pmaidhof

Today at lunch a ZSU-23-4 battery was adjacent to the target. Using aimed fire at short range, it has a 50% chance of inflicting a hit within the flight profile I am using (4000ft level), the severity however is variable. AAA can also barrage fire, some can use plotted fire. Today it was not enough to stop me as the AAA rolled a 7.

Well combining these two threads along with my re-learning, not that I ever truely learned, GDW's Air Superiority/Air Strike. The updated rules to the former Airpower series is The Speed of Heat published and still available from Clash of Arms. AS/AS models individual planes in the 80's and 90's. Each hex is 1/3 of a mile, 12-15 seconds per turn, targets, err I mean ground units (in Air Strike) include fireteams/platoons and individual vehicles, along with a slew of counters representing everything from bridges, dry docks, port facilities, POL, command postsfactory/warehouses, rail yards, power stations, airfield/facilities, shelters, etc. In planning the IP Inbound portion of the attack on the railyard mentioned in the target nomination thread - in game terms it encompasses two adjacent hexes - an F/A-18C with 4x Mk83 1000lb bombs, and its "advanced" bombsight has a very good chance to inflict damage on one of the hexes while conducting level-bombing from 3000-4000ft. Select New York from the 1/24000 map link posted yesterday and search Norwood. The map shows the target area in the extreme lower left quadrant One wrinkle not yet present is any sort of defense, so don't jump down my throat yet. First defense will be some AAA. After that some MANPADs and possible some SAM's and associated radar at the Potsdam Airport, not too far to the south. Which would also lead to SEAD and possible air to air engagements.

Robots Clear Waterways of Deadly Mines Associated Press | July 27, 2007 PANAMA CITY BEACH, Fla. - As it slowly moves in the shallow water along a beach, the robot splashes its fins like a small child playing in the surf. But the prototype device has a serious mission: destroying mines that could kill Marines and Navy SEALs as they come on shore. Such technology is considered the future of underwater bomb detection. "It's a kamikaze vehicle, a suicidal robot," said Mathieu Kemp, a scientist with Durham, N.C.-based Nekton Research, LCC, which created the Transphibian. The 3-foot-long device, which will some day carry 14 pounds of plastic explosives and attach itself to an underwater bomb before igniting, can be maneuvered by a joystick, which Kemp demonstrated last month at the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Fest, an annual two-week gathering of researchers who design robots for military use. Experts with the Panama City Beach-based Naval Surface Warfare Center say such robots eventually will replace minesweeping ships and perform dangerous jobs now done by specialized divers. A 2003 mine-clearing operation in the port of Um Quasar, Iraq, was a major test for autonomous underwater vehicles. The technology helped the U.S. Navy clear a path for a British ship carrying 200 tons of food and emergency supplies. It took the AUVs about 16 hours to search nearly a square mile and help divers locate an undisclosed number of mines - a task the Navy says would have taken 21 days for divers working without the technology. In the future, scientists plan to put explosives on the AUVs to destroy the mines. Meanwhile, they are using them to quickly and accurately differentiate ocean clutter from mines. "The closer in you get to any port or harbor, the greater amount of clutter you will encounter - tires, rocks, coral reefs - there can be so much clutter you would not believe it," said Daniel Broadstreet, a spokesman for the Naval Surface Warfare Center, which specializes in neutralizing underwater mines. "To screen out all that clutter is a huge job and it takes some very, very technologically advanced sensors," Broadstreet said. The Um Quasar operation was a milestone for AUVs because it marked the first wartime use of the technology, said Tom Swean, team leader of the Office of Naval Research's Mine Warfare Science and Technology Program. Swean joined the Office of Naval Research in Arlington, Va., in 1981, but his work took off in 1997 when the Navy SEALs got involved. They tailored the systems for missions including surveying the seabed, finding channels near the shore and locating mines. "It was important that they have underwater vehicles that could not be seen very easily," Swean said. "Their missions are near shore and are very dangerous." A decade later, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have pushed advances in unmanned and robotic technology, especially on land and in the air where robots routinely inspect improvised explosive devices and drones conduct air reconnaissance. "It's gone from zero to 60 pretty fast," said Jeffery Bradshaw, a scientist at the Pensacola-based Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, which is working with the warfare center on a project to use robots for port security. The military is expected to spend more than $50 million on the acquisition of AUV technology in the next five years, Swean said. At the same time, more than $12 billion is expected to be spent on unmanned aircraft programs. The next steps for the researchers include creating robots that function alongside troops as members of an operational team and ones that work with other robots. "If one robot breaks or if one of the human team members is in trouble, they would know how to coordinate interactions - sort of like buddies," Bradshaw said. Despite the interest in robotic technology, changes won't be immediate, Swean said. The Navy likely will phase out large mine sweepers, but it will need ships to deploy the robotic systems, he said. Among the robots with the most promise is the Transphibian, which is still being developed. "It's a good example of a hybrid concept, it can swim in the water and it can crawl on the sea floor," Swean said as he watched a prototype splash along the waters near Panama City Beach. "The last piece is to efficiently and cheaply go out to a real mine and place a charge on it." Find article here.

cool link

August 1, 2007 - How's it looking?

Not to be confused with this commuter rail yard in Brooklyn. google map

Thanks Frank. From these pictures it does/did not look like a beehive of activity, but it is the hypothetical scene of an important rail hub crowed with juicy targets. Feel the powers of your imagination per yardlimit.railfan.net

I've asked on chat, but wondered what everone else thought about GDW's Air Superiority/Air Strike (which morphed into The Speed of Heat from Clash of Arms - publisher of our beloved Harpoon 4.1 and the rest of the Admiratly Trilogy. AS/AS models individual planes in the 80's and 90's. Each hex is 1/3 of a mile, 12-15 seconds per turn, targets, err I mean ground units (in Air Strike) include fireteams/platoons and individual vehicles, along with a slew of counters representing everything from bridges, dry docks, port facilities, POL, command postsfactory/warehouses, rail yards, power stations, airfield/facilities, shelters, etc. I've been toying around with it for the past couple of days, getting comfortable with the flight model. Time to start moving mud, I can use its scenario generator to determine my targets from an earlier tread down in the H4 folder.

New Episode: Thunderbolts tonight 9:00pm EDT (2100 or 28 0100Z July 2007 for you military, or otherwise interested types). Machine gun fire rips through the fuselage. Flames fill the cockpit and the aircraft plummets in a wild spin. But time and again the pilot of a P-47 Thunderbolt pulls out and keeps on fighting. Over occupied Europe, the P-47 Thunderbolt blazed a reputation as the most rugged fighter of WWII. Pilot Robert S. Johnson flies with the renowned 56th fighter group. His flight is jumped by 16 deadly Focke-Wulf 190s. As hundreds of enemy rounds impact his fighter, Johnson's life depends on the legendary protection his armored cockpit affords. In June 1944, Lt. George Sutcliffe enters the fight of his life in an effort to escape 40-plus Me109s looming above him. The Thunderbolt's defensive capabilities inspired confidence in its pilots. But the aircraft was a dogfighter at heart. Thunderbolts

Thanks Peter, especially for the final loadout suggestion. It is surprising that Harpoon, for all of its detail, only mentions hardpoints in HNR data, and old H3 supplements such as Dangerous Waters.

ok, not optimal, but...I need a second, not third 330USG Drop Tank. Are the options for adding drop tanks limited to 1 or 3, just not two due to unbalancing of the aircraft? if so, could I just leave the centerline unused, place one 330USG drop tank on each of the two inboard harpoints, racks of 2xMk82 bombs on each of the two center wing hard points - a total of 4x Mk82, the two outboard hardpoints for the targeting and navigational pods, capped off with the AIM-9's on the wing tips. ...How copy?

DeWayne, I guess that this pic confirms PeterG's 2-bomb side-by-side racks. Suppose with one drop tank centerline, I could have 6 mounts x2 Mk82 for a total of 12x Mk82 +2x AIM-9M's. Plus the two pods, navigation and tageting on the cheeks? what is the ordnance on the outboard hardpoints?

Are you aware of any ordnance bundled for lack of a better term? Maybe 3x Mk81 250lb bomb(lets). Others - or are they all mounted singularly?

Thanks DeWayne. You're the best, I don't care what Kelly-san says about you.

Thanks a lot Dewayne, I had an inkling that an air-dale like you would come to this grunt's rescue. So 9 hard points like the reference indicated? Does this include wingtips for one AIM-9 each?

...and before anyone chimes in how about aerial refueling, I'd prefer not to go there right now, although if push comes to shove probably no better time than the present. More loadouts please!

In preparing for a strike mission consisting of F/A-18D strikers, F/A-18C escorts, and EA-6B ECM escort, I have run up with a range issue in mission planning for the F/A-18D's - the first one's that I have worked up. It turns out that with 8x Mk-82, 2x AIM-9M, and 1x 330 USG Drop Tank I turn up 40nm short of the target. This includes a 10 minute combat margin and 10% reserve. Since the H4.1 data anex does not give too many loadout options I have searched and found "Hardpoints: 9: 2 wingtip, 4 underwing, and 3 fuselage, carrying up to 13,700 lb (6,215 kg) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods" on wiki. When 500lb GP bombs are loaded are they done so singularly or in three-bomb clusters? Would it be possible to add one or more additional 330 USG DT's provided I do not overload? I am currently at 27% or LOAD1 so I have capacity, just do not know if I have the space/hardpoints. Thanks in advance, Pete

By the year 2025 Russia plans to increase its ocean going fleet size to a total of 300 battleships, exceeding the level it maintained during the 'cold war'. The Russian Navy plans to maintain six battlegroups, each consisting of an aircraft carrier and various combat support and auxiliary ships. Three attack groups are to be based in the Northern Fleet with three others in the Pacific Fleet. This expansion will address Russia's strategic aspirations especially its territorial demands in the melting arctic zone. According to the Russian Fleet’s Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Vladimir Masorin, three attack groups will be based in the Northern Fleet with three others in the Pacific Fleet. At all times, two carriers will be on alert while two the other two are undergoing repair and modernization. The new vessels will include four heavy carriers: the Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk and Baku. The construction of the first carrier will begin in the next decade. Meanwhile, the Russians are planning to construct a new series of surface battleships that will support and protect the carriers. Russia also plans to modernize its Naval Aviation, fielding new MiG-29K instead of some of its 1980's vintage Su-33. An expansion of Russia's submarine fleet is also underway. Three new submarines are currently under construction and sea trials. The Russian Navy is building a new submarine base in the Kamchatka Peninsula, at the town of Vilyuchinsk, to host the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet submarine force. The base will be designed to support the new Borei strategic missile carrying submarines. The first Submarine, Yuri Dolgoruky, was launched in April 07, series. Its sister ships, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh are expected to be completed by the year 2010. The Russian Navy currently operates 19 submarines, based in several locations in Severomorsk in the Kola Peninsula. The new base will offer centralized support for the submarine fleet. Find article here.

Keating: China could join 1,000-ship navy By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Jul 25, 2007 9:21:49 EDT The Chinese navy could eventually become part of what Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen envisions as the “1,000-ship navy,” Pacific Command head Adm. Timothy Keating said Tuesday. At a question-and-answer session at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a public policy research group, Keating said that maritime cooperation with China is important, saying he recently met with Chinese defense officials. He acknowledged that China could eventually become part of the “1,000-ship navy,” but he said challenges remain. The U.S. currently is working with China to facilitate better coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief missions in the Pacific, he said. In time, Keating said, “I think China could be part of the 1000-ship navy.” However, he said that this will not happen quickly, but he remains “cautiously optimistic” that the U.S. Navy could work more closely with China’s navy in the future. He said that Pacific Command is watching the development of China’s military capabilities with “more than a passing interest.” Keating stressed the need to continue to work to “reduce areas of misunderstanding,” citing the example of the Chinese submarine that surfaced near the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group last year. He noted that both the U.S. and China had the right to operate in the Pacific, but they both need to improve transparency and communication. In response to a question about a potential naval arms buildup in the region, Keating said he was not concerned, nor was he aware of, a maritime arms race. He said the U.S. maintains a “technological advantage” over potential adversaries in the region, and that the United States “doesn’t intend to yield” this advantage. His advice to any potential future military competitor interested in trying to challenge U.S. capabilities: “Don’t do it.” Keating also stressed the importance of building more multilateral relationships with countries in the region. Historically, most military relationships in the region have been built bilaterally, something Keating said he would like to see changed. One example of the multinational cooperation Keating supports is the Malabar-07 naval exercise, scheduled for September, that will involve the Indian, Japanese, Singaporean, Australian and U.S. navies. Referencing his time as flag aide to former PacCom head Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., Keating said he’s seen great progress in relationships in Asia, noting, “It’s much different today than it was in 1985.” Find Navy Times article here.

Seawolf arrives at new base in Bremerton The Associated Press. Posted : Monday Jul 23, 2007 21:42:21 EDT BREMERTON, Wash. — Serenaded by a five-piece Navy band and greeted by balloon-toting children, the fast attack submarine Seawolf arrived at its new base Sunday. Seawolf was nudged into the pier by tugboats, the first of two fast attack subs to arrive at Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton from Groton, Conn. With a crew of 140, the 353-foot sub is the first to be based in Bremerton, although many others have visited the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for maintenance, overhauls and repairs. Chief Petty Officer Arnulfo Salinas, winner of the traditional first kiss, was greeted by his wife Maryann, daughter Samantha, 11, and son Aaron, 19, all of whom last saw him in February. “It’s always a thrill when he comes home,” Aaron Salinas said. “There are no goodbyes, just hug, hug, hug, ‘See you later.’ When he comes home, it’s a bigger hug.” Also being transferred to Bremerton is the submarine Connecticut under a decision to move 60 percent of the Navy’s firepower to the Pacific. The Connecticut was expected to leave Groton within days for a six-month deployment before arriving in Bremerton. Capable of 35 knots, fast attack submarines are designed to seek and destroy enemy subs and surface ships, launch Tomahawk cruise missiles to hit shore targets and conduct intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Their armament also includes MK-48 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles. Find Navy Times article here.

I'd like suggestions for a tactical target for a relatively small strike package of A-6E, EA-6B, F-14 or F/A-18E, F/A-18F, F/A-18G. My target area is in the vicinity of the bridges in or around Madrid/Madrid Springs, NY. It could be one of the bridges, although I'm not too stoked about that. Was thinking a command post or logistics base. If it's something odd like that, please suggest DP capacity for such. The planes will be launched from Southampton Air National Guard Base on Long Island. They will fly generally north across LI Sound, CT, western MA, and then VT before making an approximate 90 degree turn for an approximate 80+nm run into upstate NY and onto the target area. I'm planning on placing a GCI radar in Potsdam, NY, and perhaps some aircraft on strip alert. There will be some sort of local air defense at the target, based upon the actual target selection (suggestions welcome). I plan on basing the environmental conditions on those in the actual target area when I run the scenario, i.e. tonight it would be "Tonight: Mostly clear, with a low around 58. West wind around 6 mph becoming calm." Thanks

25,000-ton cruiser under consideration Analysis of alternatives sees nuclear BMD vessel By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Monday Jul 23, 2007 19:01:31 EDT Under pressure from the Navy to develop a new cruiser based on the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class hull form, and from Congress to incorporate nuclear power, a group of analysts working on the next big surface combatant may recommend two different ships to form the CG(X) program. One ship would be a 14,000-ton derivative of the DDG 1000, an “escort cruiser,” to protect aircraft carrier strike groups. The vessel would keep the tumblehome hull of the DDG 1000 and its gas turbine power plant. The other new cruiser would be a much larger, 25,000-ton nuclear-powered ship with a more conventional flared bow, optimized for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission. In all, five large CGN(X) ships and 14 escort cruisers would be built to fulfill the cruiser requirement in the Navy’s 30-year, 313-ship plan, which calls for replacing today’s CG 47 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers and adding a specially designed sea-based missile defense force. The ideas are taking shape as part of an analysis of alternatives (AoA), due to the Navy this fall from the Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded research center in Arlington, Va. Details of the AoA have been closely held, but sources have confirmed that two different designs are being considered. They also say the analysis will recommend dropping the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) from the CG(X) program. The KEI is a large ballistic missile-defense rocket under development by Northrop Grumman as a ground- or sea-based weapon to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost, ascent and midcourse flight phases. The KEI is much larger than the SM-3 Standard missile developed by Raytheon to arm Navy cruisers and destroyers for the BMD role. The 40-inch diameter KEI is nearly 39 feet long, while the 21-inch diameter SM-3 stands just over 21 feet tall. Both missiles use a kinetic energy warhead, intended to ram an enemy missile. Sources said a missile launch tube for a KEI would need to be so large it would take the place of six SM-3 launch cells. “That’s a poor exchange ratio,” said one naval analyst familiar with the AoA. Tactics generally call for at least two interceptors to be launched for each incoming target. Just how many missile cells the AoA is considering for each cruiser variant remains under wraps. The Missile Defense Agency included money for the sea-based KEI in its 2008 budget request, although the program is concentrating first on developing the ground-based missile, with Northrop’s first flight test next year. No contracts have been issued for the sea-based KEI, said Northrop officials. Nuclear Cruisers The analysis group is said to be firm in its recommendation for the smaller escort cruiser. Details are less developed on the nuclear-powered variant, sources said. Reps. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. — the current and former chairman, respectively, of the House Seapower subcommittee — are strong proponents of nuclear power for surface ships, citing concerns about the future supply of oil. Navy officials testified earlier this year that the rising price of oil could soon make the more expensive nuclear option viable, and the House is expected to include language in the 2008 defense bills requiring nuclear power for the new cruisers. According to sources, the AoA looked at two possible nuclear powerplants based on existing designs: doubling the single-reactor Seawolf SSN 21 submarine plant, and halving two-reactor nuclear carrier plants. Doubling the 34 megawatts of the Seawolf plant would leave the new ship far short of power requirements — and not even match the 78 megawatts of the Zumwalts. But halving the 209-megawatt plant of current nuclear carriers would yield a bit more than 100 megawatts, enough juice for power-hungry BMD radars plus an extra measure for the Navy’s desired future directed-energy weapons and railguns. The anti-missile cruiser also wouldn’t require the high level of stealth provided by the Zumwalt’s tumblehome hull, analysts said, since the ship would be radiating its radars to search for missiles. Returning to a more conventional, flared-bow hull form would free designers from worries about overloading the untried tumblehome hull. “There will be great reluctance to use the wave-piercing tumblehome hull form for the larger ship,” said one experience naval engineer. He noted the DDG 1000 stealth requirement is necessary for the ship’s ability to operate in waters near coastlines, but that the open-ocean region where a BMD ship would operate “means you don’t need to go to the extremes of the tumblehome form.” Splitting the CG(X) into two designs also makes political sense, sources said. “There’s a concern that the DDG hull has stability problems and doesn’t have growth margin,” said a congressional source. A nuclear-powered option, the source said, also would placate Congress, and “a cash-strapped Navy wouldn’t be fully committed to a nuclear ship.” Nuclear power, of course, comes with a price — in dollar amounts and in size. An appropriate plant for the ship might cost $1 billion, one source said. Another analyst, using very rough figures, guessed the cost for a CGN(X) would range from something just under $5 billion to as much as $7 billion. The Navy estimates its first two DDG 1000s will cost $3.3 billion each, although estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and others put the potential true cost at over $5 billion and as much as $7 billion. Ron O’Rourke, a naval analyst for the Congressional Research Service, was asked by Defense News to estimate the potential cost for a nuclear cruiser. “Depending on DDG 1000 construction costs and how the cost of the cruiser would scale up from the cost of a DDG 1000, and also taking into account the additional cost for a nuclear power plant, a follow-on ship in a class of 25,000-ton nuclear-powered cruisers might cost roughly $4 billion to $5 billion.” The nuclear ship also would need to be larger than the DDG 1000. In separate statements, Navy officials have been hinting that a 20,000-ton-plus ship could be in the works. Sources said early analyses of the CGN(X) showed a 25,000-ton ship, which the Navy said was too large. More realistic, one source said, would be about 23,000 tons. Another cost for developing a new power plant for the nuclear cruiser, even if an existing reactor was used, would be time to design a new propulsion system. “Five years of research and development would be needed to come up with the turbines, reduction gear, shaft and propeller,” said one experienced naval engineer. The Navy now plans to order the first CG(X) in 2011, with the last ship included in the FY 2023 budget. The Navy declined to comment on the current state of the CG(X) analysis. “The content of the AoA is predecisional,” said Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield, a Navy spokesman. Find Navy Times article here.

Bomb By Bomb, Japan Sheds Military Restraints By Norimitsu Onishi ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam — To take part in its annual exercises with the United States Air Force here last month, Japan practiced dropping 500-pound live bombs on Farallon de Medinilla, a tiny island in the western Pacific’s turquoise waters more than 150 miles north of here. The pilots described dropping a live bomb for the first time — shouting “shack!” to signal a direct hit — and seeing the fireball from aloft. “The level of tension was just different,” said Capt. Tetsuya Nagata, 35, stepping down from his cockpit onto the sunbaked tarmac. The exercise would have been unremarkable for almost any other military, but it was highly significant for Japan, a country still restrained by a Constitution that renounces war and allows forces only for its defense. Dropping live bombs on land had long been considered too offensive, so much so that Japan does not have a single live-bombing range. Flying directly from Japan and practicing live-bombing runs on distant foreign soil would have been regarded as unacceptably provocative because the implicit message was clear: these fighter jets could perhaps fly to North Korea and take out some targets before returning home safely. But from here in Micronesia to Iraq, Japan’s military has been rapidly crossing out items from its list of can’t-dos. The incremental changes, especially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, amount to the most significant transformation in Japan’s military since World War II, one that has brought it ever closer operationally to America’s military while rattling nerves throughout northeast Asia. In a little over half a decade, Japan’s military has carried out changes considered unthinkable a few years back. In the Indian Ocean, Japanese destroyers and refueling ships are helping American and other militaries fight in Afghanistan. In Iraq, Japanese planes are transporting cargo and American troops to Baghdad from Kuwait. Japan is acquiring weapons that blur the lines between defensive and offensive. For the Guam bombing run, Japan deployed its newest fighter jets, the F-2’s, the first developed jointly by Japan and the United States, on their maiden trip here. Unlike its older jets, the F-2’s were able to fly the 1,700 miles from northern Japan to Guam without refueling — a “straight shot,” as the Japanese said with unconcealed pride. Japan recently indicated strongly its desire to buy the F-22 Raptor, a stealth fighter known mainly for its offensive abilities such as penetrating contested airspace and destroying enemy targets, whose export is prohibited by United States law. At home, the Defense Agency, whose profile had been intentionally kept low, became a full ministry this year. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe used the parliamentary majority he inherited from his wildly popular predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi, to ram through a law that could lead to a revision of the pacifist Constitution. Japan’s 241,000-member military, though smaller than those of its neighbors, is considered Asia’s most sophisticated. Though flat, its $40 billion military budget has ranked among the world’s top five in recent years. Japan has also tapped nonmilitary budgets to launch spy satellites and strengthen its coast guard recently. Japanese politicians like Mr. Abe have justified the military’s transformation by seizing on the threat from North Korea; the rise of China, whose annual military budget has been growing by double digits; and the Sept. 11 attacks — even fanning those threats, critics say. At the same time, Mr. Abe has tried to rehabilitate the reputation of Japan’s imperial forces by whitewashing their crimes, including wartime sexual slavery. Japanese critics say the changes under way — whose details the government has tried to hide from public view, especially the missions in Iraq — have already violated the Constitution and other defense restrictions. “The reality has already moved ahead, so they will now talk about the need to catch up and revise the Constitution,” said Yukio Hatoyama, the secretary general of the main opposition Democratic Party. Richard J. Samuels, a Japan expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that revisionist politicians like Mr. Abe and Mr. Koizumi, once on the fringes of Japan’s political world, succeeded in grabbing the mainstream in a time of uncertainty. They shared the view “that the statute of limitations on Japan’s misbehavior during the Pacific War had expired” and that Japan, like any normal country, should have a military. Their predecessors feared getting entangled in an American-led war. But the new leaders feared that Japan would be abandoned by the United States unless it contributed to its wars, said Mr. Samuels, whose book on Japan’s changing military, “Securing Japan,” will be published in August. “So what do you do?” he said. “You step up. And that is consistent with what they’ve long wanted to do anyway. So there was a convergence of preferences.” Today, Japan is America’s biggest partner in developing and financing a missile defense shield in Asia. Some Japanese ground and air force commands are also moving inside American bases in Japan so that the two forces will become, in military jargon, “interoperable.” “I think the Japan-U.S. security relationship should be as unified as possible, and our different roles need to be made clear,” said Shigeru Ishiba, a defense chief under Mr. Koizumi and now a leader in a Liberal Democratic Party committee looking at loosening defense restrictions. In Iraq, in accordance with a special law to aid in reconstruction, a symbolic ground force was first deployed to a relatively peaceful, noncombat area in southern Iraq to engage in relief activities. After the troops left last year, though, three Japanese planes began regularly transporting American troops and cargo from Kuwait to Baghdad. The Japanese authorities refuse to say whether the planes have transported weapons besides those carried by soldiers. Concerned about public opposition, defense officers have spied on antiwar activists and journalists perceived as critical, the Defense Ministry acknowledged after incriminating documents were recently obtained by the Communist Party in Japan. Mr. Hatoyama of the Democratic Party said that transporting armed American troops contravened Japan’s pacifist Constitution. “Instead of engaging in humanitarian assistance, they are basically assisting American troops,” he said. “American troops and the Air Self-Defense Forces are working as one, just as they are training as one in Guam.” In Parliament, Mr. Abe denied that the activities violated the Constitution, saying Japanese troops were restricted to noncombat zones and did not operate under a joint command with any other force. Here in Guam, American and Japanese pilots simulated intercepts and air-to-air combat for two weeks. In the final days, each side took turns pummeling the tiny island with bombs. Col. Tatsuya Arima, the commander of the Japanese squadron, said such bombing could protect Japanese grounds troops or vessels from encroaching enemies. “Bombing does not always mean offensive weapons,” Colonel Arima said. “They can also be used for defense, which, put another way, is what we mostly train for.” Lt. Col. Tod Fingal, the commander of the American squadron, said the exercise helped build confidence among pilots by exposing them to a new environment. “I would equate it to an away game in sports,” Colonel Fingal said. Japan’s military has become less shy in projecting its power away from home. Japan lacks the nuclear submarines, long-range missiles or large aircraft carriers that amount to real power projection. But it is acquiring four Boeing 767 air tankers that will allow its planes to refuel in midair and travel farther, as well as two aircraft carriers that will transport helicopters and, with some adjustments, planes capable of taking off vertically. The United States has welcomed the changes while pressing for more. “The restrictions that Japan has lived under, which I would say Japan has maintained on its own or imposed on itself, are quite unique,” said a Pentagon official who requested anonymity so that he could speak candidly. “The changes that you’re seeing in Japan are very unique changes in the context of those restrictions. In the context of everything else that is going on around the world, or in the context of Japan’s potential to contribute to the region and the world in security areas, the changes are fairly small.” Small or not, they are causing anxieties in a region where distrust of Japan has deepened in direct proportion to Japanese tendencies to revise the past. South Korea reacted sharply to Japan’s desire to buy the F-22 Raptor. Also, in a recent ceremony unveiling South Korea’s first destroyer equipped with the advanced Aegis weapons system, President Roh Moo-hyun said, “Northeast Asia is still in an arms race, and we cannot just sit back and watch.” Mr. Ishiba, the former defense chief, said the region’s distrust was softened by Japan’s alliance with the United States. But he acknowledged that Japan’s inability to come to terms with its wartime past restricted its ability to project power positively. “Unless everyone understands why we weren’t able to avoid that war,” Mr. Ishiba said, referring to World War II, “and what Japan did to Asia, it could be dangerous if we get power-projection capability.”

Can you get it into the rules then. P.S. More crappy weather today, so much more food for thought.

Here is some adverse weather capability for the A-6E and -like aircraft. 4.2.4.5 Terrain Following Radar (TF) These are specialized radars that allow a plane to fly nap of the earth without restriction (see section 3.3.4.1), regardless of weather or time of day or night. 3.3.4.1 Very Low/NOE Altitude. These special altitude bands are part of the Low altitude band, but allow flight near the land or sea surface, with some risks. Very Low altitude extends from sea level to 30 meters high over water. Nap-of-the-Earth (NOE covers 31-100 meters... I've seen other references to a ground mapping radar capability for the A-6E TRAM so although the High Tide data annex does not attribute the APQ-156 as having (TF) Terrain Following, I will allow it in my solo gaming. APQ-156, see both pages.