Herman

Looks like excellent scenario fodder for any Japanese "resurgence" backgrounds. :smoke: Japan Losing Military ‘Allergy’: Top Officer By ISABEL REYNOLDS, REUTERS, TOKYO DefenseNews Japanese are developing a new respect for their country’s armed forces, in stark contrast to the distrust that prevailed for decades after defeat in World War Two, the military’s new chief of staff said on May 12. Hajime Massaki, 62, was appointed to the newly created post in March in an attempt to draw together the air, sea and ground branches of what Japan calls its Self-Defense Forces and make them more effective. Massaki, a native of the southernmost main island of Kyushu, joined the armed forces in 1968, at a time of mass demonstrations against a U.S.-Japan security treaty and widespread dislike of the military. "At the time, Japan had an allergy to the defense forces," the olive-uniformed Massaki told Reuters in an interview at his office in the Defense Agency. "We were seen as ‘stealing’ taxpayers’ money. It was a fight for survival," he added. In a complete turnaround, a government poll released last month found 84 percent of respondents had a good impression of the armed forces, an all-time high. A record-high 45 percent of respondents also said Japan was at risk of becoming involved in a war. Japanese have been increasingly nervous about their security since 1998, when North Korea fired a ballistic missile that passed over Japan and landed in the Pacific, while concerns have also been growing about China’s increasing military might. OVERSEAS PROJECTS But Massaki said it was the armed forces’ own efforts that had helped Japanese to change their attitude. "Our efforts to gain understanding, as well as the Self-Defense Forces’ successful handling of new missions have enabled the people to accept us," he said. The latest such mission is the dispatch of 600 troops to the southern Iraqi town of Samawa on a humanitarian and reconstruction mission that has now lasted almost two and a half years. The post-war constitution drafted under U.S. occupation officially prohibits Japan from maintaining armed forces or waging war, leaving the military in a dubious legal position. Successive governments have interpreted the law as allowing the country to possess forces purely for defense purposes and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party hopes to revise the constitution to make the legal position clearer. But memories of the militarism that propelled Japan into World War Two are still strong enough to hamper progress towards updating and strengthening the military. A plan to upgrade the Defense Agency into a ministry was put on the back burner after a bid-rigging scandal, while the integration of the three branches of the forces has taken decades to complete. "Integrating the forces has been our dream since the Self-Defense Forces were established about 50 years ago," Massaki told Reuters. "This is a great turning point for us and I feel a great sense of responsibility," he said of the appointment, which makes him the chief aide to Japan’s Defense Agency Chief. Before March, the air, sea and ground forces reported separately to the director general of the Defense Agency. That resulted in a widely criticized failure to coordinate over rescue operations after the Kobe earthquake in 1995. Adopting the new joint staff system will also make it easier to coordinate with the United States, which has a similar structure, Massaki said. As a part of a sweeping re-arrangement of the 50,000 U.S. troops based in Japan, agreed between the two national governments this month, Tokyo’s ground forces will establish command units within U.S. bases to promote coordination. In another new development, the Japanese will for the first time play an active part in "Cobra Gold," a U.S.-backed international military drill that begins in Thailand next week, Massaki said.

It might be just my failing memory, but the name HMS Barham seems to strike a chord. I hope that you can prove / disprove my recollection. I know that I saw the discussion on one of the various fora. Airchair General, perhaps.

I think that you forget about the Italian frogmen. They were pretty successful. Wish I could remember the exact case.

And just how can this be considered defensive? Looks like someone is trying to carry the fight to the mainland.

Navy pushes for Israeli Barak on all warships Shiv Aroor Posted online: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 at 0000 hrs Print Email IndianExpress.com ON BOARD INS BRAHMAPUTRA, MAY 8: When the Indian Navy gave Prime Minister Manmohan Singh an operational demonstration last Saturday of a Barak missile intercepting and destroying an incoming anti-ship missile, there was a subtle message embedded in the brazen firepower. The navy has emerged as the first of the three armed forces to successfully induct anti-missile defence into its operational profile and, oing by the accuracy of the Israeli-made Barak system, now wants to put Baraks on all its frontline warships, starting with this missile frigate three months from now. Barak launchers are currently operational on aircraft carrier INS Viraat, two Delhi-class destroyers, two Godavari-class frigates and two Rajput-class destroyers among a few others. The three indigenously-built Brahmaputra-class guided missile frigates will be armed with Barak launchers and missiles over the next three to six months. The government cleared the procurement of seven more Barak systems for the navy in December last year. Each Barak system consists of six-eight vertical tube launchers and six or more missiles, track and guidance radar and a fire-control system. The missiles intercept and destroy incoming missiles, hostile aircraft and unmanned drones. Skipper of INS Brahmaputra Captain Kapil Gupta told The Indian Express, “They have proved to be very successful with the navy. This ship is heavily armed already, and we will be getting a Barak system in the next three-four months.” On Saturday night, following the demonstration of Baraks’ firepower for the Prime Minister, Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash said, “Not many navies can boast of this technology. In time, every one of our ships will be equipped with this.’’ Considering that DRDO has been unable to effectively produce an anti-missile system — the Trishul has not worked out and the Akash has still not been modified for the anti-missile role — the navy had pushed hard for more Baraks. After months of negotiations, on January 27, Barak’s manufacturer Israeli Aircraft Industries and Hyderabad-based DRDL entered into an agreement to jointly develop and make next-generation Baraks, with a range much higher than the current 8-12 km. These missiles, when developed and ready for use are likely to be integrated onto future platforms. shiv.aroor@expressindia.com

Venezuelan President warns against US Navy in Caribbean 2006-05-08 21:23:08 CRIENGLISH.com President Hugo Chavez is accusing the US military of trying to threaten Venezuela with naval exercises it is holding in the Caribbean this month. He said that the presence of a US aircraft carrier in the Caribbean Sea, the USS George Washington, wouldn't scare Venezuelans, who are preparing to repel a possible US invasion by training guerrilla-style resistance fighters. "They can sail the Caribbean with their fleet as much as they like. They are not going to threaten us, they are not going to frighten us, we are not frightened of this paper empire. We are free!" The USS George Washington, a nearly 330-metre-long Nimitz-class carrier, was roughly 150 miles north of the Caribbean island of Curacao this weekend as part of naval exercises in the region. Chavez, a former army lieutenant colonel and outspoken critic of US President George W Bush, has frequently warned that the United States could invade to seize control of the South American nation's immense oil and natural gas reserves. Chavez has called on his countrymen to prepare for a conflict by learning to use a firearm and joining the nation's military reserve. US officials have scoffed at the Venezuelan leader's allegations that Washington is plotting to overthrow his government.

I just tried both of these examples and they also crashed for me. No idea if the dB has a corrupted entry or not. Sorry.

Sorry to doubt you, Gopher. I just tried to open Brad's WW3 scenario, too, with the HCCE SE b12 and I get the same result. General Protection Fault in module WSCENEDT.EXE at 0007:4104 IIRC, this scenario was made with the HCGold SE. I wonder if the addition of features like Base Sonar Levels for the different platforms may have made this older scenario incompatible with the HCCE SE. You can try to report this problem to AGSI, but they've said quite clearly that they won't accept any problems not detected with their official DB.

Sorry for the silly question, but are you certain that you are using the HCDB?

All of the platforms (except the X-47) are already included in the latest version of the HCDB 060316 and it is available on the HG DB Page.DB Page

I just tested with my SE with HCDB and I am able to view both the early and late version of the Kaman. There might be data corruption within your file.

U.S. House Panel: Cap DD(X) Buy at 2 DefenseNews At about $4 billion per ship, the U.S. Navy’s DD(X)/DG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer is just too expensive, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett said. So on April 2, the House subcommittee that Bartlett heads passed legislation to limit the program to just two ships. That means $2.6 billion for the 2007 defense budget to buy one ship and begin detailed designs for a second. But after that, no more. “That is my wish,” Bartlett explained after the unanimous vote by the House Armed Services projection forces subcommittee. [ MORE ]

Admiral: Diesel Subs OK for Others, Not U.S. Military.com Christopher J. Castelli | April 25, 2006 Diesel submarines have near-shore and stealth capabilities that may make them suitable for other countries but they do not meet U.S. requirements to project and sustain forces far beyond coastal waters, according to the Navy's submarine director, Rear Adm. William Hilarides. The Navy has long opposed acquiring diesel subs, arguing nuclear-powered subs are superior. The subject came up again when Hilarides briefed reporters about submarines at the Washington Navy Yard April 17. “If we were defending our coast from high-end ships, then a diesel submarine might make sense for that, but we project our submarines out to the far corners of the world and need them to stay there for long periods of time,” Hilarides said. He said the short-range capabilities of diesel subs may be appropriate for countries that conduct naval operations close to shores. One country that Hilarides cited was Taiwan, which for the last few years has been considering whether to buy eight diesel subs from the United States (see related article). While the service currently has more than 50 nuclear submarines, only one diesel sub remains in the fleet, the Dolphin (AGSS-555). The Dolphin is used exclusively for research purposes. The Navy decided to stop constructing diesel subs in 1956 and decommissioned the last diesel sub used for standard practices in 1990, according to the March 2006 issue of Proceedings. But not everyone agrees the Navy should shun diesel subs. Author and analyst Norman Polmar said the short-range, stealth capabilities of non-nuclear subs would add needed capabilities to the United States. “I would certainly think for special operations . . . especially when you look at the shallow waters around Korea and certain other countries in the Pacific, a few special purpose diesel submarines based in Japan could be very effective,” he told Inside the Navy. Polmar emphasized that non-nuclear subs would also be effective for anti-submarine missions and research and development projects. He touted the effectiveness of non-nuclear subs that operate on air independent propulsion. Polmar said that while nuclear subs may be more effective than their non-nuclear counterparts in many aspects, non-nuclear subs are often less detectable than nuclear vessels. Even the United States has trouble detecting non-nuclear subs, Polmar said. He noted that putting ashore a handful of special operations troops makes more sense with a vessel manned by 35 people than with an 18,000-ton vessel manned by 140 people. “The U.S. cannot detect non-nuclear submarines when they're operating on battery,” he said. “It's very difficult to find them, almost impossible in coastal operations, and that's where we're going to be in the future.” Hilarides acknowledged that diesel subs often have more stealth qualities once they reach their destination, but said getting diesel subs to their place of operation and maintaining them there can be a problem. “A diesel submarine sitting on the bottom is relatively quiet thing, but it has to get there, and it has to be relatively supportive there,” he said. Hilarides and Polmar also had some disconnect on the cost of non-nuclear submarines. The admiral said that diesel subs would cost $1 billion for the hull and for installing modern U.S. equipment on the vessel. While nuclear submarines are projected to cost $2.4 billion, Hilarides suggested that savings for diesel subs would be inadequate. “So it would be two-for-one . . . if you were to buy a submarine like that,” he said. “And it has nowhere near the stealth, endurance, deployability and on-station time that we need for our submarines.” Polmar said that the cost for non-nuclear subs would be even lower. He speculated that cost for the lead-boat would be about a $500 million and then the cost “would go down precipitously.” Inexpensive submarines would be helpful, he said, predicting the Navy would not be able to meet its $2 billion per-submarine cost goal for the nuclear-powered Virginia class subs (see related article). “The cost of SSNs and the cost of training their crews and the added on cost of handling their reactor cores and handling the submarines themselves . . . is just a tremendous cost,” he said. Polmar said the Energy Department picks up the cost for fueling reactor cores, so energy costs are not included in the Defense Department budget, making nuclear sub costs seem smaller than they actually are.

United They Sail - EC2003 IOPG Battleset The 25th new scenario of the year! United They Sail - EC2003 IOPG Battleset The Middle East has seen many shifts in alliances and political friendships over the years. Recently, Iran has become increasingly hostile to many of its neighbors in the region, which it describes as "puppets of the West." After the U.A.E. openly criticized Iran about its policies and suggested OPEC take action against Iran for its support of groups like Hamas, Iranian leaders threatened that the U.A.E. would pay for its "treachery." Author: Mark Gellis http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FilesO...7s%20Scenarios/ This scenario requires Harpoon Classic version 16b11 or later and also the HCDB_060316 or later in order to function properly. SZO file archives - Home of the Harpoon3 PlayersDB FilesOfScenShare HarpGamer.com - Home of the HCDB.

AAR: Malakka [spoiler Alert] - PRC A Harpoon 3 scenario By Freek Schepers For four weeks, the Americans and Russians had been hammering each other mercilessly as China sat on the sidelines. So long as her rivals concentrated on killing one another, the Peoples Republic was quite happy to watch while her factories hummed with manufactured goods for both sides. However, the Americans and their running-dog lackeys were now trying to cause problems for the People. By giving preference to the Japanese factories for oil, Chinese needs were not going to be met. This situation was intolerable. The South China Seas fleet set sail to ensure the safe and uninterrupted delivery of its oil supplies. As this was going to be a Tanker war, most of the pre-planned air strikes on Thai airfields were cancelled and the Badger bombers were re-loaded with all available C.601 Silkworm AShMs [Anti-Ship Missiles]. Since these weapons were in short supply, some bombers were still laden with iron bombs so the air suppression missions would go ahead, but with reduced assets. The MPA [Maritime Patrol Aircraft] rose from Haingui and Mergui and immediately reported the Andaman Sea to be full of contacts. They set about classifying and identifying them and soon discovered the CVH Viraat just as she was departing Pt. Blair. All surface and subsurface units in the Andaman Sea were given intercept vectors for this prize. Unfortunately, all of the submarines were diesel electric and they would only be able to attack effectively from the front due to their limited speed. The few missile boats available to the Burmese surged forth from their hidden inlets on the coast. The counter-air mission from Sanya consisted of Badgers configured with 1000lb bombs that were led by Flankers. Instead of conducting a surprise attack, the raid commander ordered all of his radar to radiate and all elements to climb to high altitude so that the enemy could see his approach. He was confident that his Flankers easily out-classed the Thai Falcons and was willing to let them meet him in the air. Future historians might think that he sought glorious single combat similar to contests between mediaeval knights. However, nothing could have been further from his mind. He was not looking for a fair fight. He definitely wanted to "joust" with his enemies, but he would be using a lance [AA-10 Alamo] while his opponent would only be given a dagger [AIM-9 Sidewinder]. In his mind, they would be destroyed either in their hangars or in the air. The Falcons, with their short-range AIM-9 Sidewinders, were chewed up by the Flankers by their Alamo [AAMs] air-to-air missiles. With the skies cleared of defenders, the Badgers were able to deliver their bombs with deadly accuracy. Korat was smashed flat and U-Tapao suffered grievous damage with half her facilities flattened. CVH Viraat was just clearing Pt. Blair and SSG Wuhan was there to meet her. With the entire tactical layout exposed by the loitering MPA, the theatre commander tried to clear the way for the submarine's approach. He knew that the best way to kill a carrier would be with torpedoes. He would try to punch a hole in the screen by first killing the ASW / AEW helos and then killing the frigate that was on ASW patrol. The helos were easily dealt with by the F-7M AirGuards. A second flight of AirGuards successfully dropped their bombs on the frigate, but failed to kill her. SSG Wuhan finished her off with two of her precious C-801 SSMs [surface-to-surface missiles] and spent the balance on a DDG escort close to the carrier. The approach was classic. The Wuhan was sitting on the target's PIM [Path of Intended Movement] and she had her torpedo tube doors open. Everything was looking great. And then the target zigged... The commander of the Wuhan could barely restrain himself. "Had he been detected?", he thought. "Had I done something wrong?" He immediately ordered his boat to full speed and hoped to get close enough to launch his torpedoes. Although the carrier was presenting her broadside to the sub, the boat was almost too slow to take advantage of it. Almost. As he watched through the periscope, he judged that this would be his closest approach and launched every available torpedo at the carrier before feverishly starting the re-loading process. As the seconds ticked by on his stopwatch, he watched the wakes of his torpedoes reach out like fingers of death to his unsuspecting quarry. The first explosion registered early and he saw a geyser erupt from a DDG escort. Evidently, one torpedo had been drawn to the vessel. Moments later, explosions were detected from the centre of the formation! Both the carrier and an auxiliary were dead in the water. Hurrah! The torpedo tubes were re-loaded and one final salvo was able to kill another DDG before her weapons were exhausted. With the Andaman Sea cleared of the pesky carrier, the remaining subs were like wolves in a henhouse (and just as voracious). The term, "Target rich environment", would be an understatement this day. They tore apart the tankers until the sea was covered with oil slicks everywhere. If China could not have those tankers, she would deny them to her rivals. Back in the Gulf of Siam, the two PRC SAGs [surface Action Groups] had finally pinned down the CV Chakri Nareubet against the coast of Malaysia. A flight of Flankers was sent in for CTR [Close Target Reconnaissance] and she identified the CV calmly conducting air operations. Both SAGs were able to co-ordinate their pincer-like approach and both launched salvoes of SSMs to overwhelm the SAM defences. Four were distracted by the FF Naresuan and left her dead in the water, but the remaining C-802s and Sunburn missiles slammed into the CV and left her in flames. Eventually, she slid between the waves and China would get her oil. Thanks for another great scenario. The limited number of assets really forces the player to maximize their utility. This is an excellent escalation in the battleset. The inclusion of the PRC and India will really make this battleset cover all the world's oceans. SZO file archives - Home of the Harpoon3 PlayersDB FilesOfScenShare HarpGamer.com - Home of the HCDB.

Excerpt from: Naval War College CHINA’S MATURING NAVY Rear Admiral Eric A. McVadon, U.S. Navy (Retired) Naval War College Review, Spring 2006, Vol. 59, No. 2 STARTING WITH QUESTIONS The following questions and answers may be an unusual way to begin probing the specific naval aspects of the issue, but they focus on an often neglected, but arguably the most surprising, single PLAN acquisition program—its bold move to build quickly a modern nuclear submarine force despite its troubled past in this arena. These incisive questions—posed to the author in 2005 by experts on the Chinese submarine force—are especially useful in that they take the PLA’s Taiwan obsession fully into account but also look beyond. They reveal the layers of complexity and uncertainty inherent in the very rapid and impressive modernization of the PLA Navy—a navy that, it is worth emphasizing, is arguably the only one in today’s world that the U.S. Navy must deter or be able to defeat, but also a navy that under different circumstances could become a high-seas partner. How “mature” is China’s navy? Does the PLAN have the requisite human capital, organizational practices, and exercise regimen to become a world- class fleet? The PLAN is most nearly mature with respect to platforms and weapons but, approximately in the order listed, progressively less so in human capital, organizational practices, and exercise regimen. It is working to become better in each. Are nuclear submarines a good fit for China’s emerging naval strategy? Will the balance of forces (i.e., nuclear versus diesel submarines) change in the future? The currently emerging balance is a good fit, especially vis-à-vis China’s current set of potential adversaries. If the Taiwan problem were eliminated somehow, a shift toward nuclear submarines to protect more distant sea- lanes would be a logical option. This makes the PLAN nuclear submarine program a possible bellwether for future naval policy more generally. What are the trends in undersea warfare and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) in the western Pacific region? The superiority of the U.S. nuclear submarine force will continue; however, the Chinese are apparently developing ballistic missiles with maneuvering warheads and terminal seekers to hit ships at sea. This capability to lob numerous accurate ballistic missile warheads high over the heads of all defenders could effectively circumvent the anticipated quiet and capable U.S. nuclear attack submarines. The PLAN has previously seen these submarines as all but impossible to penetrate with its own submarines (or surface ships) to reach the carriers and cruisers it wants to disable. Despite the PLAN’s ineptitude at antisubmarine warfare, short of a (plausible) major breakthrough, the trend in submarine/ASW competition is going China’s way: the PLAN’s submarine numbers and diversity trump, or at least could saturate, likely ASW opposition for the foreseeable future, especially in case of the short war Beijing contemplates. With respect to Taiwan’s ASW capability (almost an oxymoron now), the Republic of China (ROC) Navy would still have to learn to use its P-3C antisubmarine patrol aircraft after getting them; its prospective new submarine force of eight diesel submarines, if approved for acquisition (as currently seems unlikely), would be a decade or more from operational status and even then inadequate for antisubmarine warfare against what would by then have become a remarkably numerous, diverse, and advanced PLAN submarine force. What strategic dilemmas might Washington encounter as a result of China’s new nuclear submarine force? Beijing’s smug confidence that Washington must always keep in mind China’s status as a nuclear power will be reinforced if the PLAN is successful with its ongoing program to build several modern Jin-class (Project 094) nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs). Its sequential construction of Shang-class (Project 093) nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) adds the component of reach (range and speed) to the existing qualities of numbers of its nuclear and conventional submarines, as well as quietness for a growing portion of that force and potency of weapons for a similar portion—especially for the new Kilo-class diesel submarines from Russia, with their long-range, supersonic, sea-skimming antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs). A “new PLAN” with these new nuclear-powered submarines and stunning array of other new and modern platforms and weapons is highly likely to view itself in a different strategic light, as yet unrevealed, than has the “old PLAN.”

Active sonobuoys detected by radar Sonobuoys that are dropped with Active-Only Sonar sensors can be detected by opposing Radar, Infrared, and visually.

Hey folks, I got a couple of messages from AGSI and have been asked to send them forward to the Harpoon community. This request was passed onto me from Don Gilman, AGSI President. I know that there are many of you who have contributed snippets and nuggets of information regarding the various games, tactics, and scenario design ideas. If anyone is interested in helping put together a composite of all this stuff, please contact Don Gilman at AGSI http://www.computerharpoon.com/contact Herman Hum I'm looking for some glory-bound folks looking to promote their sites/names by pitching in on an HCCE task. Since most of the H3 manual was done by hardcore H3 folks, I'd like the HCCE manual re-done by HCCE folks. Matrix will handle final editing. These are the sections I'm looking for: * ScenEdit * DB Edit (Brett is looking for some hard core bits on this now). * Tactics specific to the game (keep in mind a modified version of the tactics manual from H3 will be included) * Game play Other than some gift certificates to Matrix, I really can't offer much (other than names in lights, links, etc). If you have some folks on your boards who can execute one or more of these sections, please contact me. One thing we did learn from the H3 Manual was that the Wiki REALLY works. We have to give folks accounts (due to spammers). Don Gilman Also, an update: AGSI is pleased to provide you with the following update: Harpoon Classic Commander's Edition Build 12 is at http://mediawiki.advancedgaming.biz/index....:Community_Beta. We are pretty much cleaning up features that were added after HC2002 Gold at this point. There are always issues when you are adding new features. The plan right now is to shoot for a release at or near Origins with our publisher Matrix Games. Harpoon 3.7 Advanced Naval Warfare is effectively ready to go. We are working with Matrix on packaging issues for the most part. This will be released before Origins by Matrix Games. We always have room for serious beta testers. Serious is someone who sticks with it for more than one release. These are the folks whose names are in the credits. Our next announcement should be the shipping announcement for Harpoon 3.7 Advanced Naval Warfare. Don Gilman, P.E. Advanced Gaming Systems Developers of the Computer Harpoon Series of Air/Naval Wargames www.advancedgaming.biz

SA’s new generation of submarines Jonathan Katzenellenbogen BusinessDay.SA THE first of three of SA’s S101 new-generation German-made submarines will sail into Simonstown this morning, marking one of the final steps in the creation of the country’s new navy. Four frigates — general-purpose warships which can be armed with guided missiles — have already been delivered and two more submarines will be in service within about two years. Claims of irregularities in parts of the contract for the frigates, the lack of transparency in the industrial offset programme, the fact that it is very unlikely that the fleet will be used in peacekeeping, and just its sheer cost set against the country’s development needs have made the buildup in naval power controversial. And to the chagrin of the Democratic Alliance and many defence analysts, a fifth frigate may be ordered. The South African Navy now has more firepower and reach than it has had in its history and is the only navy in sub-Saharan Africa that comes close to comparison with those of any other that can be considered “serious”. The navy’s reach is minimal compared with that of the US, but SA has entered into the “blue water” category, allowing for sustained operations well beyond our shores. With the obsolescence en bloc of the navy’s ships built up during the apartheid era, the decision had to be made whether to have a fleet worthy of a regional power. The speed of the acquisitions, the appropriateness of the components of the fleet and various other facets can be debated, but there is a compelling argument that SA needs a navy worthy of regional power, even given that the use of frigates and submarines in peacekeeping, SA’s main military task currently, is unlikely. Above all, the argument for a navy worthy of regional power is that if we have no credible naval power, the vacuum created may be filled by other powers which could pose, if not an immediate, at least an existential threat to SA at some stage. Deep-dive attack submarines have to be part of any credible navy. Submarines give the ability to patrol and fight beneath the seas as well as potentially land special forces into coastal areas. Having submarines is essentially about deterrence because they can operate undetected, creating enormous uncertainties about their presence for any potential adversary and are an ideal platform for intelligence gathering at sea. In military terms, they also provide a significant “power multiplier” in that, for instance, they allow the surface fleet to be kept down in size and to make it more effective. And in the seas off the Cape where cold and warm ocean currents mix, there are multiple gradients of temperature which make submarines especially difficult to detect, providing an added value in potential deterrence. The South African Navy boasts that in exercises with foreign fleets its now decommissioned Daphne-class submarines were never detected. The widely asked question now is who the adversary is that makes all this firepower necessary? The answer is, of course, there is none; but within the 30-year life span of such weapon systems an adversary could arise and manning and training of submarine crews takes a long time. SA has been without submarine capability since 2003, when the last of the three French-made Daphne-class submarines were taken out of service, and if our navy had been without submarines for much longer the infrastructure and capabilities necessary to maintain and use them would have been lost. The Type 209 submarines that SA is acquiring are the world’s most exported submarine. When SA’s submarine order is completed, about 70 of them will have been built for 13 different navies over 40 years. What has changed during this period are weapon systems, their size, increases in underwater endurance and diving depth and, most importantly for a submarine, the smaller amount of noise it emits, which reduces chances of detection. The 209s SA is receiving are generations ahead of the Daphne class, which were based on Second World War technology. The Daphne was not usually submerged for more than two days; the Type 209s, depending on speed, can remain underwater for about a week. One of the most significant improvements in the S101 South African submarine over its predecessor is the combat suite — the centre which processes sonar, periscope and other data sources and from which commands for weapon launches are given. The Type 209s have four diesel engines to power the boat on the surface and recharge a substantial rack of batteries — much like those in a car except a lot larger and designed for use under water. The submarine has eight tubes which can be used to launch torpedoes as well as lay mines. The design of the tubes allows for a later retrofit to allow the submarine to fire missiles, which could turn the vessel into a potent means of surface attack, particularly if the missiles have a long range. The navy has not announced any plans for these and declines to discuss the matter as it would signal an aggressive posture and one that SA is not keen to give. The other widely asked question — an eternal one for peace time navies — is what do they do? A great deal of effort is placed in crew training and maintaining readiness, particularly with submarines, and there will be manoeuvres with foreign navies such as those from Brazil and India which also have Type 209s. Then there is their potential role in spotting fishing trawlers in the act of pulling nets out of our waters. It could the case that SA’s submarines may be part of a naval picket to deter piracy off the Somali coast or undertake visits to the oil fields off west Africa to maintain a presence, although government is saying nothing about specifics. Then there is the question of what the admirals are eyeing next to build up their “balanced navy”. It is a landing ship that can carry both troops and helicopters. After that it will be weapons upgrades and in 30 years’ time SA will again face the problem of bulk obsolescence of its navy. An incremental build up may have been more prudent and politically a lot less difficult. What is to be expected over the next few years, however, is our participation in naval exercises and, of course, flying the flag. ‖Katzenellenbogen is international affairs editor.

We've released a new version of the Harpoon3 PlayersDB. Why have we done this? Why not just continue to add new platforms to PlayersDB 5.9.7 like we've always done? Well, we've made a few changes that have the potential to affect pre-existing scenarios. For example, if we doubled the range of a missile, this change won't crash any pre-existing scenarios. However, it may affect their balance or how they run. Rather than run the risk of messing up someone's work, we've released a new version. Just continue to use the PlayersDB version specified by the scenario designer and everything will run exactly as written by the author. Get the PlayersDB 6.4.9 on HarpDB, PlayersDB Depot, or StrategyZoneOnline. Additions include: A comprehensive mine model has been added. Mines can now be swept by minesweepers and helicopters. Many thanks to Rene Haar and Thomas Kaup, Kriegsmarine (ret) for their assistance in creating the mine platforms. - countless changes and improvements guaranteed not to crash any earlier scenario built with the PlayersDB SZO file archives - Home of the Harpoon3 PlayersDB FilesOfScenShare HarpGamer.com - Home of the HCDB.

SSMs don't fire --- GE HCCE B11 SSMs will only fire at very close range (about 25nm) even though they have 300nm maximum range. Sample file at StrategyZoneOnline.

You are right. I did kind of report it already. I've placed this second report just underneath the previous one. I've taken the liberty of adding to it since I have been able to refine details and created a Sample file to more easily show the behaviour. I think that you are correct in that this problem will appear for any weapons using those those weapon flags.

Did you ask Tony to modify your PE in order to accommodate the longer country names? Also, I have found that when I run into problems with the PE, I have to: 1) DELETE the current PE 2) Re-install PE I've tried to just re-install over the current edition and it usually doesn't work. Tony mentioned something about some hidden files that don't get deleted by this method.

Units left in limbo by Mission Editor Bases and aircraft assigned to a mission can drop out of the network and be left in limbo when said mission is subsequently deleted in the Mission Editor. These units cannot be re-assigned or otherwise used. Before deleting any mission, remove all units from it manually.

Have Nap malfunction --- GE HCCE B11 AGM-142 Have Nap cannot hit the target. This missile has the Command Guidance and Mid-Course Guidance flags. Under manual control, they can hit if the player remains in the area. However, under AI control, the attacking aircraft launch and immediately turn for home base so the missiles always miss.