan includes moving six MCMs to San Diego in fiscal 2009, according to briefing slides the service provided to Navy Times. The Navy’s ability to retain mine-hunting capabilities will depend on the LCS, a multimission vessel that will serve as the service’s primary mine warfare ship when it hits the fleet in the next two years. The Navy plans to have 30 LCS sea frames by fiscal 2018. “I don’t expect there to be a gap” in mine warfare capability, said Robert Work, a naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. “I think we’re in good shape.” Nonetheless, Work noted a lot depends on how the LCS mine warfare module performs. In the future, the question will be whether the LCS will “augment or replace” the Avenger-class MCMs, he said. The mine warfare mission module under development for LCS features newer, more portable anti-mine technologies. The module was delivered to the fleet in September, but parts of the new system remain in development. The system will not be tested on an LCS until next year at the earliest. The module includes underwater autonomous mine-hunting vehicles, along with radars on LCS-launched MH-60S Seahawk helicopters. Dedicated mine warfare assets such as minesweepers are often too slow, and the ability to put the mine warfare module on an LCS allows for “greater speed and endurance” in anti-mine missions, Capt. Michael Good, program manager for the modules, told Navy Times in September. Further, the module uses autonomous systems to help “take sailors out the minefield” by keeping them out of dangerous waters. Instead, sailors will monitor the situation from the LCS, Good said. Since 1950, enemy sea mines have damaged or destroyed 15 Navy ships — more than any other weapons combined, the Government Accountability Office noted in an October report on the Navy’s mine warfare module for the LCS. Further, the GAO report says the Navy should delay full-rate production of certain mine countermeasures planned for the LCS program until the new ship is capable of testing such systems. In a written response to the report, the Defense Department said delays in the full-rate production schedule for the mine warfare systems would harm development of the overall platform. See Navy Times article here.

It's good to be the king.

You're such a smart-guy Tony. Thanks

Excellent idea in my opinion. I'll leave it to the smart guys to comment on how likely it would be to appear in HCE.

...1...1...1, er guys...FIRE IN THE HOLE!

Saw this over on CSW. youtube Eryx Missile Shot

So for argument sake Admiral Kuznetsov Petr Velikiy - Kirov CG type A Udaloy destroyer and a Krivak/or Neustrashimyy frigate. Hmm...

New York Times December 6, 2007 Russia: Warships Sent To Mediterranean By Associated Press Russia dispatched an 11-ship aircraft carrier group to the Mediterranean Sea, Defense Minister Anatoly E. Serdyukov said, as part of what he said was an effort to resume regular Russian naval patrols there and on the world’s oceans. He said an aircraft carrier, two anti-submarine ships and a guided missile cruiser along with refueling ships from Russia’s Northern and Black Sea fleets and 47 aircraft would be part of the Mediterranean group. The group is to conduct three tactical exercises with real and simulated launches of sea- and air-based missiles. The announcement is the latest move by President Vladimir V. Putin to breathe new life into Russian armed forces, bolstered by the oil revenues pouring into government coffers. Earlier this year, he ordered the military to resume regular long-range flights of strategic bombers. [Me: what would be a reasonable current Class assumption of the carrier, anti-sub ships, and guided missile cruiser? - Thanks]

Course-changing missiles tested for LCS By Kris Osborn - Staff writer Posted : Thursday Dec 6, 2007 6:24:42 EST FORT BLISS, Texas — The Army has begun initial test firing of prototypes of a next-generation precision land missile that is able to be redirected toward new targets while in flight and can hit targets on-the-move up to about 24 miles (40 kilometers) away, Army officials said. The Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS), slated to field with other Army Future Combat Systems’ so-called spinout technologies by 2010, is designed with both GPS and infrared guidance systems. Tested at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., the NLOS-LS launcher carries 15 Precision Attack Missiles (PAM) able to fire on targets; they are 117.5-pound projectiles designed with a semi-active laser seeker and automatic targeting, said Army Col. Douglas Deaver, NLOS-LS program manager. “The PAM is designed to hit a moving target, which takes us to the next evolutionary step for missile systems. It is also designed so that once the missile is in the air, a soldier can use his laser and lase two spots to get the track of the missile. He can tell the missile while it is in flight to keep adjusting where it is looking. Then the missile will switch to IR (infrared) at the end and get the optimum hit,” Deaver said. Unlike most precision munitions now in the Army's arsenal, which fly a specific pre-determined course to a target, the PAM missiles can change course in-flight. “With the PAM missile we can actually tell it which way to fly. You can fly it down the middle of the road in Baghdad and hit a target on the other side of town. We can shape the trajectory and use waypoints to guide it all the way," Deaver said. The Army is now assessing how many NLOS-LS systems will be needed as well as the logistical impact of fielding the system. “We are going through a log demo this week which starts the initial logistics training on how we are going to field this system in the future and how we are going to field it,” Deaver said. The next set of tests is slated for February, Deaver said. Weighing roughly 3,100 pounds, the Container Launch Unit is designed for rapid deployability onboard a C-130, UH-60 Black Hawk, CH-46 Chinook, CH-53 and V-22 Osprey. In 2006, the Navy signed a memorandum of agreement with the Army, making NLOS-LS a joint program. The Navy plans to use NLOS-LC on Littoral Combat Ships. Future variants of the NLOS-C include a Loiter Attack Missile (LAM) for air defense, and a non-lethal variant. Find Navy Times article here.

We need to flesh this out.

I'm tempted to do just that, Pete, though perhaps we can all agree that the results wouldn't be conclusive. (Translation: I wouldn't want the F-14 aficionados to cry foul. ) Fun, nonetheless. Maybe a series of scenarios with various air wing combinations. Most likely inconclusive since the 1980's CAW would be up against 1980's air defenses, while the 2000's CAW would be against relatively up-to-date air defenses. To allow the current CAW to go against single digit SAM's wouldn't be fair for the 80s wing, ...but who said anything about being fair!