Mgellis

Dear Brad, Just to add a little flavor for some scenarios I'm thinking about, could you add the following NAMES to the following existing classes of ships. Thanks. Mark -----cut here----- INTL MRCH Fishing Vessel Fayina Marina <-- Russian for "from the sea" Nadya Orlenda <-- Russian for "eagle," apparantly (good for a hunter of fish) Sonya Shino <-- Japanese for "stem of bamboo" (good for a fishing boat, I figure) Kameko Rei Nami (i.e., Russian and Japanese girls getting in trouble...there are lots of scenario possibilities here, I think) INTL MRCH Merchant Duscha Feodora Natalya Stefanya Thedya Ursula Valeska Mars Venus Jupiter Bahati Makemba Zawadi Kimi Masako Natsuko Yoshiko Yumiko Chan Juan Jiang Li Lin Yao Shu Fang Xiao Hong INTL TANK Tanker Balinda Kibibi Monifa Zahara Anya Nikita Olga Svetlana Vasya Velika

Dear Brad, A few more suggestions for the next version of the HCDB... The British navy has several hydrographic survey ships. I don't know if any of these would be appropriate for "spy ships that need to be rescued before someone sinks them" scenarios, but if they are, here is the link so they can be added to the database... http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server.php?show=nav.1842 France's Bougainville electronic surveillance ship Information at Hazegray.org T-AGOS 19 Victorious Swath-S (Small) Ocean Surveillance Ship http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ip/tagos-19.htm T-AGOS 1 Stalwart Ocean Surveillance Ship http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...hip/tagos-1.htm Various other survey ships are listed at the URL below. Again, I don't know if any of these would make good "spy ships that need to be rescued," but if they are, perhaps they could be added to the database... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ship/index.html While we are on the subject of spy ships...have minehunters or other small patrol boats ever been rigged with extra electronic equipment and used as spy ships? (Again, I'm looking for good "rescue me" or "can I sneak in and snoop around without getting killed?" candidates for scenarios.) Thanks. Mark

Mark, The SA365F Dauphin 2 is the armed version flown by at least France, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. It has ASuW and ASW loadouts. If you would like other variants of the Dauphin included, I can look at this, as long as they don't require building any new loadouts. Oh, and the Panther is also already in there. Okay, my mistake. Sorry. I was confused because various sources disagree (one source specifically lists the Aerospatiale SA.365F Dauphin II as an unarmed SAR helicopter). That source is http://www.military.ie/aircorps/dauphin.htm Yes, if it is possible, please add the unarmed SAR version of the Dauphin (it is or was used by Ireland, Israel, and various other countries). You can probably just use the Patrol loadout for the HH-65. Or would it be more realistic to just add the Patrol loadout to the version of the Dauphin that's already in the database? (Of course, then you have to remind people not to use armed loadouts, depending on the scenario, so maybe it's better to have a separate unarmed version.) I can't tell if the unarmed version of the Dauphin has a radar or not. Here is a technical document about it, if you are interested... http://www.eurocopter.com/site/FO/doc/Tech..._365N2_2001.pdf Speaking of the H-65, I don't know if it would be practical to add this loadout to the database, but there was an article about them arming them with machine guns... http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...308/ai_n9278847 (This is not a high priority request...just something I thought you'd find interesting. If it's not practical to add this loadout, don't worry about it.) Thanks. Mark P.S. Just so you know, your efforts on the last database will be included in my next scenario, as it involves Australia (with S-70Bs on one of their Adelaides FFGs) trying to stop a Soviet convoy from reaching Jakarta.

I don't think I have enough info on this program just yet, but I would be pleased to accept whatever you can dredge up. Hmm, I don't recall hearing anything about a third French Horizon. Are you sure ? Are you referring to the joint French-Italian FREMM (Frégates Européenne Multi-Missions) program ? More details have emerged since the contract signature this past November, enough to probably merit DB entries. Not quite enough info yet. I'm keeping an eye on it, though. Yeah, service entry is still some ways off, but there are probably enough details floating around now. Ditto for the Malaysian Scorpenes. Are you talking about the Eilat (Sa'ar V) class ? These are already in the HCDB. I will look at this. Brad, The original URL that I cited earlier on global shipbuilding appears, much to my annoyance, to have disappeared. This is what I've been able to track down for the various ships I mentioned... The third (and fourth) Forbin frigate...cancelled! Please see the following URL for details... http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/ar...s/20051009.aspx But, here is some information for the FREMM... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREMM_multipurpose_frigates http://www.deagel.com/pandora/fremm_pm00189001.aspx http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...urope/fremm.htm Australian LPH...I downloaded a pdf on Australian naval shipbuilding plans, but there wasn't much information there beyond their intention to have two large amphibious ships of some kind by 2015. Sorry. new Israeli Sa'ar Vs...I can't find anything on this. Perhaps it was simply a rumor. Again, sorry. I did discover a minor error with some of the helicopters in the HCDB. The Dauphin (SA 365 C) does not appear to be armed; I think it only has SAR and Ferry loadouts. This is what the Israeli navy flies, as far as I can tell. I also do not think there is an F model, which is what is listed in the HCDB. The armed model is the Panther, which appears to have a couple of different sub-types with different missions. (I also have to apologize because I think I was the one who originally sent you the faulty information.) Here are the URLs... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...ope/dauphin.htm http://www.answers.com <-- type in Eurocopter Dauphin and Eurocopter Panther to get to the articles I hope all this helps. Mark

Until it is fixed, would you recommend just using the S-60B and the SH-2G (i.e., the American versions) for scenarios involving Australia? Mark

I noticed that, too. The last dozen ships or so in the 060103 database have that problem--but here is something weird; they don't show up in the Display function, but they DO show up if you are looking at the list of ships in the Edit Group window! Well, as long as they work, I'm happy. And while I hope AGSI gets the hcompress tool fixed soon, so we can add a few extra ships, etc. I'd like to see in the HCDB, what we've got already is pretty impressive, certainly enough to build many fine scenarios. Thank you, again, Brad, for the amazing job you have done with the HCDB. Mark

Brad, I noticed a couple of interesting things with this scenario. First, I really like the concept. It's an interesting scenario and the part of it that I was able to play on my machine was quite challenging. Two issues... One, I cannot get time compression to work at better than about 10-seconds-to-1 with this scenario. This seems to be the result of the large number of bases, attack orders, etc. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but Harpoon Classic Gold slows to a crawl if you give the AI too much to do...too many bases, too many attack orders, etc., and it just crawls. I don't think it's my machine, since I've got a 2.8-gigahertz Pentium w. 512 megabytes of RAM. Also, there comes a point where Red's mobile artillery shows up and starts beating the crap out of Singapore's airfields. And that's the end....just a rapid, massive bombardment with dozens of rounds in a few seconds and then the game crashes. I'm assuming that's not what you were planning. Again, I don't know if this is my machine doing something weird or if there is some flaw in the scenario file itself. I just thought you'd want to know. Mark

Weird that it never caused trouble until now. I wonder what caused it to go haywire. I suppose this means there will probably not be any updates to the database for a while. Oh well. Nothing to be done, I guess, until AGSI addresses the issue. At least we have the 060103 database. Thanks. Mark

Brad, Any news on when the problems with the HCDB will be fixed and when we might see the next version? Just curious. Thanks. Mark

Friends, Again, I'm brainstorming for scenarios. Here's the basic idea I'd like your input on... Nation A has either collapsed or slowly sunk into full scale civil war, with Side X fighting Side Y. Nation/Coalition B has chosen to openly support Side X and/or believes Side Y is responsible for terrorism, crimes against humanity, etc. Nation/Coalition C objects! They might try to intercept outside forces from attacking Side Y. (This actually gives us three different kinds of scenarios...Stage 1) A/X vs. A/Y, perhaps with B offering very limited support/intelligence, Stage 2) A/X and B vs. A/Y and Stage 3) A/X and B vs. A/Y and C. And, of course, Blue could be EITHER A/X and B or A/Y and C, depending on the scenario.) So... 1) What are your favorite candidates for Nation A, Nation/Coalition B, and Nation/Coalition C? (Please include the ones that you think might happen, even if things are pretty stable right now, just because there are some economic or cultural or political pressures that could blow the country apart if they are not eventually dealt with. What are the ones people may not have heard of before? Are there any countries in Europe that would fall into this category?) 2) What are Sides X and Y fighting about (different ideologies, two warlords who both want to be top dog, etc.)? Was the collapse into civil war gradual or sudden? What kind of forces would they probably have available--for example, under what conditions is is possible that both sides would have air or naval power? Or would one side probably only have infantry, some armor and artillery, etc. 3) In the early stages of involvment (Stage 1), what kind of support might B offer to A/X? (AEW aircraft, helicopter patrols, etc.?) (I am assuming that in later stages, Nation/Coalition B would offer support in the form of air strikes and then putting men on the ground via amphibious landings, helicopters, paratroopers, etc. Am I missing anything here?) 4) Why would Nation/Coalition C object? Ideological reasons? Established alliance with A/Y? Being a regional leader and feeling that B has no business sticking their nose in? 5) Era? Late Cold War (1985-1990) or Current/Near Future (2005/2010)? The Late Cold War ones should include "might have beens," obviously. 6) Anything else I should keep in mind to create a good scenario? I look forward to hearing your ideas. I hope this will lead to a good discussion. Mark

It is possible to get to the rendevous point on time (I always check) but it is a tight squeeze. One thing I noticed...sometimes if a ship gets hit, the whole convoy slows down to something like 9 knots and you have to speed them up again if you want to reach the rendevous point. I'm not sure why that happens. It's interesting you didn't encounter any submarines...there are a few out there...no, I'm not saying where. Mark

Oh, I missed a couple of items from that web site... First, a possible minor correction for the database...the Lewis and Clark AE ships, according to this source at http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/worl...tnavalsbldg.htm would be 40,300 tons, not 19,200. Also, according to the same source... * The Coast Guard is getting some new ships, several of the 3,886-ton WMSL class, starting in 2008, and another ship, a WAGB, the Mackinaw, a 3,500-ton ship. I have no idea what these acronyms mean, but as someone living in Michigan, I insist that any ship named "Mackinaw" be included in the HCDB. * Although names are not provided for the last three (we already have the first three in the database), a total of six Astute submarines appear to be planned for the U.K. through 2015. * Belgium is getting two new frigates in the 6,000-ton range * Japan is building a 25,000-ton AOR, Masyu-class, named the Oumi * Three KDX-3 destroyers will be delivered to South Korea by 2010; also, the name for the 977 hull KDX-2 appears to be Dae Jo Young * Turkey is building several TF-2000 frigates, ships in the 1800-ton range I think that's everything that's relevant to the HCDB. It's an interesting bit of reading. Again, Brad, thanks. Mark

Dear Brad, I know you're planning on taking a break from the HCDB for a bit, but when you start working on the next version, here is a resource you may want to check out... http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/worl...tnavalsbldg.htm According to this, among other things... * Australia is working on a new LPD (three ships in the class, to enter service 2010-2012) * France is building a third Forbin-class ship * France is also starting a new class, the Fregates d'Action Navale; first ship goes into service in 2008; it looks like they're going to build a bunch of these * France is also building a new class of subs, the Barracuda, but the first one only becomes available in 2014 * India will be getting a bunch of Scorpene submarines starting 2011 (I think these are the same class as the Spanish S-80) * Israel is building several Saar V light frigates, but it's not clear when they will be delivered * Japan is building four 18,000-ton DDH (i.e., a small helicopter carrier, but they seem to think the DD part is going to fool people...) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x.htm * Malaysia is getting two Scorpene submarines submarines and several MEKO A100 PS-type (Patrol Scout?) displacing 1,650 tons each * Netherlands is getting an LPD (Johan De Witt) displacing 12,750 tons in 2007 * Portugal is getting two Type 209 1200 submarines * South Korea is building two big lph-type craft and three Type 214 submarines http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/lp-x.htm * We now have names for three more UK type 45 friages: Dragon, Duncan, and Defender * And names for two more Virginia-class SSNs: New Mexico and New Hampshire * And names for two more San Antonios: Somerset and Arlington I just figured you would want to know. Mark

Friends, As always, I am looking for ideas for new scenarios. Here is a generic idea that could be fleshed out in a lot of ways; I would like to see your ideas about possible variations. It all starts when country A does (or appears to do) something really annoying or even frightening to country B. Country B has a big enough navy to give it a regional or global reach, so it promptly blockades some or all of country A's major ports. Country B figures that the economic woes caused by the blockade will even the score (and, if all goes well, without bloodshed). Unfortunately, things do not go well. One of two things happen... 1) Country A decides to attack the forces of country B, free its sealanes, and humiliate its rival/enemy. 2) Country C (an ally and/or trading partner of country A that has a pretty good navy, too, feels the blockade is unjust and tries to run the blockade using a convoy with several escorts. They feel strongly enough about this that they are willing to use force if they have to. And this convoy has serious teeth. Country A might join the fray too if things look like they're going to heat up. Country B is not going to back down. Looks like a storm is coming... All right...here are my questions: 1. Who are your favorite candidates for A, B, and (possibly) C. 2. What kind of thing did country A supposedly do to country B? 3. What era would you set this scenario...late cold war (1985-1990) or present day/near future (2005-2010)? 4. How is the blockade being conducted...surface ships, submarines, etc.? I look forward to your answers. Mark

Dear Tony, Thanks. I hadn't realized room was so tight as far as adding new installations went; perhaps we'll just have to stick with adding generic ones like Generic Base 1, Generic Port 1, etc. from now on. Or just make do with what we already have (which wouldn't be so bad...you can make a very good "terrorist camp" with one of the generic small airbases and some ground units, although having a few extra types of installations would be nice.) Mark

Oh, one more thing...for the sea monster; they can attack both surface vessels and submarines. (Actually, in the movies, they attack land installations, too, but I'm not sure how that would one could model that in Harpoon.) Mark

Dear Brad, I just tried out the new HCDB...unfortunately, when I try to add a base, it crashes the scenario editor. Perhaps we've reached the annex limit? Also, a minor glitch...under ships, the very first ship (I think an Albanian vessel) is simply listed as AK 2049) Oh, and you're going to hate me for this... At exactly 10:34 tonight (about one minute before you posted the new HCDB) I was playing around with a scenario idea involving Bahrain and discovered one more helicopter that could be included! INTL Eurocopter BO 105 <-- used by about a dozen countries on the Harpoon maps Ferry range: 600 nm Max. payload range: 354 nm Loadouts appear to be Ferry, Anti-Armor (armed with 6 HOT anti-tank missiles), Anti-Armor 2 (Swedes have theirs armed with ESCO HeliTow missiles, if that makes a difference); I think there might also be an SAR loadout...the image of the Bahrain BO 105 in the book shows it with a hoist (used for rescues?) Mark

I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you suggesting a Ship entry that acts simply as a helipad ? Hmm, I'm not sure if the existing Trucks, Truck Convoy and APC types wouldn't satisfy this already. Possibly. I'll take a look at it. As soon as we get a problem with hcompress figured out. Give us a couple of days. Is there a scenario waiting in the wings ? Hint hint. Dear Brad, Thanks for adding S-70 variants. My source on the Indian helicopter is the International Directory of Military Aircraft, the 2002/2003 edition. As for ports, bridges, bases, etc., I was thinking that having two of each kind of bridge would be a good idea, if there is room in the annex to add them (i.e., kill one for a MinVic and both for a Total Victory). So...two large bridges, two small bridges, etc. Same thing with the ports, bases, etc. Have at least two of each. I'm sorry to confess my ignorance, but I'm not sure what a F.A.R.P. is. My idea is that if there isn't that much room left in the annex (how many slots are actually left?), adding two or three generic examples of the most commonly used types of installations keeps us covered for a wide range of scenarios. The generic ones can stand in for any base, airport, etc. that we might not have room for. We already have several airfields (which can be customized with SAMs, AA guns, etc.), nuke sites, and certain other structures, but we don't have ports or bases (most likely, bases would represent "terrorist camps" but, if we call them "bases," they can stand in for various other kinds of installations, too--good guys and bad guys). Does that make sense? We may not need a separate heliport--I was just thinking that if you're creating a "base" that is not immediately shown on the map by putting together some AA guns, buildings, etc., you could customize it further, making it capable of launching helicopters. There is the Eagle's Nest, but it's a barge (BRG) so I don't know if you can put it on land. I'd vote for a separate V.I.P. transport, just to make it a little harder to kill--one could create a scenario where there is one VIP but several trucks that might draw your attention, but you have to find and kill the VIP to fulfill the Victory Condition. You could probably use the truck data for it, though; it's about the same size and speed. But it would have to be its own class (VIP). Does that make sense? As for sea monsters...if you add them, I'll write the scenarios. I recommend Godzilla, Behemoth, and Kraken as names--all three have faced off against naval vessels in one film or another. I'm assuming that these creatures weigh about 10,000-20,000 tons--utterly ridiculous, of course, but this is just for fun--are very stealthy, capable of great speed, and can listen for "prey" with good passive "sonar." Their main attack would have a very short range, of course, but they would have a lot of "ammo"--since they're basically clawing and biting a ship to death they can attack as often as they wish. Thanks. Mark

Brad, Getting back to an earlier question, as far as the S-70s go, I think the only variants not included in the HCDB are the Greek, Spanish, and Turkish ones. I found some information at... http://www.vectorsite.net/avs70_2.html http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avs70_2.html http://www.helis.com/news/2000/h60gre.htm http://www.helis.com/news/2001/h60stk.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...rcraft/s-70.htm Also, I believe the information for the Indian ALH should be changed...the range listed in my International Directory of Miltiary Aircraft is 430 nm (ferry/max. fuel) and with 700 kg. of payload at 215 nm. Army version has two stub wings for 8 anti-tank missiles, 4 rocket pods, or two pairs of air-to-air missiles; naval version carries either two torpedoes or up to four anti-ship missiles on cabin side pylons. Amry versions can carry a ventral 20 mm. gun pod. It doesn't say which weapons have been chosen by India for this helicopter. (It sounds as if there might need to be an Army and a Navy version.) And a few more requests... For installations (and I know there are limits here so that's why I'm suggesting generic ones)... Could we add a second generic bridge? I can see scenarios where you get a MinVic for killing one and a Total Vic for killing both. (We might want to apply this to some of the other categories like the small bridge, the ammo dump, etc.) Could we add some generic ports (big installation, lots of damage points, capable of handling helicopters but not fixed-wing aircraft unless they're like harriers, etc.)? Should the ports be one size or "big" and "small" sizes? Sorry, I don't know enough about ports to know what the game-significant differences (if any) there would be. Could we add some generic bases? This would cover things like terrorist camps, military bases that are not airfields but might be legitimate targets, etc. These too would be capable of refueling and rearming helicopters, etc. And, again, should these be just one size or "large" and "small"? Bases and ports should also be able to handle airships, I imagine. While I like having installations "named"--it just adds a little something, I think--adding these generic installations would provide a lot of extra flexibility for scenario design. Add four (or eight) generic ports and four (or eight) generic bases and suddenly you've got a lot of new options. For "ships" (each class should have several "vessels")... INTL MISC Heliport (or Helipad?) <-- just what it says. A place where you can land and refuel/rearm helicopters. I'm guessing these can only handle one helicopter at a time (but you could put two or more right next to each other for a "big" heliport). It could also handle airships, perhaps? INTL VIP VIP Transport <-- basically, an armored limo or SUV used by a leader, industrialist, etc. It needs its own category so that the scenario editor can distinguish it from other transports like trucks, etc. for victory conditions. It's mobile, of course. And maybe INTL BLDC Civilian Structure <-- school, hospital, office building, etc. Again, it would need its own type so you can put the real target (BLD) in a cluster of BLDC units...hit the wrong ones and you don't get your victory condition! Does this idea make sense? So....about when will the next HCDB be coming out? Thanks. Mark P.S. I still think you should add, as a type of submarine, sea monsters (Godzilla, Kraken, Cthulhu, etc.).

As you know, room in the Installations annex is extremely limited. I am hesitant to add any of these unless you (or someone else) need(s) them for a scenario they are building. (Particularly as some of them have no military worthy of note). Do you really need them ? Or are there one or two you need more than the others ? Yes, you had mentioned room was limited (and certainly we want to keep room for bases if another map is ever added). I don't think any of these are essential--with the 12 generic airfields (4 of each size), it is not hard to add whatever extra bases one might need and just call them by their "real" names in the Orders file. Mostly, it was for "color"--it feels more "real" if you're attacking "Banda Aceh" instead of "Generic Medium Airport 2." But if there isn't room, it's not a problem. Mark

Thank you for the additions...this should allow me to put 'lead in the air' as the saying goes. Here's another request for the official DB. We have hardly any Libyan Bases. Unless I have totally overlooked them (which given the sheer magnitude of the list is entirely possible), I see only Tripoli and Tobruk. Benghazi is included, too, but not the airport/airfield, which I imagine could be used for military purposes. Here is the information, again from http://azworldairports.com: Benghazi - Benina International Airport (BEN/HLLB) Benghazi Airport, Libya, Box 1, Benghazi Tel: +218 (0)61 97147 Airport Data: International, Position 32°05´49"N, 020°16´10"E, Elevation 132m (433ft), 24 hours Airfield Data: 2 Runways Navigational Aids: VOR-DME, NDB Runway 1: Heading 15R/33L, 3,576m (11,732ft), No ILS Runway 2: Heading 15L/33R, 3,576m (11,732ft), No ILS Mark

Thank you for the additions...this should allow me to put 'lead in the air' as the saying goes. Here's another request for the official DB. We have hardly any Libyan Bases. Unless I have totally overlooked them (which given the sheer magnitude of the list is entirely possible), I see only Tripoli and Tobruk. Related questions and requests... Can the POSITION of a base be altered in the database? There are a few bases that appear to simply be in the wrong place (Aden, Ambouli (Djibuti), Socotra (Yemen), and Mogadishu are some of them; some of the others are just a little off...I think Alexandria is sitting about five miles into the Mediterranean, taking the idea of beachfront property to a new extreme). It isn't hard to correct their position when you're editing a scenario, but it would be nice if you didn't have to. Thanks. Also, I think Rabat Sale, in Morocco, can probably handle Very Large aircraft, rather than just Large. According to http://azworldairports.com/airports/p2120rba.htm, it has the following characteristics: Airfield Data: Fire Category 7 Navigational Aids: VOR/DME Runway 1: Heading 04/22, 3,500m (11,482ft), PCN 60/F/B/W/T Aircraft size max: All Size, ILS CAT I Airlines Serving Airport: Air France, Royal Air Maroc Can it be corrected (assuming this is enough to rate it for Very Large aircraft)? After all, there is nothing like having Tu-22s based out of the northwest corner of North Africa to make an Atlantic scenario even more interesting... By the way, I'm assuming airfield size is based on runway length...what are the dividing points for Small, Large, and Very Large? Finally, if there is room to add bases, may I request the following... (data from http://azworldairports.com and http://www.world-airport-codes.com) Medan, Indonesia Airport Data: International, Position 03°33´29"N, 098°40´18"E, Elevation 35m (114ft) Airfield Data Navigational Aids: VOR-DME, NDB Runway 1: Heading 05/23, 2,900m (9,514ft), 071/F/C/X/T, Aircraft size max: 747, ILS Banda Aceh, Indonesia Airport Code : BTJ Airport name : Blang Bintang Runway Length : 6070 ft. Runway Elevation : 62 ft. City : Banda Aceh Country : Indonesia Country Abbrev. : ID World Area Code : 832 GMT Offset : -7.0 Longitude : 95° 20' 30" E Latitude : 5° 25' 0" N Hargeisa, Somalia (called Hargeysa in my atlas) Airport Code : HGA Airport name : Hargeisa Runway Length : 7480 ft. Runway Elevation : 4423 ft. City : Hargeisa Country : Somalia Country Abbrev. : SO World Area Code : 573 GMT Offset : -3.0 Longitude : 44° 6' 0" E Latitude : 9° 29' 0" N Qardho, Somalia <-- called Qardho in my atlas but Gardo on the website Airport Code : GSR Airport name : Gardo Runway Length : 5250 ft. Runway Elevation : 2632 ft. City : Gardo Country : Somalia Country Abbrev. : SO World Area Code : 573 GMT Offset : -3.0 Longitude : 49° 5' 0" E Latitude : 9° 31' 0" N Galcaio, Somalia Airport Code : GLK Airport name : Galcaio Runway Length : 9660 ft. Runway Elevation : 975 ft. City : Galcaio Country : Somalia Country Abbrev. : SO World Area Code : 573 GMT Offset : -3.0 Longitude : 47° 16' 0" E Latitude : 6° 51' 0" N K'orahe, Ethiopia <-- called this in my atlas but Kabri Dar in the web site Airport Code : ABK Airport name : Kabri Dar Runway Length : 10935 ft. Runway Elevation : 1800 ft. City : Kabri Dar Country : Ethiopia Country Abbrev. : ET World Area Code : 522 GMT Offset : -3.0 Longitude : 44° 16' 0" E Latitude : 6° 44' 0" N Dili, East Timor Airport Data: International, Position 08°32´48"S, 125°31´29"E, Elevation 8m (26ft) Airfield Data Navigational Aids: VOR-DME, NDB Runway 1: Heading 08/26, 1,849m (6,066ft), 032/F/B/X/U, Aircraft size max: B737 Airlines Serving Airport: Dili Express Airlines, Jatayu Airlines, Merpati Nusantara Kupang, Indonesia Airport Code : KOE Airport name : Eltari Runway Length : 6070 ft. Runway Elevation : 335 ft. City : Kupang Country : Indonesia Country Abbrev. : ID World Area Code : 832 GMT Offset : -8.0 Longitude : 123° 40' 0" E Latitude : 10° 10' 0" S (these two will unfortunately draw attention to the fact that the island of Timor has been mangled in the West Pacific map) Jayapura, Indonesia <-- right on the border with New Guinea Airport Code : DJJ Airport name : Sentani Runway Length : 5741 ft. Runway Elevation : 292 ft. City : Jayapura Country : Indonesia Country Abbrev. : ID World Area Code : 832 GMT Offset : -9.0 Longitude : 140° 31' 0" E Latitude : 2° 35' 0" S Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea Airport Code : POM Airport name : Jackson Fld Runway Length : 9022 ft. Runway Elevation : 148 ft. City : Port Moresby Country : Papua New Guinea Country Abbrev. : PG World Area Code : 804 GMT Offset : -10.0 Longitude : 147° 13' 0" E Latitude : 9° 26' 0" S Thanks. And congrats on the Pooner. Mark

I completely forgot to mention one last thing. The new C-130, which is in the INTL section, and which has been sold to several different countries, only seems to have "American" loadouts. It should probably have a generic light airborne platoon for "realism" when it is being used by other countries. Mark

I'm really looking forward to the next HCDB. A few more requests, if there is time to get them in... * RAH-66 Comanche * Kawasaki C-1 transport (Japan) * French Commandant Riviere frigates (6 active in 1990) * Australian Bay Class minehunters (2 active in 1990) * Are there any other S-60/S-70 helicopter variants that need to be added? The following classes are mine warfare ships that have been transferred or sold to navies around the world; the real value of adding them to the database would be to provide mine warfare ships for various nations that don't have them yet (at least, they don't have them in the HCDB)...scenarios could include having these nations hunting mines in their waters OR other nations hunting the minesweepers to keep them from destroying the mines that they had put in place to attack enemy shipping. * Yurka minesweeper (Russia/USSR) <-- mostly because some have been sold to countries like Egypt and Vietnam; non-Russian names should be provided if possible * T-43 minesweeper (Russia/USSR) <-- sales/transfers to Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Indonesia, and Syria; non-Russian names should be provided if possible * Sonya minesweeper (Russia/USSR) <-- sales/transfers to Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Vietnam, and Syria * Vanya minesweeper <-- transfers to Bulgaria, Syria, and Vietnam * Yevgenya minehunters <-- various transfers to other nations, including Syria, Yemen, Bulgaria, and Vietnam * Adjutant minesweeper <-- used by Spain, Greece, Turkey, and maybe others; these should be included with the current (i.e., non-American) names; a lot of them were active in 1990 * MSC 294 minesweeper <-- same kind of ship, ex-US transferred to various navies around the world; these should be included with the non-American names I can't think of any more right now. It's a shame we don't have maps for the Mid- and South Atlantic regions (i.e., Latin America and West Africa and Antarctica)...lots of really interesting scenarios could be built for those regions. Thanks again, Brad, for your ongoing efforts. Mark

Thanks Herman! I'd love to see a new AAR...I want to see how people deal with the scenario when they've got those missiles screaming in on them. Mark