pmaidhof

Sorry Tony. Today was the first I have ever seen or heard of Red Rover, hence my OOH-RAH reaction. Call me sheltered I guess.

SEMPER TOONS

OOH-RAH!

This is from our most-often-worthless local newspaper. There is also a photo gallery of the ceremony which is interesting in that the "Rosies" were then led, pushed, etc out to the museum pieces of the Republic, and Grumman birds that they worked on. Rosie the Riveters honored for service during war BY SOPHIA CHANG sophia.chang@newsday.com May 10, 2007, 2:24 PM EDT Cora Baiko still remembers the jolt of the riveting gun from a long-ago era. "Back then, I was only in my 20s" and had the stamina to work eight-hour shifts drilling rivets into the Grumman Corporation's airplanes, said Baiko, who is now 86 and living in Massapequa. She cocked her arms and mimed the drilling motion, demonstrating how wielding the gun would shake her entire body. Baiko was one of about 62 real-life Rosie the Riveters who worked at the Grumman and Republic airplane companies and who came to the Air Power Museum Thursday for a ceremony in their honor. They brought to life the iconic Rosie, a tough and dark-eyed beauty memorialized as a model of female patriotism during World War II. Rosie was the symbol of all the women who took over factory jobs as men left for the warfront. "She was loyal, efficient and patriotic," said New York state assemblyman David McDonough (R-Levittown). Several of the Rosies, turned out in sensible heels and carefully applied lipstick, still remembered the pride they took in a job well done and a country served. "It was doing something that had to be done," said Hilda Willis of Holbrook, who riveted cockpits at Republic until the end of the war. Find article here.

Houston...we may have an H4 scenario.

I also usually maintain the H4 rules and data annexes in my car, but that space is currently reserved for the 3.25m of pubs, as the Marines like to call them, relating to my effort to complete the Command & Staff Distance Learning Program. An hour a day during lunch. While it keeps me away from Harpoon, at least I can replace it with subjects such as "Marine Air-Ground Task Force Operations"

Thanks Brad. Either you must work from home or have an office copy of H4.

What then are some of the assumed differences by that body of opinion, would it be perceptible as far as how capabilities are represented in H4. pH I suppose?

Well then, bah-humbug!

Interesting. I'm quite certain that there was an article in one of the last few Harpoon Naval Review which at least mentioned the deployment of the Storm Shadow, and in another, an article on the JASSM. I'll have to double check. Would anyone like to propse a small scenario that would involve the the JASSM and Storm Shadow on an identical target array for H4? wink-wink, nod-nod

Four JASSM Test Failures Cast Doubt On Program's Future The U.S. Air Force's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) proved ineffective during four recent flight tests, which were conducted as the Pentagon weighs whether to terminate the new stealthy cruise missile program due to cost increases. During the tests, which took place Apr. 30 - May 1, three of the cruise missiles impacted "well outside the target area," at distances greater than 100-200 feet, according to a preliminary Air Force report on the mishaps. These missiles failed to cause damage to the intended targets. Developers attribute the misses to a GPS "dropout problem" that affected the missile's ability to navigate to the impact point. The final missile flew its intended flight profile and impacted the target, but experienced a fuzing problem that prevented "high-order detonation," as planned. JASSM is designed to destroy land targets in protected areas. One missile each from Lockheed Martin's Lots 1-4 were tested as part of a Weapon System Evaluation Program. Each missile accomplished expected launch and flight profiles early on. Two of the missiles were dropped from B-52s with the other two released from B-2s. The tests took place at the Utah Test Range. JASSM manufacturer Lockheed Martin declined to discuss the errant tests. Developers at the Air Armament Center, which manages the program, were unable to comment by press time. These tests come at a critical time for the $5.8 billion program. Officials at the Pentagon are in the midst of a full review of JASSM along with a handful of other Defense Department programs, all of which have breached expected costs by 15 percent or more and violated Nunn-McCurdy caps. In April, the Pentagon reported to Congress that JASSM's cost had increased from $4.3 billion, a boost greater than 25 percent. This requires the Pentagon to conduct a full review, assess whether other solutions may be available to meet the requirement and, if other options are not present, affirm that the program's management is sound enough to proceed without further problems. That assessment is under way, and results from the four problematic tests will be included in that review. In 1998, the Pentagon decided to extend JASSM's development period due to concerns it was too aggressive. At that time, the Navy proposed an alternative, the Standoff Land-Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER). This could be an option if the Pentagon decides to terminate JASSM. In its report to Congress, the Pentagon attributed the most recent cost spike to "engineering increases" resulting from work on the extended-range variant, a data link and maritime interdiction capabilities as well as reliability improvements for the weapon. JASSM's predecessor program, the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile was cancelled in the 1990s due to escalating cost. Adding to the complexity of the Pentagon's decision on JASSM is interest from allies in buying the weapon. Australia is helping bear the burden of developing a JASSM variant suitable for maritime targets, and a Pentagon termination would affect that country's ability to meet its own weapons needs. JASSM's recent test failures aren't the program's first. The Air Force has halted flight testing twice since the program began for various reasons. Lockheed Martin has been working to improve the missile's reliability and company officials say they are committed to continuing the program. -- Amy Butler

The Marine Corps Gazette Tactical Decision Game Archive url has changed to TDG Archive. A number of them lend themselves very well to TacOps scale. There seemed to be a golden era in the mid to late 1990's. Every could foresee that MCA/MCG's decision to move the TDG's from the print magazine to their website would spell doom to the "program".

Well, that's why "they" get paid the big bucks. When you go into indian country, you have plan for and expect the worst. I suppose that's why you would prep the LZ, escort the insertion birds, and if possible do dummy inserts to confuse the quick reaction unit. You do not want to drop right on the enemy, so insert them and give them the time to move into position. In a game in which turns are 1min, the gamer needs the patience to "develop the situation", the game within the game. Resist the "what is STA doing now" cycle. Bottom line I suppose, and as we discussed previously, patience, patience, patience. On a side note, last night when a sniper team got waxed approximately 200m from an enemy mech platoon, they were not being employed properly, you could accuse me of almost conducting a movement to contact with those bubbas. Not employed correctly. Thanks for the lively discourse, even though its not Harpoon.

USA Today May 8, 2007 Pg. 1 General: Air Fleet Wearing Down Warplanes Have Cracked Wings By Tom Vanden Brook, USA Today LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. — The Air Force's fleet of warplanes is older than ever and wearing out faster because of heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the service's top combat commander. Gen. Ronald Keys, who leads the Air Combat Command, points to cracked wings on A-10 attack planes and frayed electrical cables on U-2 spy planes. Compared to 1996, the Air Force now spends 87% more on maintenance for a warplane fleet that is less ready to fly, Air Force records show. They also show that as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, Air Force and other military aircraft are flying more missions in harsh environments. Keys said he's concerned that policymakers will only pay attention when a plane either crashes on takeoff or over a city "because a wing falls off." "I don't want to write a letter, or have my successor write a letter, 'Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith, your son or daughter are dead because the wing fell off on takeoff. We knew it was going to fall off, we just didn't know when.' That's kind of what we're getting down to," Keys said. Arcing wires near fuel tanks recently forced the Air Force to ground its fleet of 33 U-2 spy planes in March for at least a day, Keys said. The average Air Force warplane is 23.5 years old compared with 8.5 years in 1967. In 2001, the average plane was 22 years old. The Air Force says it wants to buy new planes to lower the average age of its fleet to 15 years over the next two decades. That will cost an estimated $400 billion. There are 356 A-10s in service. The plane is often used to support ground forces in close combat. The A-10 carries missiles and bombs, but its cannon is particularly effective in strafing. The Air Force recently bought replacement wings for 132 of its workhorse A-10s at $7 million per plane. The Air Force wants another $34 million for more replacement wings this year. In the past week, A-10s have attacked enemy forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The planes shot at and bombed Taliban rebels in Afghanistan; in Iraq, A-10s performed a variety of reconnaissance missions to find and stop insurgents from burying roadside bombs. Aircraft age is misleading, said Christopher Bolkcom, a national security analyst at the Congressional Research Service. Some aircraft may have been lightly used for years and have safe flying hours left. Maintaining old planes may be expensive but often cheaper than buying a new aircraft, he said. "Chronological age is only one measure of aircraft health," Bolkcom said. "Age is not a safety issue." While refurbished planes often fly as well as new ones, they may also require more crewmembers to fly and maintain them, said James Jay Carafano, a military analyst at the Heritage Foundation. "These life-cycle costs really matter," he said.

There are Helicoper Landing Zone (HLZ) icons/markers that can be placed on map within wooded or urban areas to denote at least 150x150m open areas acceptable for HLZ operations. These markers are only seen by the establishing force until the opposing force has a viable LOS to the marker. My conundrum is provided the enemy commander has been in his AO for a while he should have already identified most if not all of those zones. Ones that he deems important/threatening enough, he will place a Zu-23, MANPAD, or infantry platoon to counter any opponents helo-assault. Thoughts?

Pre-battle reconnaissance, to include the insertion of snipers, and the like, has often been the "long pole in the tent" for many military training operations I have been on, both active and reserve. Snoopin' and poopin' on foot takes time, an lots of patience. A Marine infantry battalion has a sniper platoon, formerly known as "Surveillance & Target Acquisition" platoon or STA (pronounced STAY), within its T/O&E. During an op back in 2000, I was in the COC, as the Fire Support Coordinator, and my buddy of mine was the S-2 (Intel Officer). The Battalion CO, who should have known better as he was as we would call dual cool having earned both the Marine Corps scuba and airborne qualifications kept hovering over the S-2's mapboard asking over and over "what's STA doing", "what's STA doing". Final Al turns to the CO deadpan and says "the same thing they were doing five minutes ago.......sir." In wargaming, reconnaissance/counter-reconnaissance is actually a game within the game. Oftentimes requiring running it separate, even with different players to "shape the battlefield" and provide an intel dump to the players prior to the start of the main game itself.

Although less and less appropriate, our fairly common business trips to Canada lend the "ugly-american" in us to also say emphatically "what's that in Canadian?!", while throwing out some number a mere fraction of the actual cost. For example: I was recently charged $4.50 Canadian for one, of many I'm almost sorry to say, 1516 Bavarian Lager(s). It would have been appropriate amongst the company I was making, to blurt out something to the effect of "what's that in canadian, like...$0.72 US?

I did ponder the insertion of snipers by helo, but thought against it since just about every OPFOR swinging tail has an SA-7. I double checked and found that the game codes the snipers/recon teams as non-amphibious, so no long term foot entry. Next plan will inlcude a sniper team with the HMG Teams get quick eyes on and we'll see what happens. Didn't want it to become too much of a drive by.

More wargaming..., or more realistically, more YARD WORK!

OK, back on topic. Ranger bow out after Game 6 defeat. However, always a silver lining. We witnessed progression this year. Not that it was constant all season long, but the team jelled in the last half of the season. Henrik Lundqvist also progressed to the point of standing on his head during this run. Either way, good job Tom Renney. The team was swept in the first round last year. Made it to Game 6 of the second round this year. Continue the progress. There are some good young (on the low-side of 30) players on the team. Need to cobble together another scoring line. Buffalo-Ottawa should be a good series. Doubt I'll be able to watch any - Thanks NHL

Gave the situation some more thought. Should have dismounted the defenders, as well as the attackers when in the “attack”. It would have drawn out the battle longer, but more likely for both defender and attacker. Better use of supporting arms (use of smoke, getting the 81mm into the fight) Don’t push the cobras too far forward. Use more overwatch than gun run when in an uncertain environment. By losing one of the cobras I created a whole ‘nother tactical problem, a possible TRAP. Mass – should have paired the second mechanized company with the first for more mass and momentum. Bring the reserve up, at least north of the first bridge.

Using the my TDG “Battle along the Tziepov” inspired map, pitted a USMC battalion with mech support, a tank platoon, and a section of AH-1W against an OPFOR company’s worth of BTR-80’s. Their ATGM support was in the form of AT-14 Kornets. OPFOR also had a battery of 2S31 SP 120mm Mortars. Each has a sortie of air support with the US and OPFOR having 25% and 10% respectively additional support. Changed M1A1D’s to M60A1’s. Changed AT-7 Saxhorns to AT-14 Kornets Running the 1min turns in 5min clips 0700-0705 Starting out in ageton, Heavy Guns punches out as a screen. Ends about 1km south of the Thorpe Bridge. Alpha Company moves up maintaining a supportable distance. 0706-0710 Guns are across the Thorpe Bridge and entering the woods both east and west of Route 9. 0711-0715 Continue to develop the situation. Once in place, with launch the AH-1W section to do a route recon on the Clarkson Bridge. 0720-0725 HMG's are in postion, they have eyes on the Clarkson Bridge. Plan to launch Cobras, see what they can stir up while moving up a mech company and the tank platoon. 0726-0730: Cobras entered a hornets nest. Spotted and engaged three separate enemy positions in treelines. Now have an estimate of the enemy company's trace center in woods both north and south of the river centered on Clarkson Bridge. One cobra downed in exchange for three BTR-80s and some dismounts. 0731-0735 HMG took out a BTR-80 to its front. First Mech Company is across first bridge and about to conduct a passage of lines with HMG on the right side of the battle area. 0736-0740: arty arrives for both sides. HMG's taking some suppression. An enemy position gave away a secondary explosion. US airstrike also got a secondary and a number of dismounts on the cobra killer position. 0741-0745 First Kornets make their appearance knocking out 2x AAV-P7's. AAV's making their presence felt in the infantry fight with their up-gunned turrets. The first mech company, the one that lost about a platoon worth of AAV's to a Kornet team, has taken a beating clearing those woods, however have given as good as they have got. A second mech company has breached the enemy position, crossing the Clarkson Bridge on its way to a crossroad objective. 0746-07757: Game called, only mortars and enemy HQ left. US has breached the position. An entire mech company is engaging the enemy mortar battery, not a fair fight. Mk19 gets kills while the mortar may get suppression. Still have a mech company in reserve.

Hey that's illegal in this country, but I enjoyed the lager anyways.

BC Bud? Does that equate to the 1516 Bavarian Lager that I enjoyed so often? Okanagan Spring Brewery

So the Canucks have been ousted. Could it have been poor game-play by Vancouver?, the fact that the Anaheim GM is the former Vancouver GM?, or simply the entire population of BC having an out-of-proportion inferiority complex? Hey, I witnessed it myself last week. What a pessimistic group of hockey fans. I was ready to email Bettman to call the whole thing off.