pmaidhof

It happened a second time last night so I'm sure it can happen again. When it does, what should I send to you? It says that it logs it but I do not know where, and then exits. Thanks Tony.

Came across this error tonight. Get Annex Error: Annex_shift(53311[0xd03f])=13, annex=14 This essage has been logged. The program will now reminate. Any ideas? Thanks,

A neutral surface combatant launched an unprovoked SSM attack on Red forces. This was not programed in the SE. Customary?

Link to their Middle East Military Balance "database" with by country analysis, many updated this calendar year. Can provide useful information to wargamers/scenario designers alike. Find it here.

It's ok though, only lost bout 30 groups or bases. It was the positioning that will take the most time to re-create. It was really starting to come together when in a flash it was gone.

So there we have it, Edmonton and Carolina. An interesting aside that I heard on a sports radio station this morning was that we should not believe the official NHL hype that the new labor agreement leveled the playing field for the small market organIzations to be able to compete, if you remember back to the last Lord's Stanley Cup Finals participants included not the New York Rangers, or the Chicago Blackhawks, or the boston Bruins, but Tampa Bay Lightning v. Calgary Flames.

Just stirring the pot, something I've been told I'm good at.

Rule #1 - Come up with a good scenario that hopefully all will enjoy. Rule #1a - Save often or suffer the ignominious loss of everything you have spent the better part of every waking hour on for the past week.

I don't doubt you Tony, I'm on your side, but thats just not how it was destribed by others.

Man, I missed my calling. "That was easy!" (reference the bridge/troll scene in Monty Python & The Holy Grail) Noted.

For those of us lucky enough to posses a hard copy of the Harpoon Classic Operations Manual, it is chock full of example carrier air wings/air compliments for various countries in each Battle Set Section, and again in Appendex B. This may or may not also be in electronic format in your HC/HCCE root directory.

U.S. At Risk From Boats Packed with Explosives: Admiral By CAROLINE DREES and EDGAR ANG, REUTERS Find it here. The United States must close security gaps that could let small boats packed with explosives slip into ports and stage attacks like the one that killed 17 personnel on the U.S. warship Cole in Yemen, the new Coast Guard chief said on May 31. Adm. Thad Allen, who took over as commandant of the Coast Guard last week, said officials had to do more to help thwart such stealthy strikes, which could cause massive damage to ports, oil facilities, ports, cruise ships or tankers. "Our own threat analysis and vulnerability analysis tell us there is a significant threat by vessel-borne improvised explosive devices," Allen told Reuters in an interview. "We haven’t put nearly as much thinking in science and technology and (general) thought into the small-vessel threat as we need to, and I think that’s where we need to go next." Allen is in charge of the United States’ maritime security, including along its 95,000 miles (150,000 km) of shoreline and at its 360 primary commercial ports. As one of his first goals in office, Allen is devising a new security strategy over the next few months which will look at issues such as the small-boat threat, as well as the feasibility of licensing a broader range of boats or imposing exclusion zones around some high-risk areas. Current shipping regulations, such as the United Nations International Ship and Port Facility Security code and related U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act, focus on large commercial ships, not the roughly 60 million U.S. recreational vessels. There is no national registry or national system of operator licensing for recreational boats. In the Cole attack in Yemen in 2000, two suicide bombers on a small craft laden with up to 500 pounds (225 kg) of explosives pulled up to the guided missile destroyer and rammed their boat into the vessel as it was refueling in the port of Aden. INTENT PLUS VULNERABILITY Allen said there was no current credible intelligence of a pending maritime attack. "What we do know is that the capability exists and the will to do that has been stated, and that we have the vulnerability here. So when you put one and one and one together, you get three," he said. Allen said the vulnerability to small-boat attacks stood out during a Coast Guard threat assessment of major U.S. ports. He said authorities had far more experience in dealing with other threats, such as radiation, and would soon be able to inspect almost all cargo containers thanks to new technology. "We’re only a couple of years away from having non-intrusive inspection technology that will allow us to see into containers and we’ll get good enough at it where we’ll get close to 100 percent," he said. Currently only about 5 percent of the roughly 9 million containers that come to the United States each year are examined upon arrival. Officials check them largely on risk assessments.

Now that the latest edition of American Idol is complete, the National Spelling Bee will be televised this afternoon 12p-3p on ESPN and again "PRIME TIME" on ABC-TV. BE THERE!

So let me make sure I understand what you are trying to say completely Brad. While you sink a plethora of ships, Tony A.K.A "McHale's Navy" watches intently. I'm glad you explained that so well. Thank you.

A veritable plethora of information be found here. Tony, please explain to the class what a plethora is.

The US moderates its position so Iran hardens its stance. This dance is getting interesting. Brad, you need not say more. Iran rebuffs U.S. condition for joint nuke talks Tehran won't agree to halt uranium enrichment, foreign minister says The Associated Press Updated: 9:09 a.m. ET June 1, 2006 VIENNA - The United States and international partners are close to a deal that would offer Iran economic incentives if it suspends nuclear activities that could produce a bomb, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says. Iran’s foreign minister welcomed the idea of direct talks, but rebuffed the U.S. condition that Tehran first must suspend uranium enrichment. “Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions but (we) won’t give up our (nuclear) rights,” the state-run Iranian television quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying Thursday. In announcing the overture to talk before flying from Washington to Vienna, where she arrived early Thursday, Rice said: “We are agreed with our European partners on the essential elements of a package containing both benefits, if Iran makes the right choice, and costs, if it does not.” The shift in U.S. tactics was meant to offer the Iranians a last chance to avoid punishing sanctions. “We hope that in the coming days the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal,” Rice said. Defiant on nuke rights Mottaki’s statement issued at about the same time Rice was arriving in Austria was the country’s first direct reaction to the U.S. offer. “We won’t negotiate about the Iranian nation’s natural nuclear rights but we are prepared, within a defined, just framework and without any discrimination, to hold dialogue about (our) common concerns,” he said. The package outlined Wednesday by Rice would be on the table for any new talks including the United States. Previous talks among Iran, Britain, France and Germany foundered last year. Iran insists its nuclear work is peaceful and aimed at developing a new energy source. The U.S. shift came with pressure growing on the Bush administration from European allies and others to talk directly to Iran. It also came on the eve of a six-nation meeting in Vienna, Austria, focused on finishing the package and ending months of disagreement between the United States and Russia on how to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment, which can make fuel for nuclear power reactors or the fissile core of warheads. The U.S. offer for talks is conditioned on Iran suspending its enrichment of uranium and related activities and allowing inspections to prove it. European nations and the Security Council have demanded the same thing, but Iran has refused to comply. The foreign ministers or their equivalents of the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain — the permanent Security Council nations — plus Germany hope to approve the incentives Thursday in Vienna. They also will consider tough council penalties, including possible sanctions, if Iran remains defiant. 'A propaganda move' Iran’s oil minister said late Wednesday in Caracas, Venezuela, that his country won’t negotiate on its nuclear research program with the United States, and he blamed the U.S. for pushing oil prices higher through threats against his government. “We’re never going to negotiate the cycle of nuclear fuel that we have been able to achieve with the efforts of our country’s scientists,” Sayed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh told the Venezuela-based TV station Telesur, according to a partial transcript of his remarks. In Tehran on Wednesday, the official Iranian news agency initially criticized the U.S. offer as “a propaganda move.” “It’s evident that the Islamic Republic of Iran only accepts proposals and conditions that meet the interests of the nation and the country. Halting enrichment definitely doesn’t meet such interests,” IRNA said. Iran did voluntarily suspend uranium enrichment activities before the European talks stalled, but resumed and stepped up its program this spring. The resolution being considered in Vienna, as outlined to the AP by diplomats familiar with a draft version of the text, calls for imposing sanctions under the U.N. Charter. But it avoids any reference to a specific article of the charter that can trigger possible military action to enforce any such resolution. Russia, China opposition The proposal also calls for new consultations among the five permanent Security Council members on any further steps against Iran. That is meant to dispel complaints by the Russians and Chinese that once the screws on Iran are tightened, the council would move automatically toward military involvement. The possible sanctions include a visa ban on government officials, freezing assets, blocking financial transactions by government figures and those involved in the country’s nuclear program, an arms embargo and a blockade on the shipping of refined oil products to Iran. The Bush administration believes Russia and China would support sanctions or other harsh steps if new talks fail to persuade Iran to permanently abandon nuclear efforts, a senior administration official said. Rice will be working to reaffirm such support on Thursday. The official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity because the secretary was continuing talks with other countries. The United States has had no high-level, direct talks with the Iranians since the two countries cut diplomatic ties following the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by radicals in 1979. U.S. officials have said direct talks could appear to legitimize a regime the United States believes supports terrorism. Russia and China, as veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council, have held up a U.S. drive to impose sanctions or other tough measures on Iran if it did not back down. Both are commercial partners of Iran. On Wednesday, the U.N. ambassadors from China and Russia said in New York that the U.S. announcement showed it was more serious about finding a diplomatic solution to the dispute. Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya added that the U.S. offer to talk to Iran should be unconditional. Iran rejected a previous offer from France, Britain and Germany. The European trio broke off talks with Iran in August after Iran resumed activities linked to enrichment. © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Find it here.

In conjuring up background information for a possible scenario. 2x Fighter Squadrons (VF) 24x F-14 A/B 2x Attack Squadrons (VA) 24x A-7E 1x All-weather Attack Squadron (VA) 12x A-6E and 4x KA-6D 1x Carrier Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 4-6x E-2C (Det.) 1x Tactical Electronic Squadron (VAQ) 4-6x EA-6B (Det.) 1x Air Anti-Submarine Squadron (VS) 10x S-3A 1x Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 6x SH-3G/H (Det.) 1x Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron (VQ) 1x EA-3 (Det.) 1x Light Photographic Squadron (VFP) 3x RF-8G This basic info was found on the web. Here

Either way, cool. Thanks for the soon to come fix.

Al Udeid Air Base 25° 06' 57" N 51° 18' 55" E Source

Please correct the coordinates for Al Udeid, Qatar. Thanks

Based upon interfacing the options in HNR2003 into HCCE components, I believe I have come up with a "common" HCCE LCS. Add 1 AQS-22 sonar and 40 capacity sonarbuoys. F (12)1 Mk48 VLS with 12 cells of ESSM. F (4)2 Mk141 RGM-84C Harpoon – 4 Harpoon A ®1 Mk15 Phalanx Block 1B P/S (1)2 12.7mm HMG A (3)2 Mk32 w/ 3 Mk46 or Mk54 torpedoes, Helo deck with 1 MH-60R and 1 RQ-8.

Swapped out the two Blue warships with two guestimate Littoral Combat Ships (one predominently ASuW, the other ASW) - hope you don't mind Mark. Land based air played an important yet lesser role in this run through. The lead LCS took care of most of the air and boghammer threats with it's Mk48 VLS with ESSM's and it's 4 Harpoons respectively. Lost the "scout" through my own negligence by continuing to move forward through the minefields when my MH-60R had to land for refueling. With the loss of the lead LCS, the helo went with it. Big loss. MPA's screened the main body the rest of the way. Made it beyond Moscat (sp?)when minimum victory was declared. RQ-8 are extremely vunerable in medium to high threat environements. Two were quickly shot down in extremely one-sided air to air engagements. Still have not yet encountered the Kilo SS.

OK, not much more to add to Brad's AAR. Hawk Mk61's are about darn worthless except to be a missile sponge there by starting the conflict as the Iranians cannot resist a patrol of Hawks between them and the P6021. F-16 E/F Block 60's are the deal breaker, without them, Blue's overall mission is doomed. Once hostilities began, it was a multiple wave Iranian air attack. Iranian Boghammers also make their appearance in the face of Blues movement east toward the strait. A couple of additional boghammers make an off-axis attack, but are quickly dealt with. One decision made may have excalated the situation if RW standards could be replicated which was Blue's downing of a P-3F which was remaining over Iranian territory far enought that Blue's fighters had to go feet dry to accomplish this task. A medium surface contact was detected just off of Bandar Abbas and it launches two raids, of three and one missile respectively, of SS-N-22 Mod 1 Moskit (Sunburns). A personally interesting development is AIM-120 A/B used successfully in interecting and downing Sunburns. Have a kinda an unqualified uneasiness about that. What turns out to be the Sunburn Battery, not a medium surface ship, is attacked by a section of Mirage 2000's and ultimately destroyed by 1 Hakim PGM. Three Hakims were destroyed by SA-6 interceptions. One of the marauding Mirage 2000's was shot down by an SA-6 during its egress. The surprise is that apparently SAM and SSM barges are just off of the coast of Bandar Abbas. On the bright side, Qeshm Island appears to be unoccupied. It now appeared that the Iranian air force was no longer in any position to contest Blue's movement through the straits. Also Blue could transit outside of the effective range of the now identified coastal batteries. The focus was now almost completely ASW. As it turned out in my playthough it was now a matter of encountering an SS but identifying and procescuting many mines. All in all an enjoyable scenario.

There is a book coming out No Higher Honor by Bradley ***ton about the mining of USS Samuel B. Roberts and the subsequent engagements between USN/USMC and Iranian naval, air, and ground forces. The following site here. has an interesting 5 minute video clip from US Navy Public Affairs which aired on 30 April 1988. Also, there is an extensive photo collection. However one sided when looking back on it now, it may be interesting to game out using H4.1 to see the inherent coordination/ROE effects.

A completely unqualified, but whole-hearted AGREED. Just don't see the reason for all the hoopla, "Gee this is great!"