Mgellis

Now, on this, I have to disagree. I definitely understand the desire to make the database as "real" as possible, but I also find it very convenient to have fictional platforms, especially "what ifs" and "ships that were planned but never built." They are of secondary importance to existing and historical platforms, of course, but it's really nice to have them. As long as they are clearly marked as "fictional" or "projected" (e.g., this platform will enter service in 2021, so what's in the database is merely a best guess of what it will look like), I don't see the harm. For me, it's very simple. The bigger the database, the more stories I can tell. I'm already very happy with the existing database, but if Gunny (and anyone helping him) has time to squeeze in more platforms, existing, historical, or speculative, I'm happy to see them added. The more the merrier! (This is the same reason I'm hoping we can add more platforms from the 1970s...with the Yom Kippur War, Vietnam, and other conflicts during that period, there's so much good historical material...again, of course, all this depends on how much time Gunny and/or any other volunteers have to do this. And, of course, I'm not expecting this to be done right away; I'm thinking in terms of the next several months, even the next couple of years...it's just something I would like to see eventually.) In fact, I'm planning on trying out the Abigail Adams in the near future in a couple of scenarios and seeing how she fares. I'm actually thinking of creating one general scenario and creating a set of alternates, with the choices being an equal number of a) all existing platforms, mix of real and speculative platforms, and c) all speculative platforms.

This is, of course, the critical issue. I am very impressed by what Gunny has done with the HUD 4 so far, and I am grateful for whatever else he will be able to do, but I understand that he may not be able to dedicate much time to the database in the future. This is, after all, just a hobby for most of us; our real lives--work, family, etc.--have to come first. If I understand Gunny correctly, people could submit individual platforms in the form of hcf files. I would volunteer to do this myself except for the small problem that I have no idea how to do it. But I will try to teach myself. Perhaps this is how it can be done in the future, with other people writing up the additions to the database, and Gunny only having to do the final checking and importing? Would this work better? I was surprised to learn how many platforms would be needed to expand the database back to 1970. Were there really that many classes of ships, etc. that got phased out in the 1970s? Or is it because new loadouts would have to be added to existing platforms? Any other thoughts or observations on this?

Related to my other posts on this subject, how likely are these 2020 possibilities... South Africa: Mostly capable of defending its own interests with a medium-sized air force and a good coastal navy; capable of convoy missions; not really able to project power Nigeria: Mostly capable of defending its own interests with a medium-sized air force and a good coastal navy; capable of convoy missions (they would need a couple of frigates to do this...who would they buy them from...England?); not really able to project power Most other African nations have little in the way of navies, but continue to buy aircraft...I'm going to guess mostly F-7s from China and other less expensive Chinese aircraft; China and Africa are going to be great friends in the years to come in this area, I hear. Any of them likely to buy true warships in the near future? Brazil will continue to develop its navy and will have actual global projection power, similar to, say, France, Spain, or Italy. I wonder who Brazil would be most likely to fight with as an ally or against as an enemy, both in Latin America and on the global stage? How do they feel about the Japanese, the Chinese, etc.? Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, and Chile all have good coastal navies, air forces capable of regional conflicts, frigates and destroyers capable of convoy missions, and submarines, but no true power projection. They would, however, all be tough nuts for anyone like the US or the EU to try to crack. Venezuela in particular will probably be able to buy more planes, ships, and subs with its oil money. What happens to Cuba, Mexico, and Argentina? Anyone? I'm guessing they would all strive to be like Peru or Venezuela. Would Argentina try to buy or build a new carrier (or at least a CVH)? Thoughts? Ideas? Opinions?

Related to my last post, here's a possible breakdown of Asia in 2020... China: Continues to grow as a global power India: Continues to grow as a regional player capable of global power projection In response to America having less global influence (not so much an American decline but that other nations like China are catching up), Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia have all taken steps to increase their navies and are more capable of handling convoy missions, anti-piracy missions around the world, even projecting power to an extent with helicopter carriers, etc. Iran, Yemen, North Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Vietnam focus on building up their air forces, coastal naval forces, and submarine forces; they are not so much concerned with global power projection as being able to fight regional battles, expand into nearby territory, and deny other nations access to the sea lanes if they have to. Iraq has a small navy consisting of ships sold to it by the United States. Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, and the other Gulf nations maintain their existing power levels, ready and able to defend their interests if they have to, but mostly concerned with tending their own gardens and leaving other people alone. How likely is this scenario, on a scale of 1 to 10? This is with 1 being "Okay, Mark, time for your medication" and 10 being "This is what will happen. No doubt." Assuming it is a likely overview of the power blocs we might see in 10 years, what are the most likely points of conflict...who is most likely to start shooting at whom, and what would they be quarreling over?

From what I've been reading, Europe and its vicinity in 2020 might a lot like the "Great Powers" before World War I. The main players... * E.U. * Russia and its allies (Belarus, some of the Black Sea nations, etc.) * An alliance of Turkey and Israel (and some of their allies, perhaps Georgia) Wild card players who are trying to be independent of these blocs include Norway (not part of the E.U.), Ukraine, and Kazakhstan; the major North African states don't qualify as great powers but are strong enough to make a difference in a conflict (e.g., Russia and Egypt are stronger than Russia by itself). I am assuming that Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Algeria do not form a united power bloc and, in fact, might be at odds with each other at times, especially as new governments rise and fall following the Arab Spring. They represent four additional wild cards. How likely is this scenario, on a scale of 1 to 10? This is with 1 being "Okay, Mark, time for your medication" and 10 being "This is what will happen. No doubt." Assuming it is a likely overview of the power blocs we might see in 10 years, what are the most likely points of conflict...who is most likely to start shooting at whom, and what would they be quarreling over?

I understand the recent release of the b11 version of the HUD 4 v1.1 database (I'm not sure where it was posted; Gunny e-mailed a copy to some of us for testing, scenario design, etc.) will be the last beta before the next full release of ANW. I also know that Gunny has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this database, and the results are incredible, which is why I, greedy as I always am, am hoping he will consider a major expansion for the NEXT version (HUD 4 v 1.2?)... HUD 4 v 1.2 should expand to make its goal to cover all ships, aircraft, and other platforms for which data is available from 1970 to 2020. Rationale... * Increase the range of Cold War conflicts, including historical regional conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the Arab-Israeli wars (I see that some platforms are already included, although I'm not sure if the pre-1980 loadouts are available, etc.) * Increase the range of potential near future conflicts in a changing world, which may see wars fought by and with China in its expanding role as a global power, regional powers such as Turkey and Brazil, etc. The main issue here is simply time and effort. How hard would this be to do? Gunny is a volunteer and he only has so much time he can dedicate to this project. How much of the data for the earlier platforms and the future ones are available? What other issues might appear? Thoughts? Observations? Comments?

I'll throw another variable into the mix. If the US was attacked, even with nuclear weapons, we might not see our allies support us if we responded in kind. What if it is not an American city that is hit, but a European one? What if it is the Bristol Holocaust of 2021 or the Naples Holocaust of 2021 or the Copenhagen Holocaust of 2021? (I understand some of the Arab states are pretty mad at the Danes for some reason...or is it the Dutch? Or both?) Or a city in Asia like Mumbai or Incheon, South Korea? Sadly, if Israel was attacked, the world would probably wring its hands and do nothing. Third possibility...two bombs, one in the U.S. and one somewhere else? What happens?

FYI... I'm assuming the Boston Holocaust of 2021 leaves fifty thousand people dead (I'm assuming the nuke is on a freighter and is detonated when the ship comes into the harbor before any inspectors could find the container it was in...this actually reduces the damage a lot, but we're still talking about a nuke here...it's basically a Nagasaki-level blast). I'm also assuming it is pretty clear that Iran was either directly involved, telling them to bomb Boston, or that they had sold them the bomb and had a pretty good idea how it was going to be used and neither tried to stop them or warn anyone else. Anyone looking at the facts will be able to see that they were involved in some way. Questions... If American can prove Iran was involved, what do you think are the most likely responses? This is not just terror by terrorists; it is arguably an act of war by Iran. And what are the responses that are least likely to backfire on America? On the other hand, if the proof linking Iran is shaky at best ("hmmm...it's their uranium all right, we can tell from [insert technical reason that I don't know reason here], but there's no way to prove they actually made the bomb...the most we could say is they probably sold them the uranium and knew they were up to no good and didn't tell anyone else...but that's probably not an act of war...."), what can the US do? If the charge against Iran is simply, "You are dangerously irresponsible and you helped get 50,000 of our people killed"...well, what's an appropriate response? Does the US get to say things like "You will let the inspectors in now and as long as we want them to be there. Or you will be treated as being complicit in these acts." And THEN, if Iran balks, the shooting (but not the nuking) starts. Or does it?

I know this is very unlikely to happen, but I do sometimes wonder what would happen if terrorists did something so horrible to cause, in effect, a paradigm change in our thinking. We are, in effect, used to being in a room full of thieves and murderers, but people who are still reasonable, people who can be talked to, bought off, recruited for our team, intimidated in normal ways, etc. Heck, we're thieves and murderers, too, when we have to be, although the nice part about being strong and rich is that we usually don't have to steal from other people to get by. But the new guy in the room isn't like the other guys; he's just bat**** crazy. He likes convincing children to kill other children. WTF!? Even against this guy, we have tried to fight according to the rules we've imposed on ourselves. In general, for example, we try not to blow up a building full of civilians because a terrorist might be there, too; we try to kill the terrorist without hurting the innocent people he's using as human shields. It's just part of our culture. What happens if America (and maybe its allies, too) gets really scared, scared that we're not just going to see people hurt, but that we're losing, that these people might really be able to hurt us badly enough to cause our society to collapse, and kill not thousands but millions? What happens if we start thinking that the only way to beat the monsters is to become what we fear and out-monster them? How bad could things get? By the way, here's the scenario, version B--instead of destroying large population centers, nuclear weapons are used, but only against a couple of cities with strategic importance. Deaths are now well under one million people. And simple slaughter was NOT the main motive. However, the attack should be done in a way to make it absolutely clear that, as far as the US is concerned, a line has been crossed by the terrorists and that we are prepared to do ANYTHING to win. The nations that have harbored terrorists for 50 years, perhaps by just not working hard to hunt them down, are being held accountable. They will be under American rule, and now America is not here as liberators but as a global police force ready and able to use lethal force to keep the peace, and anyone who is not cooperating is going to be treated as part of the problem, and right now that is not a very healthy option, and we will remain so until their cultures are sufficiently stable and democratic that we can leave them to their own devices (which is the ultimate plan, as it was with Germany, Japan, etc.)

I very much doubt this scenario will ever come to pass, but what if... Terrorists, working with Iran, and able to develop a small nuclear weapon, which they sneak into a major city and then detonate. In Boston, near Logan airport, killing tens of thousands of people and doing billions of dollars of property damage. Among the dead are thousands of children. Twelve hours later, the President is on TV and he says, "Throughout this long struggle, we have always tried to remember that we represent civilization, rather than savagery. That ended with these murders. Now we are at war, and we will do whatever is necessary to win. To our allies and friends around the world, we do not ask you to shoulder this burden, but do not try to stop us. There will never be another Boston Holocaust. On my life and my soul, I swear it. Our enemies have made this a fight to the death. Very well. Now you will see how America fights." About five minutes after the speech ended, American nuclear warheads destroyed the six largest cities in Iran. Nuclear weapons were also used on the areas in Afghanistan and Yemen under Taliban control. The death toll is well over four million people. The President's next message, about twenty-four hours after the attack on Boston, was to demand the unconditional surrender of Iran, and also five other Islamic countries with ties to the Taliban, with the simple and clear message being "Surrender or die. We really will bomb you into the stone age unless you quietly and meekly let us police your people until we think it is safe to give your countries back." So...what happens in the next seventy-two hours? How would NATO react? Or the UN? Or the Chinese or the Russians or the Indians or Australia or Japan or...? Worldwide condemnation? A Russian nuclear attack? A lot of countries shocked but ultimately saying, "You know, the terrorists started this and frankly we like the US a lot better than we like the Taliban so...well, I guess we've crossed the freakin' Rubicon here." What do you all think?

My inner ten-year-old keeps saying "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"

While the idea of adding pilot experience to the mix sounds interesting, I don't think it's worth the time and effort you would have to put into it to pull it off. It might be worth doing it for a small number of platforms (e.g., the 10-20 most common fighter aircraft), but even here I would stick with just "Average" pilots (the standard entry) and "Ace" pilots. I have an alternate suggestion, which is completely selfish, so please don't get mad. If you want to do something cool with the ANW database, and you feel confident of your abilities to work with the database (something I do NOT feel about my abilities with computers, knowledge level of actual ships, etc. otherwise I would do it myself) just help Gunny add as many of the new platforms suggested to the HUD 4 as possible. I'll be blunt...it would be great to have multiple levels of pilot experience with some of the aircraft, but I would have rather have 50 entirely new ships, aircraft, subs, etc. Mark

I expected you did, since you named their publication. But others might not. Publications from think tanks (like RAND) would be the first place I would look. Stratfor, for example, is another excellent source of material. Yes, I think so, too...I've added it also to my list of sites. I wonder if any historical ones are available online...things that were written up in the 1970s, anticipating trouble spots in the 1980s, etc. Any other sources anyone else can recommend?

Sources of Conflict was a publication of the RAND Corporation. RAND and similar policy/research organization regularly produce articles and papers like this. A lot of the material is readily searchable online. Oh, yes, I know about the Rand corporation. I've added it to one of my web indices... http://paws.kettering.edu/~mgellis/GMI_Pg2.htm I was hoping to find out about other similar organizations and where they are located (URLs, etc.). Among other things, I hoping there might be a) an index of published scenarios (I know, that would make things too easy, wouldn't it?) and the location of any declassified ones (I'm assuming they would have been classified initially, although maybe I'm wrong here) produced by various defense agencies. For example, I imagine the Air Force has put together all kinds of "Well, what if we had to blow up Nigeria next week? How would we go about it?" studies...have any of those been released to the public? I imagine they'd be the older ones, but that's okay...a declassified 1985 study on how to blow up Nigeria would be pretty useless to enemy agents today, but it would be priceless to a historian...or a Harpoon scenario designer.

Over the years, I've found a couple of books and articles like Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century that outline various scenarios for future conflicts (e.g., a war between Russia and the Ukraine). There are very useful, as one might imagine, for creating Harpoon scenarios. I want to read more of them! I suspect there are a lot of these floating around, but I've only found a few of them. Who publishes them? Where can I find them? Are they available online? I imagine various countries' defense departments wrote up a bunch of them--planning war games, etc.--were they ever made available to the public? I'm interested both in recent ones and historical ones (e.g., ones written in the 1980s, etc.) Thanks in advance. Mark

Beechcraft Bonanza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza One of the most produced aircraft in the world and likely to show up in various small air forces as a transport, observation aircraft, SAR aircraft, etc. ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9

BAE Systems Taranis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Taranis I've not posted a couple of these "not yet in the air" UCAVs because so little data is available, but there seems to be a fair amount of information here for this one, hopefully enough to make a database entry. AND HUD 4 v1.1b9

IAI Eitan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Eitan Updated version of the IAI Heron...not sure if it needs its own listing but looks like there are some performance differences ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9

EADS Harfang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Harfang French version of the IAI Heron ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9

IAI Heron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Heron Widely used UAV/UCAV...definitely worth adding. It can carry up to 250 kg. payload...two smaller missiles? ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9

Yakovlev Yak-40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-40 Another widespread aircraft (looks like a few hundred built and over 100 exported) that might be included in the database. Not a critical need--again, I'm just posting things as I find them so I don't forget--but an interesting plane and perhaps useful for some scenarios. ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9

Tupolev Tu-134 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-134 Another widespread aircraft (more than 800 built) that might be included in the database. Not a critical need--again, I'm just posting things as I find them so I don't forget--but an interesting plane and perhaps useful for some scenarios. ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9

Ilyushin Il-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-14 Another widespread aircraft (more than 3,000 built) that might be included in the database. Not a critical need--again, I'm just posting things as I find them so I don't forget--but an interesting plane and perhaps useful for some scenarios. I don't know if was designed with paratroopers in mind or if it was simply a transport. ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9

Antonov An-32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-32 Another "no rush" one, but widely used around the world, so I figured I would list it here while I thought of it. ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9

Antonov An-72 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72 Another "no rush" one, but I figured I would list it here while I thought of it. ANW HUD 4 v1.1b9