pmaidhof

Thanks to Dave Schueler's response: "...A submarine would have to raise it's ESM mast to use ESM (although most periscopes also have an ESM receiver mounted on them). So basically to use ESM the sub would have to be at Periscope/Snokeling depth or on the surface with a mast up. The AIR is basically a passive sonar that detects active sonar, but has a fixed maximum range based on the frequency of the active sonar (although the detection is halved if it goes across the thermal layer). It is usable at any time, unless the sub is in drydock 8^). There is a table in the rules that has the statistics for AIRs..."

Australia, U.S. launch joint exercises By Meraiah Foley - The Associated Press Posted : Monday Jun 18, 2007 7:32:59 EDT SYDNEY, Australia — Australia and the U.S. launched their biggest joint war games Monday, with 27,500 troops backed by a U.S. aircraft carrier engaging in exercises aimed at consolidating the allies’ military dominance in the Asia Pacific region. The biennial Talisman Sabre exercise pits 20,000 U.S. troops and 7,500 Australian forces against two fictional enemies — the Kamarians and Musorians — in a variety of land and sea-based scenarios designed to test their skills in combat, peacekeeping and humanitarian relief efforts. The exercise, which runs until July 2, will also include 10 U.S. ships, 20 Australian ships and 125 aircraft operating off the coast of Rockhampton in northeastern Queensland state. “The United States and Australia have a long-standing relationship ... we share the same values and interests. Foremost among those interests is the stability and security of the Asia-Pacific region,” U.S. Vice Adm. Doug Crowder told reporters onboard the USS Blue Ridge in Sydney. “Therefore, it is very important that our militaries train together to carry out the types of missions our governments may call upon us to execute to ensure regional security and stability.” The exercise comes as the United States and Japan step up efforts to build a joint missile defense system in Asia, partly as a bulwark against regional threats such as a nuclear-armed North Korea. Australia, a steadfast U.S. ally that maintains around 2,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, is studying whether to participate in the defense shield, Defense Minister Brendan Nelson announced this month. Canberra is expanding its military personnel to 30,500 troops from 27,500, and ramping up other defense capabilities as part of an overhaul to take greater responsibility for Asian security. Japan plans to send observers to the Talisman Sabre operation, Crowder said, but would not expand on what role they might play in the exercise. Australia and Japan signed a security agreement in March that will enable Japanese forces to train alongside Australians for disaster relief and peacekeeping missions, and boost cooperation between the two countries in counterterrorism measures and intelligence sharing. Meanwhile, environmentalists have voiced concern about the possible dangers of submarine-hunting sonar equipment to whales in the region. The International Whaling Commission issued a report this month saying a midfrequency sonar sometimes used by U.S. and Australian ships can cause hearing loss and tissue damage in whales and can alter their diving habits. “A huge part of the planning for this exercise has been the environmental concerns,” Crowder said. “We have many procedures in place.” He would not elaborate on the procedures, saying only that the operation “will be conducted in compliance with all the Australian governmental requirements.” About 100 people gathered Monday outside an army barracks in the northeastern city of Rockhampton to protest the exercises. They laid a wreath and hundreds of shoes at the gate of the barracks to symbolize military and civilian casualties from the Iraq war. “We mourn all loss of life and we feel the shoes are a very powerful symbol,” said Robin Taubenfeld of the environmental group Friends of the Earth. Find article here.

I definitely agree on the Mi-6, other than to be located at an airbase - being a target for some type of attack. The other helos could be present in the scenario for that players option to defend facilities or even make some type of attack on oppressor shipping.

I requested of Dave Schueler, and have graciously recieved H4.1 data on the Mi-17V-5, Mi-6, Mi-24 HIND E, and Su-30MKK Flanker G. I believe that we are set with the Venezuelan force data, and map. I/We need to come up with missions, and force mixes, for the Venezuelan, US, and third party tanker traffic. I'll start thinking about that and look forward to some collaberation. Thanks

Mi-17 HIP H Hip H Mi-35 HIND M is the export version of the Mi-24 HIND E plussed up with a twin barrelled 23mm . Need to determine what the "M2" connotation represents. Mi-35M So to extrapolate, the "Mi-24V (Hind-E) - Later development led to the Mi-24V which was first seen in the early 1980s. It armed with newer ATGMs, like the 9M114 Shturm (AT-6 Spiral) with tube launchers. Eight of those missile are mounted on four outer wing pylons." The "M" would add a twin 23mm. The "M2" ? I cannot vouch for the following: "I like the new Mi-35M2 upgrades with the armoured ATGM sight replaced by a 4 window stabilised ball sight with TV/TI/LRF/LTM equipment. The stub wings improve carrying capacity of missiles, and reduce drag and weight and the new rotors and engines make it a very manouverable bird. With the hingeless bearingless rotors of the Mi-28 the new Hind can be looped and rolled like a fighter plane. The firepower increase potential is enormous. With the laser target marker it can use Vikhr beam riding missiles and the Ugroza laser guidance kits for unguided rockets. Each 80mm rocket pod can carry 20 laser guided rockets with warheads powerful enough to take on any non MBT target vehicle. APCs and MICVs can be taken out at max ballistic range, while tanks can be engaged with ATGMs. Infantry or trucks can be taken out with cannon or cheaper unguided rockets." found in Msg 40 at Mi-35M2 Mi-26 - useable in this proposed scenario?

Any known H4.1 equivelents? I already searched, without luck, the H4.1, High Tide, and Sea of Dragon data annexes for the Mi-6 and Mi-8 for data sheet start points. Thanks

Mi26 Halo - apparently an eight-rotor, and slightly heavier, derivative of the Mi-6 Hook aeronautics.ru wikipedia fas.org I'm sure that we can mine enough detail from these sites if we feel that the Halo will play enough of a role in such a potential conflict. I'm doubtful but open to listening.

Image, not corrected above, is now tweaked and the image 60 degree longitude is aligned with the plotters 60 degree longitude line. The image longitude interval is 4 degrees while the plotter is 10 degrees, so that is why the longitudinal lines, west of 60 degrees are "off". Good enough to play on - so back to researching the other platforms.

Page 2 of the H4.1 Data Annex is titled A Guide to Trilogy Ship Listings. "ESM/AIR: Surface ships use only the first field while subs use the second. No surface ships carry an ancoustic interecept receiver. The generations are listed as 1st/2nd/3rd Gen. For subs, the two ratings are separated by a slash." In working up an Improved Los Angeles Class SSN, its ESM/AIR rating is 3rd/4th Gen. How are the 3rd and 4th Gen ratings utilized? I'm assuming 3rd Gen ESM would be while on the surface - a la a surface ship? I'm drawing a blank on the "AIR" rating. Thanks

Using recently released Combat Plotter v1.0.6.5 and a big assist to Tony and MapBuilder, here is the final product in the Combat Plotter. Questions - Comments?

How on topic for my H4 exploits. "Spotlight: Submarine Warfare"

From MILAVIA and wikipedia, while an alphabet-soup exercise, the Su-30MK2V, initially made for Vietnam, is a minor modification variant of the Su-30MK2. The Su-30MK2 is an Su-30MKK modified with upgraded avionics which enabled support for anti-ship missiles. Data for the Su-30MKK Flanker C appears on Page 8 of Naval Sitrep #24 - April 2003. I'll need some more time to determine a quasi-accurate loadout for the Venezualan Air Force Flankers. I'll focus on that, and the other missing aircraft/helos over the weekend.

Also from the original thread: "I found Su-30MK Flanker under India in the 4.1 data, no Su-30MK2V though I'm sure "kitbashable" since it is an apparent derivative. Tor-M1 is there. There is no apparent Mi-17B, Mi-35 HIND E, or Mi-26 in either 4.1 Data or HNR2003. I'll sort through the Sitreps that I have." I've checked my sitreps, still no Su-30MK2V, M-17B, Mi-35 HIND E, nor Mi-26. Any leads on data mining these, besides the obvious?

Apparently Isla de Margarita is not represented in the plotter, however we could use the two facilities approximately located in Barcelona and Cumana. Unless perhaps Tony would be so gracious to place another image in the plotter. I could do a hand drawn rendering of the area based on, and at the scale of, the the UT Perry image.

Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) June 12, 2007 Raytheon Tomahawk Might Replace Errant Lockheed Missile By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News Raytheon Co.'s Tomahawk cruise missile is being eyed as a possible replacement for a Lockheed Martin Corp. missile program that was given 30 days to demonstrate it has a plan to improve reliability, said Diane Wright, the Pentagon's deputy director for air warfare. The Lockheed missile costs about $649,000 and is launched from planes. The latest Tomahawk, made at Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems, costs $972,000 on average and can be launched only from ships and submarines. Wright said the Pentagon might explore whether the Tomahawk could be adapted for launch from airplanes. The Lockheed Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile is one of five programs that recently exceeded their original per-unit cost by more than 50 percent. The overruns triggered a law requiring the U.S. military to review the program and certify to Congress that it remains vital to national security. The Air Force estimates the per-missile cost has grown at least 62 percent. Pentagon undersecretary for acquisition Ken Krieg was to inform congressional defense committees today that he is deferring certification for 30 days. He intends to allow the Air Force and Lockheed, the world's largest defense company, time to develop a plan to correct a missile that has demonstrated only 60 percent reliability in testing — in spite of being declared combat-ready. "All options are on the table," Wright told reporters at the Pentagon on Monday. "It's serious. We don't have an air-launched Tomahawk, though." If the Lockheed program doesn't improve and the Tomahawk can't be adapted for air launch, "we'll have to go back to square one and talk about whether it requires a whole new program," she said. Improving the reliability of the Lockheed program "is the least expensive way to move forward," Wright said. Raytheon Missile Systems spokesman Everett Tackett said the company in the 1970s and 1980s investigated launching the Tomahawk off aircraft, including B-1 and B-2 bombers. Determining whether the latest model Tomahawk could be launched from aircraft would require additional studies, he said. Four Lockheed missiles designed for pinpoint accuracy and deemed combat-ready missed by up to 200 feet or failed to detonate on impact during tests on April 30 and May 1. Krieg ordered the Air Force to "implement management controls and develop a reliability plan" for presentation June 27 to the Pentagon's top weapons panel, the Defense Acquisition Board. Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed's missile program, started in 1995, has a history of test failures. The Air Force to date has spent over $2 billion and contracted for 942 of more than 5,000 missiles it plans to buy. It has taken delivery of 611. The missile's 60 percent reliability rate "is not acceptable," Air Force assistant for acquisition Sue Payton told reporters. The minimum rate is 75 percent, she said. Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Joy Sabol said the company will fix the missile program "at no cost to the government." "Lockheed Martin stands behind its product and looks forward to working with the U.S. Air Force and Office of the Secretary of Defense team to validate the capabilities and reliability of the JASSM weapon system," she said in an e-mail. "Lockheed Martin will complete an engineering analysis by mid-June, which will confirm the root cause of the problem and propose the fix necessary," she wrote. The missiles are assembled at Lockheed's Troy, Ala., plant by the company's Orlando, Fla.-based Missiles and Fire Control unit.

San Diego Union-Tribune June 15, 2007 Vietnam-Era Aircraft Combatting Roadside Bombs In Iraq By Jim Krane, Associated Press ABOARD THE CARRIER NIMITZ IN THE GULF – A secret aircraft that debuted in Vietnam and usually protects U.S. fighter jets has taken on a different and crucial task over Iraq – trying to stop roadside bombs by jamming ground signals from mobile phones and garage door openers. The EA-6B Prowler is thought to be one of the most effective U.S. weapons against the bombs, the biggest killer of U.S. service members in Iraq. But no one can be sure: Even supporters say its effectiveness is hard to measure. The aircraft had its debut at the tail end of Vietnam and was used in Kosovo and the 1991 Persian Gulf War, escorting U.S. attack jets while jamming hostile military radios, radars and air defense batteries. These days the Prowler focuses its jammers on smaller signals: those of mobile phones and garage-door openers used to trigger roadside bombs in Iraq, U.S. Navy Capt. David Woods said. Often, it's hard to prove that a roadside bomb failed to explode because of Prowler jamming signals, Woods said. Still, he's confident the plane is making a difference against the bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. “When it's flying, we have greater success and fewer IEDs going off,” Woods said. But its jamming gear has no effect on bombs that are hard-wired to their triggers, said Woods, 49, of Ogden, Utah. Woods, commander of Carrier Air Wing 11 and one of the Navy's most experienced Prowler pilots, said the EA-6B's mission is to control the electromagnetic spectrum so allies can use it – but not enemies. The Prowler and its electronic warfare system is so valuable it has never been exported – even to close allies. Details about the training of crew members are secret. The EA-6B's bulbous nose cradles a crew of four: a pilot and three electronic countermeasures officers who operate the jamming gear. The Pentagon is spending $9 billion to replace the Prowler with 90 Boeing F/A-18 fighters outfitted with electronic warfare gear. The first two, known as the EA-18G Growler, are being tested.

Both Project 636 and Project 677 are found in H4.1 Data. I found Su-30MK Flanker under India in the 4.1 data, no Su-30MK2V though I'm sure "kitbashable" since it is an apparent derivative. Tor-M1 is there. There is no apparent Mi-17B, Mi-35 HIND E, or Mi-26 in either 4.1 Data or HNR2003. I'll sort through the Sitreps that I have. We would need to flesh out the specific situation a bit more, but I'm always game.

Depth Shallow 125 Battery Units 1st Hour @ 16kts = -15 units 110 Battery Units 2nd Hour @ 16kts = -15 units 95 Battery Units Go to periscope depth IOT snort, decrease speed to 11kts 3rd Hour @ 11kts = -4 Units 91 Battery Units, but charging equals +10 101 Battery Units Descend back to Shallow. 4th Hour @ 11kts = -4 Units 97 Battery Units remaining 30min @ 11kts Contact, bearing 336 degrees. Attempted classification, Noisy Ship 3min Tactical Turn (1) Lost passive contact 3min Tactical Turn (2) Did not regain contact 3min Tactical Turn (3) (Admin note: distance 1.6nm) 2D10 = 11 Contact, bearing 349 degrees, range 1.6nm Classification attempt: (Noisy/ LF/MF = 10% + 10% target speed modifier = 20%. 2D10 =50. = SHIP. Begin TMA Solution Attempt: Range: Short 30%/40%/50% per turn + 40% passive ranging array (PRA) sonar. 2D10 = 79. = FAIR solution. 3min Tactical Turn (4) (Admin note distance 1.1nm) 75% Band <=1.6nm. +15 maintaining contact 2D10 = 75 – Contact maintained. Classification Attempt: 2D10 = 05, Merchant. 2nd TMA Attempt; Short Range; 30%x2 Turns = 60 +40% PRA Sonar = 100%; 2D10 = 25 GOOD SOLUTION. 2x SUT Mod2 torpedoes are to be fired, but not moved, in the Reaction Fire Phase. 3min Tactical Turn (5) (Admin note distance 0.73nm) Movement Phase torpedoes @ 35kts move 1.75nm per Tactical Turn Movement Phase. EP: 500yds. At launch there is a 20% chance of the wire breaking regardless of the submarines status. 2D10 = 31. 2x SUT Mod2 WG Torpedoes at a 0.73nm, survives the wire breakage roll and traveling at 35kts. It's a 3rd Gen Torpedo with a 75% hit chance, an acquisition cone of +/-75 degrees, it travels 500 yards, turns on its seeker, and poof runs at the target. 2D10 (Torp 1) = 05 Hit, 2D10 (Torp 2) = 41 Hit. 260 DP’s on a 10,000ton displacement International Generic Merchant Ship. Damage Ratio calls for 10 Critical Hits, but decide to roll for sinking 3D6 = 5 = merchant sinks in 5 Tactical Turns or 15min (at the +5 Hour Game Clock). Thanks to Tony's Plotter - Fun, lots of fun.

It's amazing what can be done with photoshop - I'll just add me in that pic too, a little airbrush no one will know.

Today, in partial payback for the Long Island Children's Museum, I dragged the fam over to the Cradle of Aviation Museum at Mitchel Field (an area known as museum row so just a brief walk). Some take-aways: take advantage of the knoweldge and experience of those who have gone before us before they are all gone forever. Given Long Island's history in aviation, and particularly military aviation, the majority of the museum workers are fomer Grumman and Fairchild-Republic retirees. What a wealth of information if one would just stop and listen. The F6F Hellcat is enormous up close. Here are some photos of the modern stuff of interest to some, if not most, of us Yes Tony, an A-6 Intruder - and yes I'm sticking my tongue out at YOU! Me and our favorite game's namesake Ditto Anytime Baby...I Yeah, I see the dent on this TARPS pod.

Pg. 3 An SR-72? Lockheed Martin's New Mach-6 Spy Plane By Vago Muradian Ten years after the U.S. Air Force retired the SR-71 spy plane, Lockheed Martin's legendary Skunk Works appears back at work developing a new Mach-6 reconnaissance plane, sources said. The Air Force has awarded Lockheed's Advanced Development Projects arm a top-secret contract to develop a stealthy 4,000-mph plane capable of flying to altitudes of about 100,000 feet, with transcontinental range. The plan is to debut the craft around 2020. The new jet--being referred to by some as the SR-72--is likely to be unmanned and, while intended for reconnaissance, it could eventually trade its sensors for weapons. The Air Force is working on several programs to improve its global intelligence-gathering. Satellites offer global coverage, but the ones with the highest resolution operate on largely predictable orbits, and many countries have mastered the art of hiding from them. Moreover, China's successful anti-satellite missile test in January hinted that U.S. satellites might become vulnerable. The new aircraft would offer a combination of speed, altitude and stealth that could make it virtually impervious to ground-based missiles, sources said. Even the SR-71 is said to have evaded hundreds of missiles fired at it during its long career, although some aircraft sustained minor damage. But experts say enormous challenges remain. First, the SR-71's top speed was about 2,200 mph. Pushing a plane at twice the speed in the thin air of the upper stratosphere would require exceptionally powerful engines. Second, friction at high speeds could reduce stealth. "An aircraft with these characteristics could prove a potent response to anti-satellite weapons," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. "If U.S. reconnaissance satellites were lost, an SR-72 could get to areas of interest quickly and provide persistent surveillance in place of the satellite." And don't bother asking the Air Force or Skunk Works execs about their work. Neither is commenting and Skunk Works is skipping next week's Paris Air Show. "As a matter of policy, we don't talk about classified programs--whether or not they exist," said Lockheed's Tom Jurkowsky.

Attached is a pdf link in which there is a section devoted to discussing the operations the Argentine Type 209 SS "San Luis" during the Falklands War of 1982. Some take aways, aside from their technical fire control problems: Maneuvering to ranges of of 10,000 and 5,000 yards (5nm and 2.5nm respectively) for a torpedo attack. That is would take about 6.5 minutes for impact at the longer range. That both of his attacks apparently went undetected as they were not attacked in response. That these operations were conducted approximately 800nm from their home port of Mar del Plata. Find document here.

Once sonar contact has been established, Rule 4.4.2 Maintaining Contact requires the detecting player to re-roll each subsequent turn, with a +15% modifier, in order to determine is sonar contact is maintained. The +15% modifier will last for 4 consecutive tactical turns after contact is lost. After the first sonar contact has been established, the detecting player may roll to attempt to classify the contact. Let's say the detecting player rolls well and classifies his contact by ship/sub class. In subsequent turns, he both loses and regains sonar contact with the same ship - does the detecting player have to re-classify? Given the above, the loss of a classification should have no effect on a TMA solution being developed, provided if the loss of contact took place, and was regained within the parameters of 6.1.3 TMA Limitations "Lost Contact Table"? Thanks

Herman, et al. I read the article, very interesting, but did not see an explanation on how the Indonesian sub was detected. This was most likely intentional. How in you naval wargamers's opinion would this have taken place? In the small H4 engagement that I am currently running through, based partly on the above article and on the HNR03 LCS scenario, I have two NZ ANZAC FF (MEKO-200) leading two mechants. I am approaching a choke point near the Isle of Greenport, and oviously concerned with a hostile Type 212 SS (which is in fact nearby, just not yet in either platform's passive sonar range). One FF launched an SH-2G(A) which dropped a line of DIFAR SSQ-53 Soanr Buoys in the "choke point" to no avail yet. Just trying to get my arms around this type of engagement.

Commanders in Gulf keep in touch with Iran By Jim Krane - The Associated Press Posted : Friday Jun 8, 2007 5:58:39 EDT ABOARD THE USS NIMITZ IN THE GULF — Even as Iran and the U.S. face off bitterly, Navy commanders in the Persian Gulf are working quietly to keep communications open with Iran’s military, hoping the contact will avert an accidental stumble into armed confrontation. Most of the talk takes place over the crackle of radios, using the standard international bridge-to-bridge communications network, Rear Adm. Terry Blake, commander of the strike group led by the aircraft carrier Nimitz, said aboard ship this week. Other contacts are between Iranian pilots and air communications networks. Conversations often begin with an Iranian voice, in accented English, announcing that Iran has detected foreign planes or ships and wants to know their purpose, said the carrier’s skipper, Capt. Michael Manazir. “Hey, vessel at such and such a latitude and longitude, this is the Iranian navy. Who are you? What’s your course and speed?” Manazir said, paraphrasing a typical call from Iran. “We say: ‘Iranian navy, this is coalition warship 68. Our course is three-zero-zero at 15 knots, operating in international waters.”’ Most of the conversations are brief and businesslike, with little information shared. But not every encounter is pleasant. The Iranians frequently send frigates and patrol craft or reconnaissance planes, including U.S.-made P-3 Orions, to watch the U.S. ships. The Navy often responds by scrambling F/A-18 fighters to intercept and shadow Iranian planes. “They’re curious, if you will,” Blake said. “They want to understand who’s operating in the area.” The U.S. now has two carriers — the Nimitz and the John C. Stennis — operating in the Gulf, often just off Iran’s coast. The carriers and the ships in their strike groups were mostly unaffected by this week’s Cyclone Gonu, which hit Oman in the southern Arabian peninsula and brought rain to the far southern coast of Iran, but did not greatly affect Gulf waters. In Washington, U.S. officials have said the increased naval presence in the Gulf serves as a warning to Iran not to test U.S. resolve at a time when the American military is busy in Iraq. But Blake and Manazir said the second carrier was mostly part of the Navy’s contribution to the buildup of forces in Iraq since January and the continued air bombing in Afghanistan, rather than a warning to Iran. “Our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are what’s drawing our presence here, not Iran,” Manazir said. He said he considers it understandable that Iran is wary of U.S. warships off its coast, just as Americans would be wary if the Iranian navy were off Massachusetts or California. “That’s their coastline. There’s a respect for their air and water space. But to avoid a misunderstanding, we need dialogue,” said Manazir, 48, of Mission Viejo, Calif. When the Nimitz and eight other U.S. warships put on a show of force last month — sailing through the Strait of Hormuz and conducting exercises off Iran’s coast — U.S. commanders were in direct radio touch with Iranian navy and air force officers, Blake said. This week, the Nimitz was operating in a 75-mile by 25-mile patch of sea called Carrier Operating Area 4. The easternmost edge is about 40 miles from the Iranian city of Bushehr, where Russia is building a nuclear power plant. Carrier Operating Area 4 consists of deep water with no oil platforms and less merchant ship traffic than other areas. It’s also far enough from Iran so the Nimitz’s 70 planes aren’t likely to stray into Iranian airspace. “The reason we do that is to avoid conflict with Iran that we don’t want to have,” Manazir said. So far, the U.S.-Iranian dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program and the March capture and release of 15 British sailors and marines in disputed northern Gulf waters have not ended the military-to-military dialogue. “It’s a complete disconnect from what you read in the papers. We don’t see a manifestation at the tactical level of the verbiage at the political level,” said Manazir, surveying the giant ship’s bustling flight deck from the bridge. Find article here.