pmaidhof

Quick dogfight with AAM's between two competent F/A-18C/D's and two competent Indian MiG-29K's. Due to speed, the dogfight is taking place with a 6nm area. The MiG is armed with R-77's, the F/A-18's with AIM-120's, and AIM-9x's. Due to manuever considerations, the Mig's being higher, it attacks first. 5.0 (Indian maneuver rating)-4.5 (US maneuver rating)+3 (4th Gen missile)+1 (Helmet Mounted Sight)+0 (speed difference)+0 (pilot skill difference) = "Maneuver Difference" of 4.5. R-77 has an 8.0 rating at its shorter range of 9.2nm. 8.0 -4.5 (US maneuver rating) - 0.5 (US 3rd Gen Decoys) = a "Missile Index" of 3.0. Cross referencing Maneuver Difference and Missile Index the two Indian MiG's have a 41% pk. Die rolls were 32 and 63 for one F-18 downed. The remaining F-18 takes its shot with an AIM-120. The F-18's AIM-120 pk is 30%. Die roll was 33 a miss. For giggles, I checked to see if the surviving F-18 pilot was better off maneuvering for a gun shot. Appears that the -0.5 manuever difference and the 3.9 gun rating, cross referenced with the MiG-29's "20 Damage Rating" resulted in a pk of 35%. While only one iteration, it appears that pilot training is the biggest variable. US/western pilots need to maintain their qualitative edge. J-10's, F-4E's, and Mig-21 still await combat.

After back-burnering this for a while due to some relatively greater interest elsewhere; "ok guess!", the wet conditions down where Gulf Strike is set up has prompted me to revisit the new air rules. I now have been reading through the new rules with an obvious emphasis on the modern end of the spectrum. I have quickly realized that there is a new twist called "Damage Values" for each specific aircraft. Never one to use what found in the article like the J-10, MiG-29, and F-4 to name a few, I requested and recieved data, including the new damage values for the F/A-18C/D and Su-34. I look to gaming through a few dogfights (gun and missile), as well as BVR missile engagements to see if I can competantly understand the new procedures. I'll report my findings...

Sounds like it's time for another round of the "Greater Persian Gulf SinkEx".

Wall Street Journal April 18, 2007 Pg. 9 Singapore Prime Minister Urges U.S. To Bolster Its Ties In Asia By Yaroslav Trofimov and Paul Beckett SINGAPORE -- Distracted by problems elsewhere, the U.S. isn't paying enough attention to Southeast Asia, losing its regional influence to a rising China and potentially weakening antiterrorism cooperation, Singapore's prime minister cautioned. In Southeast Asia, the U.S. has "many friends and many strategic interests," Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told The Wall Street Journal ahead of his talks with President Bush, scheduled for early next month in Washington. "It's important for us to continue to nourish this, and to make sure attention is focused in America on cultivating this relationship and developing it." Noting the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly dominate Washington's political agenda, Mr. Lee, 55 years old, repeatedly stressed that the U.S. needs closer engagement with Southeast Asia -- a region of about 500 million people that includes the world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, and some of the world's most dynamic economies. Unlike the U.S., he said, China has been very skillful in increasing its economic and political clout across this area, which includes traditional U.S. allies such as Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand, and is home to valuable oil and mineral resources. "The Chinese are very active, assiduously promoting their relationship with Southeast Asia," Mr. Lee said. In Indonesia, Chinese companies last month signed $2.8 billion of contracts to build coal-fired electricity plants; according to a senior Indonesian official, the Chinese significantly underbid other foreign companies. While Mr. Lee expressed a desire to keep strengthening such cooperation with China, he said: "We want this not to be the only relationship, we want to also maintain the ties with America." In a country such as Indonesia, which has been rocked by several terror attacks in recent years, America's perceived disengagement from the region might hinder antiterrorism cooperation, Mr. Lee said. "You need to work together because terrorist groups are in fact multinational and, if the ground is not conducive, it is difficult for countries to cooperate with [America]," he said. "They want to cooperate with you, but if there is a political cost, it's a problem." Mr. Lee, a former brigadier general and a graduate of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, is the son of independent Singapore's founder, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. He has continued the city-state's tradition of close ties with the U.S. since becoming prime minister in 2004, and has bolstered cooperation with the U.S. against terrorism by agreeing this year to dispatch a small military contingent to Afghanistan. As with many U.S. allies, Mr. Lee expressed concern about the deteriorating situation in Iraq. He warned against a rapid U.S. pullout. "If you walk away you will have a very big problem, not just in Iraq but world-wide," Mr. Lee said. "If you pile on, it may or may not solve the problem, but you have some chance." Noting the U.S.'s increasingly negative image in the Muslim world, including parts of Southeast Asia, Mr. Lee called for greater "people-to-people" diplomacy by Washington and more efforts to improve America's standing. For this, it is increasingly important for U.S. policy makers to maintain their relationships in Southeast Asia -- something that hasn't happened, Mr. Lee said, in part because some American politicians have become "obsessed" with China. While praising the Bush administration for its constructive approach to China, Mr. Lee also expressed alarm at how this issue is viewed by some members of Congress, who tend to focus more on protecting American jobs and on highlighting China's human-rights record. Despite the vital importance of sustained Sino-American ties, he said, these lawmakers "are not at all concerned about maintaining a long-term good relationship with this big country." Tom Wright in Jakarta, Indonesia, contributed to this article.

Coast Guard to decommission troubled 123s By Patricia Kime - Staff Writer Posted : Wednesday Apr 18, 2007 7:33:57 EDT The Coast Guard will decommission eight recently built patrol boats because the ships suffer from hull deformations and other problems that would be cost-prohibitive to fix, officials said Tuesday. The decision to scrap the ships — eight 123-foot Island Class patrol boats that were refurbished between 2003 and 2005 — is the final nail in the coffin for the long-beleaguered program. The vessels were never fully operational and their troubles became central in a debate over the Coast Guard’s handling of its Deepwater modernization program. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen said extensive analysis of the vessels by Coast Guard and naval engineers did not reveal a single root cause for their problems, which range from exterior cracking and buckling in the hulls to interior bulging and warping of frames as well as misalignment of propeller shafts. Allen estimated that repairs would exceed $50 million. “We believe the design reduced the structural cross section necessary to support the added weight distribution following the conversion. Our analysis has been complicated, however, by the fact that we’ve observed permanent deformations of each hull in slightly different ways,” Allen said. The eight vessels were the produced under a contract to convert the Coast Guard’s 49 110-foot patrol boats into 123-foot vessels. The plan had been to refurbish and lengthen the vessels, adding a new superstructure, stern-ramp capability and upgrades, as well as improved living quarters and electronics suites. The first ship to enter the program was the 110-foot patrol boat Matagorda, which entered Bollinger Shipyards in Lockport, La., in 2003. Shortly after it arrived, however, engineers found the condition of its hull to be more worn than anticipated. Builders replaced more than 900 square feet of Matagorda’s hull as it performed other contract requirements. Engineers found similar hull degradation in the Coast Guard’s remaining 110-foot patrol boats, but it was determined that their hull plating could be replaced during the refurbishment. In 2004, after Matagorda’s conversion was complete, it developed a six-inch crack forward of its superstructure, the day after it arrived at its new home port of Key West., Fla. Later, the other seven that underwent conversions suffered similar malformations. In early 2005, then-Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thomas Collins announced he was abandoning the conversion program. Additional problems continued to plague the eight 123s, as they developed problems with shaft alignment and were found unfit for duty in seas higher than eight feet. In 2006, a Lockheed Martin employee charged that his employer, which furnished the electronics packages electronics packages for the 123s, defrauded the government by installing equipment that did not meet Coast Guard specifications. Earlier this year, the Homeland Security Inspector General said that the vessels’ C4ISR suites were found to be inadequate. According to the DHS IG, the equipment lacked the correct type of cables required by the contract. It also said the package, which provides secure data and voice transmission capability to the vessels, was vulnerable to eavesdropping. The Coast Guard faces a shortage of operational patrol boat hours as the result of the loss of the 123s. The service is left with 41 110-foot patrol boats — six of which are deployed to the Persian Gulf — and four 179-foot Cyclone-class patrol boats on loan from the Navy. Next year, the number of Cyclone-class patrol boats will be reduced to three, as the Coast Guard returns one needed by the Navy. Coast Guard patrol boats are considered to be the fleet’s workhorses, handling small cutter duties such as migrant interdiction and counter-drug operations, fisheries enforcement and homeland security patrols. Some within the service held out hope that the 123s could be fixed. On Tuesday, Allen squelched any optimism. “The excessive cost and time associated with continuing to pursue an uncertain resolution to these structural problems has convinced me that permanently removing these cutters from service, while recouping any residual value and redirecting funds to other programs is in the best interest of the government,” Allen said. According to figures provided by the Coast Guard, the service spent $87 million on the 123-conversion program. Congressional sources say the amount is closer to $94 million. Allen said the service will save $30 million by pulling all usable equipment from the boats, including electronics and sensor packages, as well as eight short-range rigid hull inflatable boats. Congressional critics have called on Allen to track down those responsible for the decision to continue with the program, despite initial concern on the ships’ hull conditions. Those calling prominently for the Coast Guard to try to recoup funds include Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, as well as Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss. “I continue to be dumbfounded by what happened to the 110s,” Taylor said during a House hearing March 8. “You are in the business of running marine safety inspections on every commercial ship in America  so how the heck do you stretch eight ships and render them useless, spend $100 million in taxpayers money and nobody in your fine organization catches this?” Allen said his staff continues to look into the matter. “We’ll pursue all viable options, contractual, legal or otherwise, for recouping any funds that might be owed the government as a result of the loss of these hulls,” Allen said. The Coast Guard plans to issue a request for proposal on design and production of a new patrol boat, called the fast response cutter-B, in May 2007, aiming for delivery of the first of 12 boats in early 2010. Initially, all fast response cutter programs were to fall under the ICGS-Deepwater umbrella, but Allen announced in March that the Coast Guard would handle that acquisition in-house. An ICGS spokeswoman Margaret Mitchell-Jones said Tuesday that the integrator supports Allen’s efforts to find “the root cause” of the 123s’ structural problems. “Both industry and the Coast Guard believed the conversion would increase available patrol boat hours within a fixed budget, as a stop-gap measure until new patrol boats could be built  ICGS has and will continue to work with the Coast Guard in seeking to determine the root cause of the issues and a path forward to assist the Coast Guard with its patrol boat mission needs,” Mitchell-Jones said. Find article here.

I guess the eyes did not convey the facetiousness of my message. I was joking about the compatibility.

Pearl Harbor may get amphib group By William Cole - Gannett News Service Posted : Tuesday Apr 17, 2007 16:29:19 EDT Hawaii didn’t get the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group, but planning is underway that could bring a smaller cousin — an amphibious assault ship and its escort ships — to Pearl Harbor, officials said. An amphibious ready group “is almost as good as getting an aircraft carrier,” said Loren Thompson, a defense expert with the Lexington Institute in Virginia. “It’s fewer personnel, but it’s an entire war-fighting package of ships and aircraft.” Such a ship grouping typically has at its core a carrierlike assault ship with helicopters and Harrier jump jets, a transport dock ship and a dock landing ship. More than 2,000 Marines can be carried on the three main ships in the amphibious group, which also can be bulked up with cruisers, destroyers and submarines. The three ships would bring in the neighborhood of 1,900 sailors, new jobs and more ship repair work. The downside includes more children in local schools, more cars on the roads and some jet and helicopter noise. When Hawaii could get an amphibious group and which ships are being considered is unclear, but one official said planning is at the midway point in the process. Jim Tollefson, president of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, said the possibility of the ship grouping for Hawaii “definitely has been brought up before at high levels.” In addition to the strategic value, Tollefson said, “I definitely see it as a positive economic impact.” He said an amphibious group represents “an excellent alternative” to a carrier because it fits the Navy’s need for a forward-based force but represents less of a problem in accommodating a carrier’s larger number of personnel, totaling about 5,700 with the air wing. There’s also less jet noise. An 844-foot Wasp-class assault ship, the centerpiece of the amphibious group, has a crew of 1,108, about two dozen helicopters and six AV-8B Harrier attack aircraft, according to Navy information. U.S. Pacific Fleet released a statement saying the Navy is “always examining where to best home port and position our forces. No decisions have been announced about moving any amphibious assault ships to Pearl Harbor.” Daniel Dinell, executive director of the Hawaii Community Development Authority, which has oversight for the redevelopment of the former Barbers Point Naval Air Station, now called Kalaeloa, recently said he, too, was aware of talk of an amphibious assault ship for Pearl Harbor. There had been noise concerns about basing part of an aircraft carrier air wing at Kalaeloa and using the airfield, but an amphibious ship “could fly the helicopters directly in from the ocean, over the Coast Guard station and land, and you haven’t crossed any housing,” Dinell said. Dinell also said that if the Navy wants to build, for example, 1,000 military residential units as part of the total 6,350 homes that are planned there, “that’s fine. It’s good for the area.” Jane Ross, who’s on the Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board, still worries about helicopter noise with such a plan. In the past, residents have had “terrible experiences” with Army CH-47D twin-rotor Chinook helicopters, she said. “They go over us, and they are so low — it’s awful,” she said. “They seem to have no special plan to avoid houses that are below.” Ross said she hasn’t noticed a noise problem with Coast Guard aircraft using Kalaeloa, so the problem doesn’t seem to be universal. “If [the Navy] would work with the community and try to avoid flying low and flying over land as much as possible, that might be OK,” Ross said. “But [noise] is a big concern.” Relocation costs doomed Hawaii’s chances for the aircraft carrier Vinson, which the Navy recently announced will go to San Diego after an East Coast overhaul. The Vinson was previously based in Bremerton, Wash. But the same reason that made Hawaii attractive for a carrier — a sailing time to potential hot spots that is shorter than from the West Coast — makes it just as attractive as a home port for the amphibious ready group, experts said. “It would make tremendously good sense to have such a force in Hawaii, because that force would be postured for quick response to emergencies anywhere from the Korean Peninsula all the way down to Southeast Asia,” Thompson said. “It’s hard to overstate the military advantage of going off to war in the Pacific from Hawaii rather than having to go all the way from the West Coast of the United States. It can really make the difference between winning and losing.” Four amphibious assault ships are based in San Diego, with a new ship, the Makin Island, expected to be completed a year from now. Six other amphibious assault ships are home-ported in Norfolk, Va., and one is in Sasebo, Japan. Pete Litrenta, executive director of the San Diego Ship Repair Association, said the arrival of the Carl Vinson, with a crew of 3,200, will pump about $270 million annually into the local economy. The Navy had been considering Pearl Harbor; Guam; San Diego; and Puget Sound, Wash., as the next home port for the big ship, which would have brought 85 jets, prop aircraft and helicopters to Hawaii. Although both Hawaii and Guam are seen as having response time advantages over the West Coast, the more than $2 billion cost to base the carrier here and $5 billion for Guam were seen as prohibitive. Litrenta said about $220 million of the anticipated $270 million annual economic impact to San Diego will be from salaries alone, and with three ships in an amphibious ready group, Hawaii also would see a significant benefit. “That’s the money that really gets spread out in the economy,” he said. Oahu’s Marine population of 6,500 — a number that will grow by up to 1,000 in coming years — would be expected to be used for the planned amphibious landing force. Find article here.

You guy's are "killin" me. I may just have to go out an secure this title. Are you sure my SH2 isn't compatible?

Officials Discuss Executive Agency for UAVs (Source: US Air Force; issued April 14, 2007) WASHINGTON --- Air Force officials invited Defense representatives to the Pentagon April 13 to discuss the Air Force's proposal to assume executive agent responsibilities for medium- and high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles. The proposal was put forward March 5 in a memorandum to senior Defense officials from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley. The memorandum stated the Air Force's desire for executive agency of the UAVs, and also indicated its desire to discuss the proposal with other service and combatant command representatives, said Col. Charlie Bartlett, the Air Force deputy director for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, or ISR, capabilities. "We had a very productive discussion with attendees who were clearly able to openly address their concerns," said Colonel Bartlett. "The first step in this process was to provide a joint forum for warfighting communities to collaborate, discuss their ideas and issues as well as provide dialogue for a way forward." The Air Force shared its vision for UAV executive agency. As the executive agency for medium- and high-altitude UAVs, the Air Force would oversee the development, acquisition and procurement of UAVs designed to meet joint requirements as well as their associated equipment and ground control stations, said Lt. Gen. David Deptula, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The meeting also afforded an opportunity to discuss a comprehensive approach to optimizing our nation's ISR capabilities as outlined in the March 5 memo. "Each service brings unique core competencies," said Colonel Bartlett. "Our focus is working together with our sister services to build interdependence in order to effectively provide kinetic and non-kinetic effects, in a manner consistent with joint doctrine, to all joint users; and to procure the best, most cost effective combat capabilities for the joint force." DoD has reached the point in the proliferation of UAVs where it is necessary to achieve acquisition efficiencies and eliminate duplication of effort. The Air Force proposal fosters standardization of systems to enhance interoperability. With a single lead agency, costly redundant UAV acquisitions would be reduced. The Air Force and Army are both buying from the same company. Someone needs to be the lead agency for this, have a center of excellence, and operate from a policy and requirements standpoint, said Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command. We must be more efficient and effective on how we both get these UAVs and how we operate them. While the Air Force has developed capability to provide full-motion video to the forces on the ground, there is not enough standardization and integration across UAV systems. The Air Force believes a single agency, which is accountable to the services and combatant commanders, can best meet the development, standardization, acquisition, and procurement needs of joint warfighters, providing increased combat capability faster and cheaper. Since the Air Force is responsible for employing air power and conducting joint, interdependent warfare from the air, it makes sense for the Air Force to be the executive agent for medium- and high-altitude UAVs, said Colonel Bartlett With more than 10 years of combat employment experience, the Air Force is organized, trained and equipped to be the executive agent for medium- and high-altitude UAVs. To work seamlessly together on the battlefield, our systems must be interdependent and responsive to the services and combatant commanders, Colonel Bartlett said. "Appointing the Air Force as (executive agent) for medium- to high-altitude UAVs will ensure the most efficient use of DoD resources, will maximize UAV joint effectiveness for America's warriors on the ground, at sea, and in the air, and will produce the most seamless array of UAV capabilities for joint force and combatant commanders," General Deptula said. Find article here

Los Angeles Times April 17, 2007 N. Korea May Shut Reactor Soon Activity near its main nuclear facility may be in preparation to shutter it, news reports say. By Associated Press SEOUL — North Korea may be preparing to shut down its main nuclear reactor, news reports said today, renewing hopes that Pyongyang will comply with a disarmament agreement days after it missed a deadline to shutter the facility. The reports came a day after a South Korean official said his government might suspend rice shipments to North Korea to ratchet up pressure on the North to comply with its nuclear disarmament pledges. The Yongbyon reactor was still in operation, but there was a high possibility that movement of cars and people seen in satellite photos could be linked to a shutdown, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported, citing an unidentified intelligence official. The Dong-A Ilbo daily carried a similar report. The reports come after the North missed a Saturday deadline to shut down the reactor and allow U.N. inspectors to verify that and seal the facility under a February accord with the U.S. and four other countries. Pyongyang said last week that honoring its pledge was contingent on the release of money frozen in a Macao bank. Washington had blacklisted the bank because a U.S. investigation concluded that funds in the North Korean accounts were used in money laundering and counterfeiting. The money was freed for withdrawal last week, but it was unclear when North Korea would move to get its $25 million.

Malacca Strait for the geographically challenged - hey I looked it up to be certain. Find image here.

Keating urges sharing maritime security info By Audrey McAvoy - The Associated Press Posted : Monday Apr 16, 2007 7:18:42 EDT KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — The top U.S. commander in the Pacific on Monday said countries lining the Malacca Strait have vastly improved the security and safety of the important trade route in the last five years. Adm. Timothy Keating also said that sharing maritime security information among military officials, diplomats and commercial shipping operators was an integral part of U.S. goals to boost regional stability. “It’s of critical importance to us,” said Keating told a joint news conference with Gen. Abdul Aziz Zainal, the chief of Malaysian defense forces, to mark the start of a military legal issues conference co-sponsored by Malaysia and the U.S. Pacific Command. Keating, who became the head of the Pacific Command three weeks ago, arrived in Malaysia on Sunday on the last leg of his Asia-Pacific tour that took him earlier to Tokyo, Seoul and Guam. Keating’s endorsement of the Malacca Strait security is welcome news for Southeast Asian countries, who have been fighting the perception that the important trading route is vulnerable not only to pirate attacks but also to Islamic terrorists. About half of the world’s oil trade and about one-third of all global commerce passes through the narrow straits between Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. Abdul Aziz also said that the three countries have boosted confidence in the safety of the sea route by increasing their surveillance of suspect vessels in the area. He added that nations could improve their information sharing by agreeing to common procedures. “We are providing full security measures in the Straits of Malacca to provide confidence for the movement of ships lining the straits,” he said, adding that there’s been a “tremendous reduction” in pirate attacks since. Keating agreed, saying the security in the Malacca Straits was “much different and much improved in just the last five years.” The oil Japan, China, and South Korea import from the Middle East passes through the strait, making it a vital waterway for global economic health. Pirates have plagued the area for decades, however. And after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. military officials grew increasingly concerned that terrorists might try to exploit the lax security in the area to mount attacks that could shut down the Malacca Strait. But Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore began stepping up their surveillance by coordinating their sea patrols in 2004 and following with air patrols a year later. Last August, the British insurance market Lloyd’s lifted its “war-risk” rating for the waterway, saying the safety of the 550-mile-long strait had improved due to long-term security measures. There still remain some questions, however, about how well the nations lining the strait are able to transfer responsibility for chasing suspect ships once the vessels cross international maritime borders. Find article here.

Into the Rising Sun: The Doolittle Raid By Barrett Tillman Long before jointness became doctrine and purple entered the military vocabulary, U.S. naval and air forces were operating hand in glove in a manner that is not possible today. The best example remains the Doolittle Raid against Japan 65 years ago. Officially it was the First Special Aviation Project, a bold concept devised by a naval officer—a submariner, no less—and executed by Sailors and Airmen. The timing could not have been better, as it occurred only four-and-a-half months after the debacle at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Only two weeks later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a study to find means of retaliating against Japan, presumably by air. Since no land-based aircraft were capable of reaching the Home Islands from American bases, the focus quickly narrowed to a naval option. (Planning had already addressed an Army Air Forces operation in China, but logistics and mission radius posed huge problems.) The problem was further complicated by the relatively short range of carrier aircraft. A strike distance of 200 nautical miles was the rule of thumb for tailhook airplanes, but that was perilously close to enemy shores. Furthermore, the United States had no carriers to spare. Enter Captain Francis S. Low. Hailing from the U.S. Naval Academy class of 1915, Low had been a submariner since World War I. But he had served on the staff of Admiral Ernest J. King for more than a year and was able to think out of the box. During a trip to Norfolk, Virginia, he saw Army bombers practicing attacks on the chalked outline of a carrier deck. It proved an inspiration. The joint bug bit hard: here was a submariner conceiving the idea of launching Army bombers from a Navy ship to strike the heart of the Japanese Empire. Low hustled back to Washington, D.C., determined to sell the idea to Admiral King, then-commander-in-chief, U.S. Fleet. King was a rarity, qualified in both aviation and submarines. He respected Low’s opinion and said, “You may have something there.” He instructed the operations officer to discuss the prospect with Captain Donald B. “Wu” Duncan, King’s aviation authority.1 Duncan saw prospects as well as problems. If twin-engine bombers were to launch from a carrier, obviously they could not return to land aboard ship, so the mission would be a one-way trip. The bombers—Army aircraft—would have to land in friendly or neutral territory or be sacrificed, presumably with the crews rescued. Still, the prospects of attacking Japan were exciting. A successful mission, perhaps against Tokyo itself, would accomplish at least two goals. It would force Japan to pull back forces from combat zones to defend the homeland, and more important, it would spike American morale at a time when good news was damnably scarce. Duncan investigated and wrote an analysis, concluding that the job could be done. Informed of the emerging plan, Admiral King was supportive. He ordered his staffers to approach General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, inviting the chief of the Army Air Forces to contact King if he wished to pursue the matter. Amid continuing secrecy, the Navy men briefed General Arnold in mid January, and the Army officer immediately consented. At that point the First Special Aviation Project officially became a joint operation, equally dependent on the Army and the Navy. From Plan to Reality Events accelerated. By month’s end General Arnold had detailed three North American B-25 crews to conduct practical experiments, taking off from the USS Hornet (CV-8) based at Norfolk, Virginia. Her paint was hardly dry: she had only been commissioned in October 1941, and was still working up prior to joining the Atlantic Fleet. On 2 February, First Lieutenants John Fitzgerald’s and James McCarthy’s bombers were spotted on the Hornet’s deck off the Virginia coast. They had satisfied themselves in tests ashore that they could get their lightly loaded Mitchells off the ship in the available space. Needing 70-mile-per-hour airspeed to lift off, the B-25s enjoyed a relative wind equal to 45 mph, and both Mitchells got airborne after short deck runs. Duncan, who had observed the process, immediately returned to Washington with the good news. Army bombers could take off from a carrier.2 A few days previously, General Arnold had tossed the Army football to Lieutenant Colonel James H. Doolittle, a longtime colleague and the general’s chief troubleshooter. Jimmy Doolittle was arguably the greatest pilot of his generation. He had done nearly everything possible in aviation, from earning an aeronautics Ph.D. to performing the first outside loop and making the first instrument landing. Arnold informed Doolittle of the plan, saying that the lieutenant colonel, a champion racer, would coordinate with Captain Duncan as his naval counterpart. Bring on the B-25s Independently, Doolittle and Duncan had determined that the B-25 was the best airplane for the mission. In fact, it was the only airplane. The Army’s other medium bombers were incapable of getting off the deck in 500 feet or lacked the required 2,000-mile range. Doolittle, well known as a master of the calculated risk, applied equal parts of his scientific brain and aviator’s instincts. After consulting with Air Corps engineers, he provided for 24 B-25Bs to be modified to mission standards—mainly additional fuel tanks. Meanwhile, Duncan proceeded with coordination of the naval aspects. Security was tight from the start and remained so. Within a few days of departure, only six officers knew the full plan. Not even the Hornet’s skipper, Captain Marc Mitscher, was fully briefed until shortly before deploying. The Army crews came from the 17th Bomb Group, previously flying out of Pendleton Army Air Field in northeastern Oregon. Most of the pilots were “junior birdmen.” Of the 16 bombers deployed, 12 were flown by first or second lieutenants. Doolittle and Major John Hilger were the only fliers with ranks above captain. Navy Lieutenant Henry Miller instructed the Army fliers in carrier procedures during essential interservice training at Eglin Field, Florida. On a remote outlying airstrip, the Mitchell crews learned how to coax a B-25 into the air at minimum airspeed, laden with four tons of fuel and ordnance. After enough crews had performed to Miller’s standards to provide some spares, the entire organization flew cross-country to San Francisco. The Doolittle Raiders Meanwhile, on 4 March the Hornet proceeded to the West Coast to rendezvous with the Army men—the 80 fliers who would forever be known as the Doolittle Raiders. The carrier arrived at San Francisco on the 20th, with a semi-final briefing held on the 30th. In the bar of the Fairmont Hotel, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey met with Duncan, Doolittle, and Halsey’s chief of staff, Captain Miles Browning. As task force commander riding the USS Enterprise (CV-6), Halsey had overall responsibility for the mission. The 16 B-25s were craned aboard at Alameda, and the ship headed west two days later. Well into the Pacific on 12 April, the Hornet task group rendezvoused with Halsey’s Enterprise and her screen several hundred miles north of Midway. “The Big E’s” aircraft would conduct most of the scouting and combat air patrol until the Army bombers were launched, as the Hornet’s deck was necessarily locked. Approaching Japan on 18 April, Japanese picket boats sighted the American ships, prompting the B-25s to launch 200 miles farther from their targets than planned. But when Doolittle gunned his Mitchell down the Hornet’s rain-swept deck, he cleared the bow with room to spare. The rest of the story is well known: How the bombers struck Tokyo, Yokohama, Kobe, Nagoya, and Osaka and got away clean. How they ran out of fuel after 13 hours in the air, one diverting to Soviet territory and the others crashing along the China coast. How six Raiders perished, including four as prisoners of Japan. How Doolittle returned to wild acclaim, receiving the Medal of Honor—an award he accepted reluctantly and only then on behalf of his men.3 Though it inflicted minimal damage on Japan, the First Special Aviation Project proved a major success. It destroyed Tokyo’s aura of invincibility and boosted America’s morale as nothing else could. It also demonstrated that a healthy relationship was possible between the Army and Navy, despite the services’ often bitter rivalry. However, the Doolittle raid was not the last such collaboration between the Navy and the Army Air Forces, with the Navy even later working with foreign air arms. Jointness in the Med An even more joint operation occurred in the Mediterranean immediately after the Tokyo raid. On 20 April 1942, the USS Wasp (CV-7) ferried 47 Royal Air Force Spitfires to Malta, providing badly needed reinforcements for the beleaguered garrison there. All but one arrived at the island, which was subjected to almost daily attack by Axis bombers. Among the RAF pilots on board the Wasp was Texan Reade Tilley, a big, strapping Eagle Squadron pilot who would achieve ace-dom on Malta. When Tilley expressed concern about taking off from a carrier without previous experience, his squadron leader replied, “Laddie, there’s no point practicing that which must be performed perfectly the first time.”4 On 9 May, in company with HMS Eagle, the Wasp returned to Malta, embarking 64 Spitfires, 60 of which reached their destination. But not without some drama: a Canadian, Pilot Officer J. A. Smith, lost his drop tank after takeoff. Given the choice of bailing out or attempting a landing, he tried for the deck. The Wasp’s landing signal officer was Lieutenant David McCampbell, who had briefed the British pilots on carrier procedures. The first pass looked good, but Smith was too fast and received a wave-off. He went around for another try. Decades later, McCampbell said, “He was still a little fast on the second pass so I cut him long.” Giving the “chop” signal sooner than normal, McCampbell judged it nicely. Smith got his Spitfire on the deck and stood on the brakes. Incredibly, he lurched to a stop less than 15 feet from the forward deck edge. Having been carrier qualified, he received naval aviator’s wings that evening.5 More inter-American work was conducted by the USS Ranger (CV-4), which delivered 68 Curtiss P-40s to the Gold Coast of Africa on 10 May. All the Warhawks got off the deck and set course for the China-Burma-India Theater. The Ranger continued delivering Army aircraft, with four more trips over the next eight months. Meanwhile, another Army-Navy exercise attended Operation Torch, the invasion of French Morocco in November 1942. The ship was the USS Chenango (ACV-28) one of the early escort (then called “auxiliary”) carriers, commissioned only five months before. The converted oiler ferried the entire 33rd Fighter Group, as the ship’s crew shoehorned all three squadrons—72 P-40Fs—onto the flight and hangar decks. One of the Army pilots spoke for most when he lauded the Sailors, describing Captain Ben H. Wyatt as “gracious and attentive to our needs.” Unfortunately, the group commander exhibited little interservice acumen, stating that he could not wait to get ashore “and show the Navy how to fight.” Colonel William W. Momyer later became a four-star general.6 The first fighters were catapulted off the short deck the morning of the 10th, but damage to Port Lyautey’s airfield forced a delay, requiring the ship to keep the Warhawks on board for two days. Several fighters were damaged in landing amid the shell holes, and none was able to fly combat sorties before the Vichy surrender. Pacific Reprise More than two years after the Doolittle Raid, Army aircraft again launched from carrier decks into Pacific combat. Close on the heels of the Saipan landing in June 1944 was a joint operation featuring a new generation of flattops. On the 22nd, the escort carrier USS Natoma Bay (CVE-62) catapulted 24 P-47 Thunderbolts of the 19th Fighter Squadron off her 550-foot deck from 60 miles out. They landed ashore that morning, providing close air support from newly won Aslito airfield. Four hours after arrival, the squadron was firing rockets at Japanese positions on nearby Tinian. The next day Japanese aircraft found the escort carrier group. Two Aichi dive bombers attacked the USS Manila Bay (CVE-61), dropping bombs wide to port. Lacking naval fighter protection, the Manila Bay launched four P-47s on combat air patrol while the Natoma Bay dispatched 12 more “Jugs” of the 73rd Squadron. The CAP flight orbited until the radar screens cleared, then followed the dozen other fighters to Saipan. On the 24th, the Manila Bay sent off her remaining aircraft, shortly followed by the 333rd Squadron from the USS Sargent Bay (CVE-83). Thus, by month’s end three escort carriers had delivered the entire 318th Fighter Group directly into combat. Carriers continued delivering Army aircraft to forward areas throughout the war, but seldom if ever again under fire. However, a unique evolution occurred stateside in November 1944, testing “navalized” Army aircraft. Ironically—or appropriately—it involved a B-25H (naval designation PBJ-1H) capable of landing on a carrier. A modified P-51D also was launched and recovered aboard the new Essex-class carrier, the USS Shangri-La (CV-38), determining the feasibility of operating Army fighters and bombers at sea. The “Seahorse” version of the Mustang was conceived as a long-range escort fighter, but the concept was overtaken by events as land bases were conquered. The joint operations of World War II remain an example for current Navy and Air Force units, which are increasingly reliant on one another. After the premature demise of the A-6 Intruder, long-range carrier strikes now require Air Force tanker support, while SEALs and Marines direct Air Force fighter-bomber pilots. Ernie King and Hap Arnold would approve. Mr. Tillman is the author of numerous books and articles on military aviation topics, including Clash of the Carriers: The True Story of the Marianas Turkey Shoot of World War II (New York: New American Library, 2005). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1Norman Polmar, Aircraft Carriers, Volume I (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2006), p. 202. back to article 2In fact, twin-engine aircraft had flown from carriers before the war, but that fact was unknown to the Tokyo raid planners. In 1939 a Lockeed XJO-3 had launched from the USS Lexington (CV-2), proving the concept of not only twin-engined but nosewheel types. back to article 3Interview with Gen James H. Doolittle, USAF (Ret.), Los Angeles, 1977. Doolittle believed that the Medal of Honor should only be awarded for saving the lives of comrades in combat. He considered shooting down enemy aircraft and bombing assigned targets “merely doing one’s job.” back to article 4Interview with Col Reade Tilley, USAF (Ret), October 1990. back to article 5Subsequently, Jerry Smith disappeared chasing Luftwaffe bombers near Malta. In 1991 the author had the pleasure of introducing McCampbell to Smith’s older brother Rod, himself a Malta ace. back to article 6Daniel B. Rathbun, www.portlyautey.com/Rathbun.htm. back to article Find article here

Los Angeles Times April 16, 2007 N. Korea Reminded To Fulfill Its Pledge U.S. is displeased by the failure to shut a nuclear reactor but says it will wait a few more days. By Associated Press SEOUL — The U.S. said Sunday that North Korea must act within days on a pledge to halt its nuclear weapons program, after the Pyongyang government failed to meet a Saturday deadline to shut down and seal a nuclear reactor. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said Washington was prepared "to hold on for a few more days" after his Chinese counterpart, Wu Dawei, asked the U.S. for patience. "We're not happy that the [North] essentially has missed this very important deadline," Hill told reporters after talks with Wu in Beijing. "We're obviously going to be watching the situation very closely in the coming days." The United States sent a message to North Korea through its embassy in China urging it to fulfill commitments of a February agreement that would give the Pyongyang regime energy aid and political concessions in return for disarming. The North said last week it would proceed only when it received money from accounts frozen in 2005 after the U.S. blacklisted a Macao bank suspected of money laundering and other illicit activities. The $25 million was freed last week, but it remains unclear when the North will receive the money. Hill said he expected the countries involved in the talks — China, Japan, Russia, the U.S. and North and South Korea — would meet before month's end to discuss the next steps. No official comment has come from the North, which was preoccupied Sunday with celebrations of the birthday of late founder Kim Il Sung.

Boston Globe April 16, 2007 Kittery, Maine Ceremony Honors Sub, Crew Forty-four years after it sank off Cape Cod, the USS Thresher and its crew were remembered at a ceremony Saturday near the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The nuclear sub sank during sea trials out of the yard on April 10, 1963, killing 129 men. A mechanical error caused the submarine to lose power, causing it to sink below crush depth in the Atlantic. On Saturday, Irene Harvey, widow of Captain John Harvey, the sub's commander, dropped a wreath into the Piscataqua River to remember the crew. To honor each man, a bell was rung as their photographs were displayed on a screen. "They are on eternal patrol," said Gary Hildreth, commander of the Thresher Base, during the memorial service at R.W. Traip Academy. --AP

That's great to know as they often have some interesting reading such as that Indian navy article, and the finding of the Wahoo a few months back. As a subscriber, when asked to sign in I do so. Wasn't sure how it works in regards to a non-"member".

I recently submitted an article found in a recent copy of Proceedings. The USNI website has many articles posted, but it seems to require membership to access them Is it worthwhile to post these articles if not many people can access them? Or is it ok to post copies of website content when there are such restrictions in place. It the active readers of this site are members, the point is mute.

As pomised, here are two photos of Gulf Strike. One an overview trying to encompass all of the playing area. The second shows the general situation at about the middle of the first Game Turn. US Forces are assembling in the Gulf of Oman. The topmost units, sort of blurry, is Bandar Abbas. Below that is an Iranian Tanker docked at the Oil Terminal at Larak Island. There is a Silkworm battery and air defense brigade on Qeshm. Toward the left you can see Iranian speedboats, and I believe another silkworm battery, at Abu Musa, a second tanker approaching the Sirri Oil Terminal, and more speedboads at Sirri. Just below that is the USN escorted tanker convoy consisting of two re-flagged tankers. This convoy has fended off harrassment attacks by both enemy speedboat units. All in all great fun on a rainy sunday afternoon.

Booooooo! Hhhiisssssssssss!

It's an aweful long swim!

Am I the only one on this planet without HCE b22?

Anyone with this edition or access to the USNI website, a vey interesting article can be found pp 38-42 discussing current Indian naval strategies/concerns. It can provide outstanding scenario fodder. I believe that you need "access", but here is the link anyway. Find article here - hopefully. I could always post a copy if it is believed to be "ok"

Osprey aircraft heading to Iraq Marines bullish on hybrid helicopter-plane despite past accidents MSNBC News Services Updated: 8:02 p.m. ET April 13, 2007 MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. - The Marine Corps announced Friday it will send 10 V-22 Ospreys to Iraq this year in the first combat mission for the hybrid aircraft expected to carry troops in and out of battle at unprecedented speed. Built by Boeing Co. and Bell, a unit of Textron Inc., the planes' deployment marks a significant reversal for an aircraft program that was nearly scrapped after two deadly test crashes and a history of mechanical failures. The medium-size, tilt-rotor plane — which takes off vertically like a helicopter and flies likes a plane — replaces the CH-46 Sea Knight, a 39-year-old assault helicopter used in the Vietnam War. Demonstrated to reporters at Quantico Marine Corps Base, Va., on Friday, the Osprey can travel twice as fast and three times farther than the Sea Knight. The planes, equipped with radar, lasers and a missile defense system, each carry 24 combat-ready Marines and will accompany attack helicopters in Iraq, which come under gunfire and mortar attacks. The Marines expect speed to protect the Osprey from the ground-fire Iraqi insurgents have used to down U.S. helicopters this year. "The V-22 will be able to fly above the threat," said Lt. Gen. Castellaw, deputy commandant for Marine Aviation. "It's harder to shoot a rabbit that's running than one that is sitting still. We're talking about the ability to climb altitude outside of the heart of the threat over there." 'Most capable, survivable aircraft' "It is our fervent feeling that this aircraft is the most capable, survivable aircraft that we carry our most important weapons system in, which is the Marine or rifleman," he added. Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said 171 Marines will accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield, the second largest air base in Iraq located 100 miles west of Baghdad. "This is a great day for our corps," Conway said. "This deployment directly supports our corps' number one priority — the Marines and sailors in contact at the tip of the spear." Like the Black Hawk used by the Army, the Marine Corps' Osprey strikes a dramatic, even intimidating form as it roars over the horizon. Landing in a clearing of trees at Quantico on Friday, gusts from two Ospreys sent dirt and blades of grass flying as far as 100 yards. Castellaw rejected concerns that the Osprey might not be safe, emphasizing that it had been extensively tested and was fully operational. In April 2000, 19 Marines died when their V-22 crashed in Marana, north of Tucson, Ariz. The accident was blamed partly on human error and mechanical problems. Then in December 2000, four more Marines died in a crash in North Carolina due to a hydraulic malfunction. Out of small arms range in seconds In the demonstration flight at Quantico, the aircraft was off the ground and out of small-arms range in less than a minute. Once airborne, its rotors shifted from helicopter to airplane position in 12 seconds, and the transition was so smooth that passengers unprepared for the Osprey's next flight mode were jolted toward the back of the aircraft. It can move from 110 knots to more than 200 knots as the aircraft shifts into airplane flight, said Lt. Col. Paul Rock, commander of the squadron headed to Iraq. It can hit speeds of nearly 350 knots, or more than 400 miles per hour. Critics have raised questions about the maneuverability of the aircraft in some circumstances. Pilots will face the same restrictions in the Osprey as they do in other helicopters and tactical adjustments will be implemented to avoid the risk, Castellaw said. For example, Osprey pilots when in helicopter mode will have to avoid descending at a low air speed and high rate of descent, just as pilots of traditional helicopters. "You don't want to do that in a helicopter, and you do not want to do that in a tilt-rotor," Castellaw said. He said the Osprey has systems on board to warn pilots when they are descending from a high altitude with too much power in helicopter mode. © 2007 MSNBC InteractiveThe Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. Find article here.

Neat tittle tool for creating do it yourself wargame counters. Too bad it is rerstricted to ground units. Land Unit Counter Renderer Hmm, air-naval. Perhaps it may get Tony's creative juices boiling.

Osprey to make combat debut in Iraq By John Hoellwarth - Staff writer Posted : Friday Apr 13, 2007 13:51:32 EDT The Corps’ MV-22 Osprey aircraft will make its combat debut in Iraq when Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 deploys to Al Asad Air Base in September, Commandant Gen. James Conway announced at the Pentagon on Friday. Lt. Gen. John Castellaw, deputy commandant for aviation, said the Osprey’s primary job in Iraq will be “to take Marines into combat,” but that it will be used “for a variety of missions” currently performed by the Corps’ aging fleet of CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. “The commandant wants to provide the best equipment available to Marines in the greatest need,” Castellaw said. “It is our view that the V-22 right now can do the greatest amount of support in Iraq.” With the Osprey, “what we have is an aircraft that goes twice as fast, it goes three times as far and it is the most survivable by about six or seven times what the aircraft it replaces is,” he said. It’s more survivable because its engines having lower infrared and acoustic signatures, making it harder for the enemy to target. Plus, “it flies faster, higher and it was designed from the beginning to absorb hits from weapons.” The Osprey can carry 24 combat-loaded Marines or 12 litters for casualty evacuation. It can transport 10,000 pounds of cargo externally and 20,000 pounds internally, Castellaw said. It can also fly 900 miles without refueling, which means “it can go anywhere in Iraq from where we’re going to put it,” he said. When the squadron arrives in Iraq, it will represent about 30 percent of the medium-lift capability available to commanders there, Castellaw said. He said VMM-263 has participated in two training exercises in a desert environment similar to that of Iraq — Exercise Mojave Viper at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, Calif., and Exercise Desert Talon, run by Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1 in Yuma, Ariz. “And there’s a lot of dust out there,” Castellaw said. Find article here.