pmaidhof

here Can someone enlighten me as to why shooting down a ballistic missile in its "final seconds of flight" versus further away is a good thing? I can see as a last defense against missiles which have gotten through the longer range defenses, but any type of "weapons of mass effects - WME" warhead such as chemical or biological agents would still be dispersed over a wide area by the destruction of the missile.

How about those Oilers!

I've tweaked the most recent DB with the PE to include some differently armed LCS'. Then futzed around with the SE to create a small scenario based on the H4.1 scenario I had been gaming. The TG was attacked by a P-3F Orion and it's two C-801 missiles were defeated by ESSM. The Group then let loose on a group of 6 boghammers detected by a combination of RQ-8 and MH-60R's. Two boghammers surviced the harpoons, and we quickly dispatched by an armed RQ-8. First thoughts is that the RQ-8's are short-legged. Will reasearch further, but that';s my initial impression. Pete

Are hostilities considered already declared at the start of the scenario? I aborted the first run after P6201 was taken out by surface fire from one of the enemy surface ships, believe it to be a boghammer but that would mean RPG fires(?). Started over. Started second by plinking enemy surface ships, most if all boghammers. Enemy air basically negated by AIM-120's or their equivelent. Have not yet reached the mines fields or encountered the possible SS. Figured I'd chime in. Good scen so far Mark, thanks.

This book, while reading like 12 O'Clock High, continually stresses low altitude attacks, both RN/RAF Air-to-Ground, and Argentinian Air-to-Surface driving home the radar line of sight rules in H4. so far, I can only recall one Argie crashing into the sea due to low flight, while at least two or three instances of very low ejections. One time displaying the particular pilot's presence of mind to wait for his stricken, flaming, and now spinning aircraft to be relatively upright so that when he ejected he would not turn into a "lawn dart" himself.

Go Oilers! While I can claim ignorance on the booing of the Canadian National Anthem having only heard about third-hand, the perpetrators should have been escorted immediately from the facility. They would claim freedom of speech and some ACLU lawyer would represent them. While one has the right to say just about everything and anything, I do not believe that you have the right to display the true depths of your ignorance in a public forum such as that. If I can offer an excuse, it would simply be that I consider the vast amount of their (Californians) ideas, values and proposals to be repugnant. These people probably could tell you why they booed in the first place - "Duh, I'm not supposed to boo?" Boo the opposing team until your vocal cords fall out - have at it. The NHL should fine the team, if not revoke their franchise. I'm glad they lost, the low-rent malcreants. True hockey fans know at least the first verse of the Canadian National Anthem, hey unfortunately many Americans can not complete even the United States National Anthem. O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard...for....theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. It's a beautiful anthem.

Thanks guys. Feel a little better now, guess I need to lay off the caffeine some

Sorry for the rhetorical: And why won't this be fixed prior to them rolling out this "new" product? I "really want" to want to purchase this title and enjoy it, but I have serious reservations, none of which were allayed by your above post Herman. And third party DB's address our laundry list? If it is as easy as a bunch of enthusiasts getting together and making their own DB, why can't the creator do make it right? However, thank you.

Isn't the Chinese J-10 a copy of a composite aircraft modeled on an F-16 acquired from Pakistan and technology from the Israeli Lavi multi-purpose fighter, legally modeled from the F-16? It would need to be in international waters, would need to weigh close to a choke point to pinpoint its location versus far enough in the middle of nowhere to ensure that no timely support can be given. Not yet, but maybe.

Interesting . Per Air War South Atlantic, p.84, at the close of 04 May 1982. “The loss of the Sea Harrier at goose Green caused further change to the Task Force’s operations. Never again were these precious aircraft to be hazarded in low-level attack missions involving flights over well-defended targets. From now on, when atacks on ground targets were required, the Sea Harriers would either bomb from a high altitude or use toss bombing methods, which were less risky but also far less accurate.” Was this lesson unlearned by forces in place to defend against the never to occur Warsaw Pact attack in western Europe and again in Kuwait/Iraq during the 1991 war?

I'm still interested, in a gaming sense, in sabotaging/sinking the surface shipment. Maybe it could be less dramatic and be a maritime interdiction in international waters to uphold the non-transfer agreement. Afterwards Hugo and George could hold hands and sing kumbyah.

Perhaps we've hijacked this thread, but is it within the believed Venezuelan Air Forces capabilities to conduct such refueling over such a great distance. I harken back to the effort needed for the British to refuel a single Vulcan Bomber round trip from Ascension Island to Stanley and back during their first strike in 1982. For arguments sake, I did a quick search and came up with over 6,800nm Caracas-Bandar Abbas (disclaimer I do not claim to know what originating or destinating airfields would be utilized, I'm sure there are more applicable fields to lower this distance).

I was thinking of the Venezuela proposal to sell the F-16's to a thirds party, obstensibly Iran. This would apparently be in violation of a 1982(?) agreement not to sell these aircraft without US approval. Now, should these aircraft be sold in violation, how would they be delivered? I'm no rocket scientist but would assume that they could not fly on their own withou A2A refueling capability - could be wrong. If they are shipped, imagine the fall-out should that ship mysteriously sink in route. How about in harbor. in a Venezualean harbor, in an Iranian harbor. Remember the French, and all the political fall-out that followed, when their "intelligence services" sank Green Peace's Rainbow Warrior in harbor somewhere in the Pacific back in the 1985 (has it really been that long?). wiki here Ah to dream, what better way to sea-trial submarine launched SEAL delievery vehicles, explosive charges, and offical denials, etc.

Given ANW is apparently going to ship with an H4DB, which is a modified "ODB". Why would a third party DB be advantageous over the H4DB aside from having platforms not found in the paper H4 Data Annex? Assuming that the player is "ok" with H4.1 data? Looking for a straight forward response. Thanks in advance.

This is from the same RAF site regarding the 1991 Gulf War. The Battles tab has some interesting graphics and descriptions of movements and engagements. here

Persuant to the low altitude bombing discussion Brad and I have had down in the H4 folder regarding RN/RAF low level bombing techniques and tactics, I stumbled across this RAF History Site: here The Day By Day (by day, by day ) and Background tabs have some interesting information.

I'll double check, but I believe that these guys were dropping iron bombs. Nevertheless their skill and courage must be admired. Also, like you mentioned, this was what the British pilots trained for in their NATO-WP mission which I believe the term was airfield suppression. An more recent example would have been the RAF attacks on Iraqi airfields in DS/DS. They came in low and paid "appropriately" in the face of the Iraqi airfield defenses.

From some reading today in the Airwar in the South Atlantic book referenced in the Military history "Books" thread. The first Sea Harrier laydown bombing runs on the airfield at Port Stanley, the approach under the Argentine radar was at an altitude of 50 feet! or 15.25m. They had to then climb to 170 feet or 52m in order to actually make the attack. This puts some true perspective on my generic air attacks. Having read through my posts I only have been stating Low or VLow altitudes, but I believe my planning factor was on the high end of the VLow altitude bar. The is no apparent benefit from flying lower than the max altitude of a desired range band, beyond possible effecting the Radar LOS numbers, but WOW, it really puts the British concerns and respect of the "unknown" of these early raids into perspective.

Wow, now that the LCS escorted convoy (another thread) has defeated the exocet strike, the convoy is now continuing on its way to its destination. The mine group's actions, suicide boats and the possibly most important Kilo SS will come into play. In order to get the SS into the fight, it needs to speed up. This began my concern for its safety in doing so; how will cruising effect the Kilo's detectability? I ran a quick exercise. Here is what I have determined after a quick look: The submerged Kilo max's out at 10kts submerged. The optional ALQ-22 sonar carried by the LCS is a dipping sonar requiring the platform to be hovering/dead in the water. Even if it successfully dipped the sonar, the LCS's active sonar range was only 2, Base of 4*1 Sea State *0.5 Anechoic Coating, calculating to 0.0-0.8 / 0.9-2.2 / 2.3-3.0 range. While I'm sure realistic, I have "0" first hand knowledge, not as effective as I would have imagined. Sub starts its movement about 20nm from the Task Group, so it can move virtually at will. I started the mission with an air complment exclusively of RQ-8's. This will seriously hamper my ASW effort unless I magic move some "land-based MH-60R's to operate out of the airstrip at Port Kown. We continue to march...

Oilers score five straight goals to beat the Sharks 6-3. Tie series 2-2. Edmonton's got some mojo going on. Box Score: here

Let’s enable the time machine and go back to 1400, the turn that detection takes place. Here are the locations at the start of the turn. Task Group (TG) is on a 140 degrees bearing and 20nm from the friendly Port Kown. RQ-8 #1 is on a 028 degrees bearing and 20nm from the TG. RQ-8 #2 is on a 152 degrees bearing and 15nm from the TG. The undetected Mine-laying Group (MG) is on a 101 degrees bearing and 16nm from the TG. The undetected Kilo Class Submarine (SS) is on a 131 degrees bearing and 28nm from the TG. The Super Puma Helo is on a 170 degrees bearing and 25nm from the TG, at 125m (Low Altitude). 1400 Plot: RQ-8 #1 heading 180 degrees, 100kts. RQ-8 #2 Hold. TG 090 degrees heading at 10kts. SS 311 degrees heading at 5kts. MG 000 degrees heading at 5kts. Helo 000 degrees heading at 0kts Low. 1400 Move: RQ-8 #1 180 degrees 5nm. TG 090 degrees 0.5nm. SS 311 degrees 0.25nm. MG 000 degrees 0.25nm. 1400 Detection: TG TRS-3D-16 vs MG @ 16nm detects 2 small contacts on a bearing of 101 degrees. MG 3rd Generation ESM detects TRS-3D-16 on a bearing of 281 degrees. Super Puma Agrion15 vs Large, Medium1, Medium2, and Stealthy1, Stealthy2, Stealthy2 detects Large, Medium1, Stealthy2, and Stealthy3 on a bearing of 350 degrees and 25nm. TG 3rd Generation ESM detects Agrion15 on a bearing of 170 degrees. RQ-8 #2’s 3rd Generation ESM detects the Agrion15 on a bearing of 193 degrees. Engagement Turns Declared. 1403.5 2nd Fire Phase: Super Puma launches 1x AM.39 Exocet Block2 on a bearing of 350 degrees and with an enabling point (EP) of 20nm distant. 1404.0 1st Move Phase: TG moves 3min 0.5nm. MG moves 3min 0.25nm. SS moves 3min 0.25nm. RQ-8 #1 moves 3min 5nm. RQ-8 #2 moves 15sec 0.4nm on a heading of 193 degrees. Vampire1 (V1) moves 15sec 2.6nm (2.6 total, 22.4nm from target). 1404.0 1st Fire Phase: Super Puma launches 1x AM.39 Exocet Block2 on a bearing of 350 degrees and with an EP of 20nm distant. 1404 Detection Phase: RQ-8 #2 fails to detect V1. 1404.5 2nd Move Phase: V1 2.6nm (5.2nm, 19.8nm). V2 2.6nm (2.6nm, 22.4nm). RQ-8 #2 0.4nm 1405.0 1st Move Phase: V1 2.6nm (7.8nm, 17.2nm). V2 2.6nm (5.2nm, 19.8nm). RQ-8 #2 0.4nm. 1405 Detection: RQ-8 #2 detects V1 missile at a distance of 4nm. 1405.5 2nd Move Phase: V1 2.6nm (10.4nm, 14.6nm). V2 2.6nm (7.8nm, 17.2nm). RQ-8 #2 0.4nm. 1406.0 1st Move Phase: V1 2.6nm (13.0nm, 12.0nm). V2 2.6nm (10.4nm, 14.6nm). RQ-8 #2 0.4nm. 1406 Detection Phase: LCS #3 detects V1 at Vlow, 170 degrees bearing at 12nm. 1406.5 2nd Move Phase: V1 2.6nm (15.6nm, 9.4nm). V2 2.6nm (13.0nm, 12.0nm). RQ-8 #2 0.4nm. 1406.5 2nd Fire Phase: LCS #3 launches 2x ESSM on a heading of 170 degrees. 1407.0 1st Move Phase: V1 2.6nm (18.2nm, 6.8nm). V2 2.6nm (15.6nm, 9.4nm). Raid1 (R1) 6.8nm, intercepts V1. 6.5 –0.5 (Unmanned), -1 (SS vs SSC) , -1 (Vsmall RCS). PH = 70%. ESSM #1 misses while ESSM #2 hits. 1407 Detection: Unsuccessful. 1407.5 2nd Move Phase: V2 2.6nm (18.2nm, 6.8nm) 1408.0 1st Move Phase: V2 2.6nm (20.8nm, 4.2nm) 1408 Detection Phase: V2 detected. EP reached 1-16 Large; 17-24 Medium1; 25-32 Medium2; 33; 334; 35. V2 locks onto “Large” Tanker. 1408.5 2nd Move Phase: V2 2.6nm (23.4nm, 1.6nm) 1408.5 2nd Fire Phase: LCS #2 fires 57mm/70 Bofors (just inside Forward arc)but misses. LCS #3 launches 2x RIM 116A-RAM. 1409.0 1st Move Phase: RAM and Exocet conduct incremental movement. 1 degree shy of a crossing target. RAM ATA = 5.5. -.5 TM, -1.0 (SS vs SSC), -1.0 (RCS) = 2.0 = pH 50%. RAM destroys V2 0.6nm from tanker. Exocet AM.39 Block2 moves 2.6nm per movement phase. 2.6/5=0.52nm. V2 was destroyed outside (0.6nm distant) of the 3 second rule distance for this missile. No fragmentation damage. Questions, Comments...

Find document here Continued employment of EA-6b or further development and investment in EA-18G? EA-6B should be able to meet USN SEAD requirements through 2017 and USMC through 2025 provided sufficient ICAP III electronic suites.

Details to be posted tomorrow, ESSM downed Vampire1. CIWS downed Vampire2, three second rule dictated taking missiles DP 33 and divide by 5 = 6.6, falls into the 1D6 Critical Hit Roll which was 2. Two D10's rolled = 5 and 8. Cross referencing on the Airburst/Fragmentation Column, I've taken critical hits to Weapons, and Weapons/Flight Deck. A Tanker was actually locked onto and hit by the fragmentation so what losses does it incur? Or since neither apply, should it go to the Merchants/Auxilaries column and incur both flooding and engineering damage? That seems about much for frag damage but this is my first 3 second rule adjudication. Thanks

Not certain which catagory this should fit so move it you feel necessary oh worthy administrator. Looks like some littoral warfare of Sri Lanka. Civil War Looms After Sri Lanka Sea Battle Find article here COLOMBO, Sri Lanka - At least 50 rebels were killed and 17 Sri Lankan sailors missing after a sea battle Thursday instigated by the Tamil Tigers left the country on the brink of civil war. Tamil Tigers sank a navy patrol boat off the northern coast as it escorted a troop transport carrying 710 soldiers. In retaliation, the navy downed five rebel vessels and the air force launched airstrikes on guerrilla-held territory. The escalation in violence could mark a return to civil war, as a 2002 cease-fire that stopped almost two decades of fighting appears increasingly unlikely to last. "This is a very serious attack (by the Tigers), a blatant violation of the cease-fire agreement," government spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella told The Associated Press. The patrol boat was part of a convoy escorting a troop carrier that was attacked by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam rebels, navy spokesman Cmdr. D.K.P. Dassanayake said. "About 15 LTTE boats including suicide boats attacked one of our vessels transporting 710 soldiers," Dassanayake said. "Navy fast-attack boats escorting the vessel engaged the Tiger boats and one of them was destroyed by a suicide boat," he said, adding there were about 20 sailors on board the stricken vessel. A search was ongoing late Thursday for the missing sailors who "made worthy efforts to save hundreds of soldiers who were on board the main vessel," Dassanayake said. At least 50 Tiger guerrillas were on the sunken rebel boats and all were believed dead, Dassanayake said. A pro-rebel Web site quoted unnamed rebel sources as saying they lost only four guerrillas in the battle. No independent verification was immediately possible. Rebel spokesman Daya Master said air force fighter planes "attacked two times, dropping bombs in our territory." The bombs fell a few miles from Kilinochchi, he said by telephone from the rebels' stronghold in the town, 170 miles north of Colombo. Helen Olafsdottir, spokeswoman for the European-led Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, said a truce monitor was in the troop carrier with the soldiers. "This is very serious," she told BBC television. "It is getting worse." Dassanayake said the troop carrier and the truce monitor on board were unharmed. In a statement, the monitors accused the rebels of violating their 2002 cease-fire agreement with the government and said they considered the attack a direct threat to their mission. The Tiger rebels made "threats to our monitors, warning them not to participate in patrols in navy vessels," the monitors said. "This sort of reckless behavior can only lead to a dangerous escalation resulting in growing hostilities and jeopardizing any possibility for future peace talks," they said. Also Thursday, two civilians died and at least three other people were wounded in three attacks blamed on the separatist rebels in the north and northeast. The killings took place two days after Japanese peace envoy Yasushi Akashi failed to convince the rebels to resume peace talks with the government. Akashi, Japan's special envoy to Sri Lanka since 2002, said relations between the government and the rebels have plunged to the worst level since their 2002 cease-fire. More than 150 people have died in violence since the beginning of April. The Tigers began fighting in 1983 to create a separate state for ethnic minority Tamils, accusing the majority Sinhalese of discrimination. More than 65,000 people died in the conflict before the 2002 truce. ____ Associated Press writers Dilip Ganguly and Bharatha Mallawarachi contributed to this report.

Can't speak to HMS Barham, BUT... The Spring 2006 USNI Book Catalog offers a tile SEA DEVILS: Italian Navy Commandos in World War II by J. Valerio Borghese. "A facinating memoir of service with the 'human torpedoes' of the Italian Navy's Tenth Light Flotilla." 1995. 290 pages. 35 photos. 2 line drawings. 4 maps. ISBN: 1-55750-072-X. $34.95