Herman

April 27, 2005 NavyTimes.com

 

Russian navy to get new submarines

 

Associated Press

 

MOSCOW — Russia’s navy will get two newly equipped nuclear submarines in 2006, armed with new Bulava-M intercontinental ballistic missiles, Russian news agencies quoted Commander in Chief Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov as saying Wednesday.

The submarines will bear the names of Yuri Dolgoruky, the prince who founded Moscow, and Dmitry Donskoy, who led Russian warriors in a decisive battle that brought Tatar rule of Russia to an end in the 14th century.

 

Kuroyedov said the submarines should join the navy by the end of next year. The missiles have a range of 5,000 miles and are in the midst of a three-year testing program, the Interfax news agency quoted him as saying. Each submarine will be equipped with 12 missiles, Interfax said.

 

In December, Putin encouraged the Defense Ministry to keep up production of new strategic missile systems, a process slowed in the past by a shortage of funds.

 

Construction began on the Yuri Dolgoruky in 1996, Interfax reported. The Dmitry Donskoy was built in 1982 and has been undergoing thorough modernization since 1989, the news agency said.

I played from the side of the Lone Wolf first. I made it to the mouth of Polyarnyy and patrolled there for a few hours without detecting any enemy activity. I expanded my patrol zones until I detected a long-range sonar contact. I followed it up to learn that it was a Mirka patrol vessel.

 

I then came across an entire ASW task force. Unfortunately, they were heading in the opposite direction. Humbug. All I could do was hope that they would eventually turn back towards me as it is nearly impossible to conduct a stern chase in a diesel submarine.

 

As luck would have it, they did slow down and turn back towards me. I crept at deep depth with periodic periscope searches to confirm their location. I threw out a Harpoon missile (the only one I had) at a Krivak which promptly shot it down. I followed her up with 2 quick ADCAP torpedoes and fired another two at another escort. I dove to evade counter-fire and reloaded.

 

My initial torpedo salvo was successful and claimed both vessels. As I came back to periscope depth, I attacked again and claimed 2 more ships. The hunters had now become the hunted. There was still one more enemy combatant out there and I wanted the privilege of tying a broom to the mast when I returned to port so I set about stalking her.

 

I closed the range and let loose with 2 more ADCAP torpedoes. Unfortunately, I was discovered in the process and was now on the receiving end of a USET torpedo. My torpedoes ran true and blew her out of the water but the USET came mighty close to evening the score. Only the timely release of a decoy prevented her from killing my sub.

 

I also tried as the Soviet side. I set up patrol zones for my TF and set off to patrol my assigned area. I left the game on automatic until the first detection. All of a sudden, a submarine was detected. I immediately opened fire with a full volley of SS-N-14 Silex and raced to close the distance and re-engage with RBU6000s. My weapons ran true and killed the sub but her return fire also claimed 2 hunters. A third vessel managed to survive when the torpedo hit her decoy. Again, another very close call. Had I lost a third unit, I would have lost the game.

 

A superb first scenario, Dave. Thanks very much for sharing it with us. I highly recommend this scenario to anyone who might be learning how to play or design for Harpoon3. It shows that you don't need a large number of units to be able to construct and enjoy an excellent and challenging game. There are less than 10 units in this scenario and it is still pleasant and enjoyable.

27th Scenario posted this year!

 

Dave Steinmeyer has released his first Harpoon 3 scenario. He is the 9th author to post a scenario. Congratulations, Dave, and thanks for sharing your work with the community.

 

Lone Wolf

 

Three NATO diesel submarines travelled north together, guarding each other during snorkel periods. They had intended to conduct wolf-pack operations near the Soviet sub base at Polyarnyy. They have been plagued by bad luck, however. First, one unit was sunk by a Tango-class SS before the other two could sink it. Then as they approached their objective, one of the remaining two boats hit a mine and was lost. The remaining ship, a Dutch Walrus-class, continued north and has run afoul of a coastal ASW group.

 

Author: Dave Steinmeyer

 

 

This scenario can be found at either of these great sites:

 

 

And at the FilesOfScenShare

 

Coming soon to HarpGamer.com

I am told that this Hyper-Velocity problem has already been solved in the latest version of the Beta Release, HC2005b06.

 

Grab it here and give it a whirl: http://www.advancedgaming.biz/index.php?ce...download&id=144

Sounds like an excellent premise for a new scenario!

 

White House May Go to U.N. Over North Korean Shipments

By DAVID E. SANGER

 

Published: April 25, 2005

New York Times

 

ASHINGTON, April 24 - The Bush administration, facing a series of recent provocations from North Korea, is debating a plan to seek a United Nations resolution empowering all nations to intercept shipments in or out of the country that may contain nuclear materials or components, say senior administration officials and diplomats who have been briefed on the proposal.

 

The resolution envisioned by a growing number of senior administration officials would amount to a quarantine of North Korea, though, so far at least, President Bush's aides are not using that word. It would enable the United States and other nations to intercept shipments in international waters off the Korean Peninsula and to force down aircraft for inspection.

 

But, said several American and Asian officials, the main purpose would be to give China political cover to police its border with North Korea, the country's lifeline for food and oil. That border is now largely open for shipments of arms, drugs and counterfeit currencies, North Korea's main source of hard currency.

 

Two years of six-nation negotiations with North Korea have proved fruitless so far. It is uncertain, however, that China and South Korea would go along with any plan to step up pressure. To ward off a confrontation with the North, the two nations have opposed taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council.

 

Until last week, the administration insisted it was committed to solving the North Korean crisis through six-nation negotiations. But the discovery this month that North Korea has shut down its main nuclear reactor - perhaps to harvest plutonium for more weapons - prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to raise publicly the possibility of seeking United Nations action, a route the Clinton administration took in 1994.

 

"We are willing - when the time is right, when we believe that we have exhausted the possibilities of the framework we are in - to go to the Security Council," Ms. Rice said on Thursday on Fox News.

 

But the administration has never said publicly what it would seek from the United Nations. Though Ms. Rice made no mention of it, American intelligence agencies were also trying to decipher the meaning of renewed activity at a suspected North Korean nuclear test site.

 

Activity at the site in October and again in January led to concerns that North Korea may be preparing for the first underground weapons test - which would end any ambiguity about whether it has the technology to build a warhead.

 

[in Seoul on Monday, South Korea's foreign minister, Ban Ki Moon, warned North Korea against conducting any nuclear tests, saying they would further isolate it, The Associated Press reported.]

 

"They are either heading toward a full nuclear breakout, so that we are forced to deal with them as an established nuclear power, or they are putting on quite a show for our satellites," said one senior administration official, who added that the quarantine option had not yet been formally presented to President Bush.

 

The White House has said little so far about North Korea's actions, following a strategy very different from the one it pursued two years ago with Iraq. Ms. Rice has repeatedly said that North Korea's pattern is to seek a public reaction from Washington, and she has made clear she does not intend to oblige.

 

But some experts say the statements and actions North Korea have taken recently could mark a significant shift in strategy: It may now see a chance to build a modest nuclear arsenal while the United States and Asian nations debate how to react. The C.I.A. estimates that North Korea already has enough plutonium for six or eight nuclear weapons.

 

"I'm afraid they are now more interested in getting away with it than getting a reaction out of the United States," South Korea's former foreign minister, Han Sung Joo, said in an interview last week.

 

Since February, when it declared itself a nuclear power, North Korea's public statements have changed. It appears to be attempting to establish itself as a nuclear power that, like Pakistan, is now considered a permanent member of the nuclear club.

 

North Korea's No. 2 official, Kim Yong Nam, said on Friday that America so threatens North Korea "it stands to reason" for it "to equip itself with a nuclear deterrent as a legitimate self-defensive means."

 

On Sunday, North Korea's army chief of staff, General Kim Yong Chun, opened a meeting of military officers with a warning that the country's nuclear program would speed ahead. North Korea often issues strident warnings, many of which Washington dismisses. But the combination of the statements and the satellite imagery have put the White House and Pentagon on edge.

 

Administration officials said that even if they go to the United Nations, the White House would not abandon the six-nation talks, which also include Japan, South Korea, Russia and China. They said a resolution could take several forms, including additional political and economic sanctions, all of which North Korea says it would regard as an act of war.

 

But the idea of a quarantine has attracted the most interest, especially among administration hawks who never liked the idea of negotiations with North Korea. The quarantine idea has been pressed by the Pentagon and members of Vice President Dick Cheney's staff.

 

If approved, several officials said, it would be loosely modeled on the one President John F. Kennedy ordered against Cuba four decades ago. But in North Korea's case, the operation would be far more complicated - both because of the weapons that the North may already possess, and because the entire effort will fail if China is not a full partner.

25th Scenario Posted this Year!

 

NWCM3 - Carving Turkey

 

When the NSC made good on its promise to deliver SA-10 Grumble SAM systems to the Greek Cypriots in the spring of 1995 despite Turkish protests, the stage was set for another conflict in Cyprus. The presence of the advanced weapons shifted the delicate balance of power as it put nearly all aircraft operating from the Turkish side of the island at risk.

 

NATO was embarrassed when regular Turkish forces stormed the island a few months later. It had not been aware of Turkey's intent to reclaim Cyprus once and for all. Hand-in-hand with the economic boom in the NSC came military modernization and revitalization; funding for which was fueled at least partly by an unprecedented level of arms exports. The NSC would no longer sit idly by while its national interests were decided by others. It launched a major attack against Turkey on June 3, 1995.

 

The NSC did not believe that NATO would intervene in the Cypriot affair after having been snubbed by its Turkish partner and after the beating it had received in the Baltic conflict a year earlier.

 

Background:

 

Pleased that NATO has thus far remained only a verbal combatant in this war, the Kremlin became blind to the original objective - the liberation of Greek Cyprus. They suddenly realized that here was a golden opportunity to finally rid themselves of the age-old Bosporous-Dardenelles chokepoint. To do so, it would be necessary to invade and claim at least a portion of Turkish territory. An amphibious assault has been launched to carry out the mission.

 

Subj: Alert - Impending NSC Amphibious Assault

 

1. SitRep

 

Intelligence reports indicate that an NSC amphibious group has been assembled and is underway. It is heading south. The best estimate of enemy intentions is that they are planning to launch an amphibious assault against Turkish territory.

 

Also, it is possible that an NSC Surface Action Group is heading towards Cyprus.

 

2. ORDERS

 

Interdict, engage, and destroy the NSC amphibious group as soon as possible. Command is aware that only limited assets are available for this ASuW mission. You must make do with what you have. NATO continues to refuse reinforcements.

 

Your orders are clear. Stop the amphibious invasion now assembling in the Black Sea. It will be much more difficult to stop the Soviets if they make it to the beach.

 

Author: Herman Hum and Brad Leyte

 

This scenario is dedicated to WarfareHQ.com and HarpGamer.com. Thanks for giving the community your support and allowing us these fine sites in which to enjoy our hobby.

 

 

This scenario can be found at either of these great sites:

 

 

And at the FilesOfScenShare

 

Coming soon to HarpGamer.com

I am not so certain that the problem lies with the A/S radar.

 

Test #3: I commanded the MCM and had the FF approach me. My radar detected the FF at 35nm and visually confirmed her at 18nm.

 

I looked at the units involved in this test. The Bang Rachan only has S/S radar and was able to detect the FF at 35nm.

 

Also, I looked at the 1052 in both the DB2k and in H3DB and I think that they both have A/S capability that is not linked to an FCR. Because of this, according to your theory, they should have detected one another at long range and not the proper 20nm range. Sorry, but I think that your theory is incorrect.

Firstly, if you are certain of your results, allow me to post them to the Known Bug list.

 

Secondly, I don't know if it is a good idea to switch an entire DB to fix this problem. If this problem is so pervasive, it might get fixed soon in the 3.7 release. Then you'd have to go back and re-configure all the Radar systems.

 

I'd like to suggest that you treat this as the bug that it is. Is the situation whereby opposing ships detect one another via radar all that common? I don't think so. It seems a huge effort to work around a glitch. Perhaps you can just set the parameters up correctly and keep your fingers crossed that H3 will be able to catch up with your RCS values.

Putin Confirms Sale of Short-Range Missiles to Syria

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW

 

President Vladimir Putin said April 22 that the controversial sale of Russian short-range missiles to Syria would go ahead as planned.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon voiced fears April 21 that the anti-aircraft missiles being sold by Russia to Syria could find their way into the hands of “terrorist organizations.”

 

“With respect to the sale which was signed with Syria and which will be finalized, it involves short-range air defense systems,” Putin said in an interview with Israeli television aired by Russian networks a few days before his visit to Israel.

 

“These systems can destroy air targets at close range. They are systems that are mounted on vehicles and they cannot be secretly passed on to terrorist organizations,” he added, without giving details on the sale.

 

Putin said that Russian military officials would be able to carry out checks at the site where the missiles will be stockpiled and set up.

 

“This will, of course, complicate low-flying flights over the residence of the Syrian president, but I’m not sure that such flights would be a good idea if we all, including in the interest of the Israeli people, want to create an atmosphere favorable to the pursuit of the peace process.”

 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was furious in August 2003 when Israeli warplanes flew over his presidential palace in Damascus.

 

Putin said Russia was acting responsibly as the sale was not changing the “balance of forces in the region.”

 

Russia “had refused in the past to ship much more serious missiles, including to Syria, which could have been of concern to Israel.”

 

“We gave up on those sales so as not to change the fragile balance of power in the region,” he said.

 

Sharon on April 21 reiterated that he regarded the sale of the air defense missile system as a “threat to the security of Israel” but said that the Jewish state could not stop Moscow trying to sell arms to other countries.

 

The Russian defense ministry has said the system that Moscow plans to sell to Syria could not be stripped down for “man-portable” shoulder-launch use.

 

Both Israel and the United States have expressed disquiet about the sale, fearing that they could end up in the hands of Lebanon’s Damascus-backed Hezbollah Shiite militia.

 

The row over the missile system threatens to overshadow a visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Israel on April 26 and 27, the first of a Moscow leader.

24th Scenario Posted this Year!

 

The next installment of the Cyprus Affair Battleset has now been released.

 

NWCM3 - Carving Turkey

 

When the NSC made good on its promise to deliver SA-10 Grumble SAM systems to the Greek Cypriots in the spring of 1995 despite Turkish protests, the stage was set for another conflict in Cyprus. The presence of the advanced weapons shifted the delicate balance of power as it put nearly all aircraft operating from the Turkish side of the island at risk.

 

NATO was embarrassed when regular Turkish forces stormed the island a few months later. It had not been aware of Turkey's intent to reclaim Cyprus once and for all. Hand-in-hand with the economic boom in the NSC came military modernization and revitalization; funding for which was fueled at least partly by an unprecedented level of arms exports. The NSC would no longer sit idly by while its national interests were decided by others. It launched a major attack against Turkey on June 3, 1995.

 

The NSC did not believe that NATO would intervene in the Cypriot affair after having been snubbed by its Turkish partner and after the beating it had received in the Baltic conflict a year earlier.

 

Background:

 

Pleased that NATO has thus far remained only a verbal combatant in this war, the Kremlin became blind to the original objective - the liberation of Greek Cyprus. They suddenly realized that here was a golden opportunity to finally rid themselves of the age-old Bosporous-Dardenelles chokepoint. To do so, it would be necessary to invade and claim at least a portion of Turkish territory. An amphibious assault has been launched to carry out the mission.

 

Subj: Alert - Impending NSC Amphibious Assault

 

1. SitRep

 

Intelligence reports indicate that an NSC amphibious group has been assembled and is underway. It is heading south. The best estimate of enemy intentions is that they are planning to launch an amphibious assault against Turkish territory.

 

Also, it is possible that an NSC Surface Action Group is heading towards Cyprus.

 

2. ORDERS

 

Interdict, engage, and destroy the NSC amphibious group as soon as possible. Command is aware that only limited assets are available for this ASuW mission. You must make do with what you have. NATO continues to refuse reinforcements.

 

Your orders are clear. Stop the amphibious invasion now assembling in the Black Sea. It will be much more difficult to stop the Soviets if they make it to the beach.

 

Author: Herman Hum and Brad Leyte

 

This scenario is dedicated to WarfareHQ.com and HarpGamer.com. Thanks for giving the community your support and allowing us these fine sites in which to enjoy our hobby.

 

 

This scenario can be found at either of these great sites:

 

 

And at the FilesOfScenShare

Just a suggestion, but I think that we might be in luck with the FF 1052s. Since they appear to behave as you would like to behave under radar detection, perhaps you could use their radar characteristics as the benchmark for small targets.

 

Regarding how the detections are reported in the game (either as small or VSmall), would you consider ignoring this aspect and focusing only on what the game actually does? i.e. If you want the radar horizon / detection radius to be 20nm, then it might not matter how the detection is reported. The important fact would be that the detection is only reported at 20nm. However, will this mess up aerial radar detection, too?

 

I am still not certain if the 20nm detection range for the 1052s is due to their radar cross-section or to the strength of their radar; probably a mixture of both but that's just a guess.

Earth Penetrating Warheads Against Deep Targets

 

FAS.org

 

The Administration is requesting funds from Congress for exploring the feasibility of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or RNEP. “Robust” means that the nuclear bomb will be able to penetrate some distance into hard rock before exploding. The RNEP is being pursued in response to the worldwide proliferation of deeply buried targets.

 

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has just completed a study, “Earth Penetrating Warheads against Deep Targets,” that examines arguments for the RNEP, analyses countermeasures, and calculates the consequences of using an RNEP. We find it comes up short on all accounts.

 

The study finds that the tactical justifications for the RNEP are inconsistent and unrealistic. The RNEP is required only if we need to destroy deep underground facilities. We will detect deep tunnels only by detecting the entrances. The entrances can be attacked with precision conventional weapons and sealed up. Conventional weapons can attack the power lines and communication links going in, the air and water supply, and the cooling system. RNEP is needed only if sealing up the entrances and isolating the facility, a so-called “functional defeat,” with conventional weapons is not adequate. For some reason the facility at the end of the tunnel has to be destroyed.

 

But consider the types of targets that the threat analysis suggests might be in deep tunnels. They are production or storage facilities for chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or protected hiding places or communications centers for military or civilian leadership. All of these targets can be divided into one of two categories. The first category, for example, a uranium enrichment facility or a communications center or a storage site for bulk chemical weapons, is effectively neutralized if it can be cut off by attacking the entrances with conventional weapons. The other category, for example, assembled nuclear bombs or a national leader in hiding, is small and easily moved and would not be in a vulnerable bunker to begin with. In the first case, destroying the entire tunnel is unnecessary; in the second case it is ineffective.

 

The FAS study also considered one particular countermeasure: digging deeper. It turns out that even if we want to attack deep targets, we cannot always do it. Any enemy can easily dig deep enough that even nuclear weapons can’t reach. RNEP is presented as being essential because so many potential enemies have built underground facilities that are just out of reach of our conventional weapons. This is no coincidence. Precision-guided weapons have made any surface target vulnerable, therefore nations have dug into rock for protection. How deep do they dig? As deep as they must to get beyond the reach of conventional weapons, then they stop. But there is no technical limit to digging deeper until they are out of reach of even extremely powerful nuclear weapons. Digging tunnels a kilometer deep in granite is not technically challenging and even megaton weapons cannot reach them. In these cases, whether we like it or not, we are going to be forced to go back to attacking the entrances to tunnels, which can be done with conventional weapons.

 

The FAS study looked at the consequences of using nuclear earth penetrators. There are two important misconceptions about nuclear earth penetrators that must be corrected to understand the aftereffects of a nuclear earth penetrator attack.

 

The first misconception is that the weapons will penetrate far into the earth to attack the deep target directly. This is not true. No weapon will penetrate more than ten or twenty meters into hard rock. But these few meters are critical. With a surface explosion, most of the energy of the bomb goes into a shockwave in the air. Buried just several meters, most of the energy goes into a shockwave in the earth. But it is the shockwave that goes down to destroy the target, not the bomb. The bomb is close to the surface and those few meters of rock will do nothing to contain the radioactivity. A huge cloud of radioactive fallout will spread dangerous levels of radiation over hundreds of square miles.

 

The second misconception confuses RNEP with the Administration’s exploration of concepts for small nuclear weapons. The RNEP is not a small weapon. The two candidate RNEP systems are the B61, with a yield estimated at 320 thousand tons of TNT, and the B83, with a yield estimated at 1.2 million tons of TNT. The B83 would blast out a crater over a thousand feet across and, if used in North Korea, would send a plume of radioactive fallout as far as Japan. Because it is the shockwave, not the bomb that goes down into the earth to destroy the buried facility, enormously powerful bombs are required. Smaller weapons simply do not have the reach.

 

RNEP looks appealing for attack of deeply buried targets because of the fallacy of the last move. Nations started digging to escape attack by precision-guided conventional weapons and they can simply dig some more in response to nuclear weapons. But there are other tactics, namely attacking the entrances and cutting off communication with the outside, achieving a functional defeat. This can be accomplished with current and planned conventional weapons.

Okay, I've also tested for this phenomenon and can confirm many aspects of it. I also used the DB2k v6.5.26 for my testing.

 

Test #1: I had 2 frigates approach one another. The ship was detected at 44 miles and visually confirmed at 20 miles.

 

Test #2: I ran it with between a pair of 2 Bang Rachan MCM vessels. They have radar effective up to 50nm. I detected the opposing MCM at 25nm and visually confirmed it at 10nm.

 

Test #3: I commanded the MCM and had the FF approach me. My radar detected the FF at 35nm and visually confirmed her at 18nm.

 

Test #4: I commanded the FF and had the MCM come to me. My radar detected the MCM at 36nm and visually confirmed at 17nm.

 

I also did some testing with the HUD/H3DB.

 

Test #5: I used 2x FF 1052s. The frigate was not detected by radar until 20nm!

 

Test #6: 2 PG Flyvefisken used. Detection at 25nm by radar.

 

My conclusions:

 

It is possible to have an effect on the detection horizon. I don't know the min/max parameters, but it appears as though the X-section values (or other factors) exert an influence on the range of detection. This is apparent as the smaller vessels [MCM and PG] seem to be able to get closer before being detected. The strength of the radar and mast height may also play a factor. Although the detection range appears to be a bit high, I don't know if it would be correct to conclude, just yet, that this is a 'bug'.

 

Let me know if this helps.

 

Cheers,

Herman

At the request of Ivan Rapkinov, here is a list of known 'Bugs' for Harpoon Classic Gold. Not all the behaviours described below are 'bugs'. Some are simply an explanation of how the game or scenario editor works.

 

If anyone believes that a particular bug has been fixed or is in error, please feel free to notify GameSquad so that this list can be amended.

 

Please note: This list is not meant as a criticism of an excellent and enjoyable game. The sole purpose of this list is to inform players of currently known issues and possibly help them to avoid problems.

 

EDIT: ONLY BUG/ISSUE POSTS WILL BE ADDED TO THIS THREAD - ANYTHING ELSE WILL BE DELETED!!! - IR

 

 

'Have Nap' AGMs --- Game Engine 2003.16b3

 

 

Have Nap malfunction --- SE HCCE B11

 

 

Adding aircraft in SE --- ScenEditor 16b3

 

 

Aircraft guns --- Game Engine 2003.16b3

 

 

ECM Area --- Game Engine 2003.16b3

 

 

Minefield Group --- GE 2003.16b3

 

 

 

Nuclear Release Authorization --- ScenEditor 2003.16b3

 

 

 

Separating air patrols from bases --- Game Engine 2003.16b3

 

 

Ship-to-ship torpedoes --- Game Engine 2003.16b3

 

 

Sub SSMs --- Game Engine 2003.16b3

 

 

Tankers refueling tankers --- Game Engine 2003.16b3

 

 

Weapons Display for bases --- ScenEditor 2003.16b3

 

 

Weapons allocation menu --- Game Engine 2003.16b3

 

 

Autosave time setting not saved --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Keyhole spots submerged objects --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Erroneous Staff warning message --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Red reports to Blue --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Neutral reports to Player --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Bearing-Only Launch Weapons --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Game crashes from flame-out --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Planes in limbo --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Cruise at full speed --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

EW planes do not jam --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

SE Count bug --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Shot down during landing --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Very High Altitude --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Manual Sonobuoy deployment --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Null groups --- SE HCCE B09

 

 

MiG-17F gun engagement --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Sonobuoy hotkey --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Dipping while cruising --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Dipping at Med Alt --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Unable to maintain depth --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Helo drops to low --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

MOAB release --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Target already destroyed --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

Neutrals cannot be engaged --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

 

Self-refueling Tanker --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

 

AAA altitude unlimited --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

 

Displays incongruent --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

 

BSL & Active Sonar --- GE HCCE B09

 

 

 

Null Bases --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

 

Sparrows firing without radar --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

Sparrows do not engage --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

Launch Limbo --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

Ferry unlimited --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

 

Target Saturated --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

 

Entering AAW Range --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

 

Hostile Neutrals --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

Hostile Neutrals B --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

Neutral Range Circles --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

 

Range miscalculation --- GE HCCE B10

 

 

 

Blank lines in Unit Display --- SE HCCE B11

 

 

 

SSMs don't fire --- GE HCCE B11

 

 

Kaman (Late) and PTM Houdong entries in the HCDB cause a crash if you attempt to look at their weapons load. -- SE HCCE B12

 

 

Contacts magically appear --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

Surface engagement window error --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

MAD contact by non-existent sensor --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

AAW fails to engage second SSM strike --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

Load sequence loop? --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

Formation air patrol will not engage --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

Group ignores speed order --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

Long names for saved games cause crash --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

Separating air units causes CTD --- GE HCCE B13

 

 

Base Addition --- SE HCCE B19

 

 

Multi-mount on FFG will not fire Harpoons --- GE HCG

 

At the request of Ivan Rapkinov, here is a partial list of known 'Bugs' for Harpoon 3. Not all the behaviours described below are 'bugs'. Some are simply an explanation of how the game or scenario editor works. Anomalies were reported by many various players of Harpoon.

 

If anyone believes that a particular bug has been fixed or is in error, please feel free to notify GameSquad so that this list can be amended.

 

Please note: This list is not meant as criticism of an excellent and enjoyable game. The sole purpose of this list is to inform players of currently known issues.

 

EDIT: ONLY BUG/ISSUE POSTS WILL BE ADDED TO THIS THREAD - ANYTHING ELSE WILL BE DELETED!!! - IR

1. AAA fire
    
   
   AAA guns are not limited by the altitude of the target and can even shoot down satellites.

   
    
   

2. Aircraft destroyed
    
   
   Aircraft destroyed on the ground/ship often do not get counted into Victory Conditions.

   
    
   

3. AI-Sonobuoys
    
   
   Sonobuoys deployed by AI are non-functional

   
    
   

   Work-around solution: Deploy sonobuoys manually or use units equipped with dipping sonar.

   
    
   

4. ASuW Patrols do not launch AShMs
    
   
   Aircraft on ASuW Patrol missions are often unable to launch AShMs due to mission parameters. The Patrol altitude of the mission may be incompatible with the min/max release altitude of their ordnance.
   
   
    
   
   
   Select ordnance that is not restricted by altitude parameters i.e. bombs

   
    
   

5. Aircraft Logistics
    
   
   Aircraft will almost never run out of ammunition. When aircraft land, even if the ammo dump is empty or destroyed, most will almost always be given the same loadout they had upon landing.

   
    
   

6. Aircraft ignore Nav Zones
    
   
   Some aircraft on missions are able to fly through Nav Zones.
   
   
    
   
   
   Work-around solution: Draw a double-thick Nav zone or draw an additional Nav Zone just inside another Nav Zone.

   
    
   

7. Automatic contact classification
    
   
   The true type classification of a contact is automatically revealed when it is designated hostile by the hotkey.

   
    
   

8. Battleset window
    
   
   When viewing the Battleset loading window, it is not possible to view the orders for individual scenarios. The scenario is automatically loaded if it is selected instead of pausing to allow the player to view the orders first.

   
    
   

9. Circling torpedoes
    
   
   Torpedoes destroy their launching platform. Sometimes this causes a problem for the Victory Condition manager.

   
   

10. Date
     
    
    It is not possible to change the year of a scenario once it has been selected.

    
     
    

11. Time of day
     
    
    Night and day are reversed so that daytime is actually 1801 to 0559.

    
     
    

12. Edit Aircraft function
     
    
    Use of the Edit Aircraft function on a group or base that has pre-set air patrols will cause air formation patrols to be cancelled.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Re-assign the air formation patrols.

    
    

13. Facility magazines do not re-load
     
    
    Facilities cannot accept re-loads from their magazines

    
     
    

14. Ferry Mission Crash
     
    
    If you set up a delayed Ferry mission and the receiving/landing facility (revetment/airfield) is destroyed (or deleted by the designer) before the mission is activated, the game will crash when the AI tries to launch the Ferry mission.

    
     
    

15. Fire Report
     
    
    Unit report indicates a fire is present even after a message is received that the fire has been extinguished.

    
     
    

16. Fixed unit names
     
    
    Groups can be re-named but the player is unable to re-name individual units on his side.

    
     
    

17. Group Nav Zone Settings
     
    
    The Nav Zone settings for a Group are not adopted by the individual units forming that Group. i.e. If you order a TF to avoid Ship Threat Zone [A], the Group icon will avoid the Threat Zone but the individual ships of the Group will sail into the Threat Zone.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Set the Nav Zone parameters for each unit individually.

    
     
    

18. Group aerial re-fueling
     
    
    Groups are unable to perform aerial re-fueling
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Re-fuel individually before endurance level drops below 50%

    
     
    

19. Hangar Capacity
     
    
    Example: The SE allows you to add 2 helos (the maximum allowed) to a ship. If you only launch a single helo, it cannot be manually ordered to land on the ship unless the second helo is also airborne/launched. However, when the helo runs low on fuel, the AI automatically returns it to the ship.

    
     
    

20. Identification failure
     
    
    Sometimes, when you hit the Database button for a unit, only one possible identity is shown but the unit display will still describe it as Unknown.

    
     
    

21. In-flight refueling is too fast
     
    
    Successful in-flight refueling of an F-111 from a KC130 only takes about 1 minute. This seems too fast.

    
     
    

22. Initial sub depths
     
    
    Sub units inserted with the SE start at -100m regardless of the local conditions. This makes them invisible in Shallow waters and they remain at this depth until ordered to change speed or depth.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Insert subs and immediately order them to change their speed/depth so that they comply with local conditions.

    
     
    

23. Invisible ASW attack
     
    
    Subs under attack from depth charges or ASW mortars will not know that they are under attack becaue no attack warning is given nor is an explosion icon is displayed.

    
     
    

24. Invisible units can be detected
     
    
    Some invisible units whose radar IR and visual signature is -32000

    
     
    

25. Launch Altitudes
     
    
    Aircraft instantaneously appear at high altitude without needing to climb to it after launch.

    
     
    

26. Launch and immediate landing
     
    
    Aircraft launched without mission orders automatically land themselves immediately.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Set all A/C on missions or else take control of aircraft IMMEDIATELY after they are finished launching.

    
     
    

27. Long ready times
     
    
    Aircraft with Minimal loadouts will not accept long ready times but will revert to either 30 min. or 0 min. ready times.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Set aircraft to any other mission for long delay time.

    
     
    

28. LongMathError
     
    
    GE crashes when doing complex calculations involving units moving at high speed. This is due to the integer math system. Problem appears to be most often encountered when SLBMs launched. ICBMs seem to be okay.

    
     
    

29. Mount Underrun
     
    
    Mounts sometimes jammed with high number (6#,###+ in display) when left in weapons-free mode.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Do not use Weapons-free mode. Control all mounts manually.

    
     
    

30. Naval Ground Strike Mission
     
    
    Ships that are grouped together and on a ground strike mission will fire missiles, but
    will not
    close on the target to engage with naval gunfire.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Individual ships do not suffer from this bug. Either delete and re-insert the ships or else the group can be broken down by using the "Detach Unit" function in the Formation Editor.

    
     
    

31. Naval Nukes
     
    
    The AI is unable to fire nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from naval units. Aircraft, SLBMs, and land facilities are unaffected.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: This only applies to ASuW Area Patrol missions. Missiles will launch on strike missions.

    
     
    

32. Nuclear Blast/Implosions
     
    
    Units destroyed by fire/nuclear blast/implosion may not register in the evaluation or ViConds

    
     
    

33. Protect Station ViCond Unreliable
     
    
    This Victory Condition evaluates erratically and unpredictably usually when losses occur to the units stated in the condition.

    
     
    

34. Ready Time glitch
     
    
    Aircraft are sometimes inexplicibly given very long ready times during aircraft operations. This may have originally been intended to simulate mechanical breakdowns.

    
     
    

35. Replenishment at-sea
     
    
    Non-functional

    
     
    

36. Shift+Click does not select multiple units/groups
     
    
    Shift+Click only works to add units to a single/group of units already selected by the Drag Select function.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Drag Select at least one unit and then add other units with Shift+Click

    
     
    

37. Scenario Editor Incompatibility
     
    
    Scenarios that have been run in the Scenario Editor (pre-3.6.3 version) and then had their date and time elapsed re-set by the Scenario Editor, cannot be opened by the latest version of the SE 3.6.3 nor by the GE 3.6.3.

    
     
    

38. Strange behaviour of a/c in a group
     
    
    Aircraft in a plotted group whose speed has been manually set lower than the aircraft's normal cruise speed will continue to fly at cruise speed and not at the speed of the group.

    
     
    

39. Sub kills not in Evaluation
     
    
    Submarines are sometimes destroyed without appearing in the evaluation. One theory is that the killing torpedo is not detected and thus the hit and ensuing destruction is not "seen" and cannot be evaluated properly. The unit is removed from play but not recorded in the evaluation.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Tally sub kills manually OR save often and use the SE to manually verify sub destruction.

    
     
    

40. Sub speed
     
    
    Subs travelling at 35kts at deep depth will not reduce speed if local conditions force it to periscope depth.

    
     
    

41. Time Zones
     
    
    The H3 world revolves in the opposite direction to real life when calculating Time Zones. Game time is listed in terms of Zulu (GMT). If the scenario is one time zone East of GMT, you would normally ADD one hour to Zulu time to find the local time. However, H3 SUBTRACTS one hour instead.

    
     
    

42. Units ignore PZ EmCon
     
    
    Units sometimes ignore the EmCon of their patrol station

    
     
    

43. Viewing Logistics with ScenEditor
     
    
    Do not use the ScenEditor with Aircraft Logistics activated if you are editing aircraft missions. The editor will cause all the aircraft at the facility/ship to revert to unassigned status.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Use the SE only with the Aircraft Logistics function disabled.

    
     
    

44. Visual ID
     
    
    Ships are visually detected at approximately 35nm range regardless of their actual visual signature.

    
     
    

45. Aircraft unable to locate Runways
     
    
    Aircraft directly inserted into a scenario are unable to locate appropriate runways to land on their own initiative. Aircraft that normally require Large runways to launch/land will only land on Very Large runways. If only Large runways are available, they will crash. Aircraft requiring Medium runways will only land on Large runways when directly inserted. This is applicable for all aircraft directly inserted. They need a runway one size larger than the length specified in the database.
    
    
     
    
    
    Aircraft launching from bases and aircraft ordered by the designer to land are not affected by this bug.

    
     
    

46. Facilities cannot be indexed
     
    
    Subs, aircraft, and ships are indexed in the PlayersDB. Some facilities were indexed for Belarus. However, when using the SE and indexation feature and trying to select facilities for insertion, the wrong facility always appears.

    
     
    

47. Individual plane evasion
     
    
    Lone aircraft will automatically evade when confronted with ANY missiles. Single fighters are unable to approach a stream of TLAM from the front. They automatically dive and attempt to evade. They are able to engage from the flanks. Groups of aircraft do not suffer from this problem.

    
     
    

48. Under-ice TLAM launch
     
    
    TLAM are able to launch when under the ice cap.

    
     
    

49. Weapon ranges less than one ignored
     
    
    Any weapon that has a range less than 1.0 nm, cannot be fired by the AI. However, the player is able to utilize these weapons manually and they appear to operate at the correct range. I do not know if missions created by the player will suffer this restriction, but I suspect that they will since Missions are under AI control.

    
     
    

50. Fire and land immediately
     
    
    Any aircraft that fire while not assigned to a mission, will immediately land even if they have plentiful ammunition / fuel remaining.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Ensure that all aircraft have at least a Plotted mission before firing.

    
     
    

51. Ships sail over land
     
    
    Ships are sometimes able to sail over land.

    
     
    

52. Emcon at Waypoints
     
    
    Aircraft will obey waypoint EmCon commands if the plane is currently either ACTIVE or PASSIVE (not intermittent). Once the aircraft receives a command to radiate Intermittently, either at the start or at a waypoint, no other EmCon commands will be accepted at future waypoints.

    
     
    

53. Hovering group moves
     
    
    Group of helicopters is given a plotted path and then ordered to hover. When one of them is destroyed, the rest start moving along the path at cruise speed.

    
     
    

54. Active sonar at Creep
     
    
    Active sonar from MCM vessels cannot locate an object while the MCM is moving at Creep speed. However, once the ship starts moving at Cruise Speed, the sub contact magically appears.

    
     
    

55. Submarine insertion at Int depth
     
    
    Submarine are always inserted at Int depth regardless of the actual depth possible.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Order the unit to change depth right after it is inserted. The unit will then respect the actual depth at that point on the map.

    
     
    

56. Max depth determined by engine
     
    
    Max depth that a submarine can dive to is determined by the engine / propulsion unit and not the depth field in the Sub Data annex.

    
     
    

57. Relief patrols launch individually
     
    
    Aircraft assigned to area patrols may launch as a group when the patrol is first activated. However, relief aircraft arrive as individual units.

    
     
    

58. Hidden units killed in a group
     
    
    Units that are meant to be Hidden / non-auto-detected can be hit and destroyed if they are part of a group and the group is the target.

    
     
    

59. Empty sides
     
    
    All sides in a scenario must have at least one unit in it and one unit must be designated the flagship. If this unit(s) is missing, the scenario will crash when opened by the Game Engine.

    
     
    

60. Planes directly inserted
     
    
    Planes directly inserted into a scenario may not properly re-build and, as a result, may cause a crash when the scenario is run with the Game Engine.

    
     
    

61. Firing arcs ignored
     
    
    When firing manually, weapon arcs are ignored and all weapons may be brought to bear.

    
     
    

62. Subs in groups
     
    
    Subs joined with groups are automatically assigned a formation patrol zone on the ASW axis that cannot be changed or modified.

    
     
    

63. Large scenarios cause crash
     
    
    Starting large scenarios at high time compression rates may cause a crash.
    
    
     
    
    
    Work-around solution: Ensure scenario starts at 1:1 compression by hitting the "-" [minus] hotkey to bring the time compression rate down.

    
     
    

64. Fixed ranges for bombs/rockets
     
    
    Maximum range for bombs and rockets is fixed at 2nm regardless of the range a database editor may assign.

    
     
    

65. Re-loading
     
    
    Weapons will re-load the first weapon listed in the magazine and not necessarily the weapon that was recently fired.

    
     
    

66. Land-based radar
     
    
    Land-based radar is able to see through mountains.

    
     
    

67. Plane revert to cruise speed
     
    
    Individual planes always return to cruise speed after they are given new paths. This does not occur for groups.

    
     
    

68. Hangar overload
     
    
    It is possible to land many more aircraft than the hangar capacity allows.

    
     
    

69. Damaged fields do not impede landing
     
    
    When runways are damaged and no long sufficient to allow planes to launch, planes are still able to land once they run low on fuel if they originally launched from that airfield.

    
     
    

70. ScenEdit ammo key
     
    
    The Enter Amount of Ammo button does not accept numbers if the maximum number of weapons is already loaded.

    
     
    

71. Planes in the process of launching can move
     
    
    Plane groups in the process of launching can move before the entire group is airborne.

    
     
    

72. ASuW mission altitude
     
    
    Planes on the ASuW Area Patrol mission are often unable to fire their weapons due to differences between the mission altitude parameters and the weapon release parameters.

    
     
    

73. ScenEdit and Vestigal Loadouts
     
    
    When aircraft loadouts are changed or deleted in the database, it is not always possible to see this in the ScenEditor. The weapons for the deleted loadout appear in the SE, but when the player opens the scenario with the GE, the planes revert to the minimal (unloaded) loadout.

    
     
    

74. AI inside Minimum Launch Range
     
    
    If an AI unit finds itself inside the Minimum Launch Range of its weapons, it is unable to move away in order to fire its weapons.

    
     
    

75. LR SAMs have no ASuW capability
     
    
    Long-Ranged SARH SAMs cannot be given ASuW capability even if they have this ability in real life. Otherwise, they attempt to launch at vessels over the horizon and end up crashing into the sea.

    
     
     
    

76. AI unable to intercept
     
    
    Aircraft manually ordered to intercept with either the F1 function or the [F6] Air Intercept function are often unable to calculate a course to intercept the target, especially if the target is not perfectly located.

    
     
    

77. MAD contact for ground facilities
     
    
    The MAD detector is able to detect ground facilities.

    
     
     
    

78. Installations bug
     
    
    When trying to insert an installation, an error is reported: "ios_base failure in clear"

    
     
    

79. Sonobuoy battery endurance
     
    
    Battery endurance for sonobuoys is irrelevant.

    
     
     
    

80. ARMs cause planes to hang
     
    
    Aircraft armed with Anti-Radiation Missiles and bombs will continue to hang over a target once the bombs are released if they have not fired their ARMs. This will occur even if ARMs cannot be fired at the target in question.

    
     
     
    

81. ASW Weapons ignore depth
     
    
    Weapons limited to shallow depth are able to attack and destroy targets at VDeep depth.

    
     
     
    

82. Weapons ignore range
     
    
    Weapons can ignore their range and destroy targets further than the maximum allowed range.

    
     
     
    

83. Fly off the world
     
    
    It is possible for aircraft to fly off the edge of the map and crash the game.

    
     
     
    

84. Sail over land
     
    
    It is possible to purposely sail ships over land under certain conditions.

    
     
     
    

85. 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.

    
     
     
    

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

    
     
    

87. Sonobuoy deployment altitude
     
    
    Sonobuoys can be deployed at any altitude.

    
     
    

88. Sonobuoy datalink cannot be turned off
     
    
    Although the manual says that sonobuoys can be dropped / discarded by turning off the Comm Datalink to them, this is not true under any realism setting.

    
     
    

89. Propulsion ranges import improperly
     
    
    Propulsion ranges do not import to the Reimer Editor properly. Ranges with a speed of Zero will not import even when those ranges are required for proper platform behaviour in units such as mines and false contacts.

    
    

Malaysia Summons Indonesia Envoy over Sea Dispute

By REUTERS, KUALA LUMPUR

From DefenceNews.

 

Malaysia has summoned Indonesia’s ambassador and sent a protest note after ships from the neighbors’ navies confronted each other in disputed waters, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said April 14.

 

Malaysia would continue to patrol potentially oil-rich waters off Indonesia’s East Kalimantan province, despite Jakarta’s objections, Syed Hamid said, and added Indonesia already has protested the encounter.

 

“Indonesia’s note said it is their area and they disagreed with Malaysia’s presence there,” he told reporters. “We also sent a protest note after the incident.”

 

Indonesia’s navy said the ships “brushed” when the Indonesian vessel tried to drive the Malaysian ship away from its territorial waters last week. Some newspapers reported the vessels had collided three times but that no one had been hurt.

 

Following the incident, the leaders of both nations spoke by telephone to try to ease tensions between the two oil-producing states.

 

Jakarta sent warships and fighter jets to the area last month after the dispute flared. Both countries have since agreed to resolve matters peacefully.

 

The disputed waters lie close to the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan, which Indonesia lost to Malaysia in a legal battle in the International Court of Justice in December 2002.

 

The neighbors rely heavily on oil and gas for revenues and each has awarded exploration contracts in the disputed area. Last year, Indonesia awarded one to U.S.-based oil firm Unocal Corp. Malaysia recently granted exploration rights to Anglo-Dutch oil firm Royal Dutch/Shell.

 

Exploration work has yet to begin.

 

Syed Hamid said the Malaysian navy required no permission to enter the area as “it is within our maritime border”.

 

“Both (countries) have different opinions. We will continue patrolling the area that we consider is ours,” he said. “We have not taken any action that is considered as provocative or aggressive because it is in our area.”

 

Naval chiefs of both countries will meet in Indonesia’s Batam island near Singapore later this week to try to resolve the disagreement.

Seagoing Radar Rig Placed atop XBR Platform

 

By GLENN W. GOODMAN Jr.

April 14, 2005

From DefenceNews.

 

A 2,000-ton phased-array X-Band Radar (XBR) designed for ballistic missile defense was placed atop the Sea-Based XBR platform, a nine-story converted oil-drilling rig, at a shipyard in Corpus Christi, Texas, on April 3. The oceangoing, football-field-sized platform was set to relocate to the Gulf of Mexico for verification testing. This summer, it begins a five-to-seven-month voyage around Cape Horn to its primary base at Adak in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. The Sea-Based XBR will gather data in Missile Defense Agency Ballistic Missile Defense System tests across the Pacific Ocean and will track missiles launched from Asia, particularly from North Korea and China. It will link to the system’s nerve center in Colorado Springs, Colo., and to ground-based interceptor missiles being deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The powerful radar was designed and built by Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, Tewksbury, Mass.

Taiwan Mulling New Generation of Jet Fighters

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, TAIPEI

Originally from DefenceNews.

 

Taiwan said April 12 it is considering buying a new generation of jet fighters in order to prevent the balance of power shifting in rival China’s favor in the event of an EU arms embargo being lifted.

 

Taiwan Defense Minister Lee Jye said he had ordered a study on obtaining the new fighters after reports that French company Dassault Aviation, which had sold the island Mirage jets, may provide its latest line of fighters to the mainland.

 

In reply to questions raised in parliament, Lee said the ministry was alarmed by the reports that Dassault may sell China its Mirage 2000-9s, which are superior to the 60 Mirage 2000-5s it sold to Taiwan in the 1990s.

 

The French aircraft maker had told Taiwan’s government it was unlikely to sell Beijing jet fighters before the European Union lifts its arms embargo on China, Lee said.

 

“But sooner or later, it may sell fighter jets to the Chinese communists, and should that happen, it would help contribute to the tipping of military balance in the Taiwan Strait,” he said.

 

Lee said that last year he had ordered “the air force to evaluate the plan about the acquisition of the third-generation fighters.”

 

He did not elaborate, but air force lieutenant-general Peng Sheng-chu told parliament April 11 that to counter the threat, the air force may buy US-made F-35s, F-15s, F-18s or upgrade its existing F-16 fleet.

 

The backbone of Taiwan’s air force is made up of about 150 F-16s, 60 Mirage 2000-5s and 130 home-grown Indigenous Defensive Fighters.

 

The European Union is debating whether it should lift the arms embargo it imposed after the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy students in Beijing.

 

The EU had agreed in December to the principle of ending the ban, but support for the move has waned since the Chinese parliament on March 14 passed a controversial anti-secession law, which authorizes the use of military force against Taiwan if the island moves toward formal independence

Taiwan To Mass Produce Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, TAIPEI

 

Originally posted to DefenceNews

 

Taiwan plans to mass produce supersonic anti-ship missiles to beef up the island’s defense capabilities against China following successful test firings of the weaponry, a report said April 11.

 

The defense ministry next year would set aside a budget for mass production of the Hsiung Feng III missile, which is expected to make its debut during the 2006 “Han Kuang 22” exercise, the Chinese-language China Times said.

 

Given its speed and capability of flying at low altitude, the missile would be difficult to intercept, it said.

 

The Hsiung Feng III is capable of cruising at mach 2.5 and has a range of up to 150 kilometers (90 miles), it said.

 

Once the navy was equipped with the weaponry, the island would be one of the few countries in the world to be armed with supersonic anti-ship missiles, the paper said.

 

The defense ministry declined to comment on the report

 

The missile, developed by the military-run Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology, is expected to be a match for the Russia-made SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missile China has obtained, it said.

 

“Both missiles are close in precision and capabilities, but the Feng III is smaller, thus reducing the chance of its being detected.”

 

According to a report in Jane’s Defence Weekly last year, the Hsiung Feng III can be fitted with a variety of guidance systems and function as an anti-ship, land-attack or anti-radar missile.

 

Taiwan is striving to build up its missile defense capabilities to counter the military threat from China, which officials said was targeting the island with at least 700 ballistic missiles.

 

Taiwan’s cabinet last month approved a revised arms deal with the United States worth almost $15.5 billion after the previous proposal was rejected by parliament.

 

The arms package over a 15-year period from 2005, pending final approval by parliament, includes eight conventional submarines, a modified version of the Patriot anti-missile system and a fleet of anti-submarine aircraft.

 

The massive budget proposal has stirred heated debate on the island as critics said the spending could further provoke China and heighten cross-strait tensions.

Greece Rethinks Eurofighter Deal

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, ATHENS

 

Originally posted to DefenceNews

 

Greece is reconsidering a project by the former Socialist government to buy 60 Eurofighter jets for its air force, the defense ministry said here on April 9.

 

As both the Greek prime minister and defense minister are due to visit the United States in the coming weeks, the press here is speculating the government may choose the U.S. F-16 instead.

 

“The government has so far made no decision concerning the choice of company from which to buy the fourth generation jets. All options remain open,” defense ministry spokesman Stephanos Guikas told AFP.

 

“A decision on the matter of our arms program for the 2006-2010 period will be taken in the coming months,” he added.

 

The former Socialist government’s decision to buy 60 Eurofighter jets from the European air and space consortium EADS was frozen when the conservative New Democracy party won a general election in March 2004.

 

Greek Defense Minister Spilios Spiliotopoulos is to visit Washington in late April for what Guikas said would be a “political-military meeting for talks on bilateral relations between NATO and Greece.”

 

Greek Prime Minister Costas Caramanlis will visit the United States in late May.

Take a look here: http://www.advancedgaming.biz/index.php?ce...id=43&sub_id=70

 

It appears as though there is a way for you to purchase without a credit card. Hope to see you aboard with the HC Commanders Edition soon.

JFK Overhaul Work Stopped

By WILLIAM H. MCMICHAEL

 

Defense News

 

The Navy has canceled a scheduled $335 million overhaul of the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy, a move that likely cements plans to inactivate or decommission the flattop and reduce the Navy’s formidable carrier fleet from 12 to 11.

 

The Navy emphasized it has not firmed up its ultimate plans for the Mayport, Fla.-based Kennedy, to the disappointment of Florida’s congressional delegation and proponents of a 12-carrier Navy. “The final decision on the ship’s decommissioning and inactivation status is still pending,” said Lt. Chris Servello, a Navy spokesman.

 

The Navy, however, had long planned the overhaul, saying it was necessary to extend the aged carrier’s service life to 2018.

 

“This was expected, and it won’t change my approach,” said Rep. Anders Crenshaw, R-Fla., whose district includes Mayport, in a statement supplied by his office. “I will continue to work through the process to make certain we maintain a sound carrier strategy that benefits our national security. The Navy still hasn’t made a convincing argument for reducing the carrier force. As the Navy has repeatedly stated, quantity has a quality all its own.”

 

The decision, announced Friday, also officially halts the home port shift associated with the overhaul. Work was to begin pierside at Kennedy’s Mayport, Fla., home port this spring and then continue at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va., with final work to be done back in Mayport, Servello said.

 

In an effort to forestall the economic blow Mayport would suffer if Kennedy were mothballed, the Florida delegation also has lobbied the Navy to upgrade the base to handle a nuclear carrier.

 

In March, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the Navy intends to have two nuclear carrier home ports on the East Coast, and that he supports moving a nuclear carrier to Mayport.

 

In addition, Florida’s delegation introduced legislation earlier this year to require the Navy to maintain a 12-carrier fleet. That legislation has not yet been taken up by the respective House and Senate committees.

 

Two years ago, the Navy spent $300 million on the first phase of an overhaul on the carrier that Navy officials admitted in 2002 had been long neglected. After a 2004 deployment completed in December, the Navy planned to finish the job for an estimated $335 million. The bulk of the work was to be done at Norfolk Naval Shipyard.

 

A Navy official said that money would be spent on other maintenance projects to lessen the blow to industry.

Diesel-electric subs can pressurize China: official (updated AM 00:15)

 

2005/3/25

The China Post staff

 

In a bid to drum up further support for a controversial billion dollar U.S. arms deal, a defense ministry official yesterday said eight diesel-electric submarines in the U.S. weapons package would be able to attack crucial Chinese supply lines if a war broke out.

The official's comments came as the Legislature prepares to deliberate a special NT$480 billion budget for purchasing the diesel electric submarines along with anti-submarine aircraft and patriot anti-missile systems from America.

 

U.S. officials say the purchase is vital for Taiwan's friendship with America but many opposition politicians have doubts about the pricey purchase.

 

A leading analyst with the defense department Lin Chin-ching told the Legislature the defense ministry was assuming China would have the ability to go to war with Taiwan in 2012 and would be able to conduct a long-range war in 2020.

 

In the 2020 war scenario, Lin said, China would heavily rely on sea lines to import crucial energy sources, mineral products and food stuffs.

 

The military was anticipating China's anti-submarine forces would be limited and the eight diesel-electric submarines could be used to put direct or indirect pressure on China's sea lanes.

 

Lin said 90 percent of energy resources used by China's navy was imported. In 2020, China was expected to use around 40 300-ton oil tankers in its sea warfare. China's Achilles heel in this area was its reliance on imported oil, Lin said.

 

"The submarines would have a strategic use as a deterrent," said Navy commander Li Hai-tung.

 

But Lin did not deny the eight diesel-electric submarines could be used for an attack if necessary.

 

The defense ministry anticipated China's oil storage capacity in the event of war to be 30 days in 2005, 50 days in 2010 and 90 days in 2020.

 

"This reveals that China's oil storage capacity currently falls beneath its actual needs," Lin said.

 

"China's oil storage capacity has become our strategic target and an area where we could cause serious harm."

 

Lin said Taiwan also relied heavily on imports coming in from sea lanes but said this further emphasized the need to upgrade the island's military capabilities.

 

Lin said that both in terms of quality and in sheer numbers, it was hard for Taiwan to match China's growing naval might.

 

Opposition Kuomintang legislator Ting Shou-chung was skeptical, asking if this meant the military had the right to attack any cargo ship heading for China in the event of war.

 

Defense Minister Lee Jye said the military could only attack ships bearing China's five-star national flag after war was declared.

 

"The effectiveness of this strategy is limited ... but it's still a strategy that can bring some results," Lee told the Legislature, saying the presence of the submarines would make China uncomfortable.

 

Ting said he still suspected the military could be manipulating the media by releasing this information. He said China was an important trading partner for many countries and Taiwan staging a blockade of Chinese shipping lines would make the island an enemy of the rest of the world.

 

The special budget for the U.S. arms deal was originally NT$610.8 billion but the opposition-dominated Legislature refused to pass it last year, with opposition politicians saying the price tag was too high and the money would be better spent on social welfare.

At least 2 new members have been added to the Harpoon Classic community due directly to this report.

 

Atta boy, Brad!

Firstly, a word of caution. In Self-Defence is not a scenario for the faint of heart, or the "PC processor challenged". I spent most of my time playing at 1:1 time compression. That's not to say someone with only a little Harpoon experience, or a slower PC, shouldn't try it. Just be prepared for some long delays.

 

 

“Do not fire unless fired upon.” No fighter pilot in the world acknowledges fear but these are the six scariest words in the fighter pilot lexicon.

 

After issuing orders to prepare for a brutal aerial assault, I launched my AEW [Airborne Early Warning] and CAP [Combat Air Patrol] missions. My men, true to their Bushido code, solemnly walked to their aircraft. This was going to prove a difficult day for the JASDF.

 

My airborne controllers soon gave warnings of multiple bogeys and suspected them to be Fulcrums and Flankers. A quick look in the weapons database revealed that not only would my pilots restricted to return fire when fired upon, but that they were fairly significantly out-ranged by the enemy AAMs [Air-to-Air Missiles]. Talk about the proverbial rock and a hard place.

 

However, my pilots had their own ideas on how to circumvent their orders. Before launching on their missions, they had visited the base library and brushed up on their Russian. As they neared the bogeys, the pilots broke EmCon [Emissions Control] and switched their radios over to international Guard frequencies. Soon, cries of “Yob’ tvoyu maht!” could be overheard. They were simply applying a tactic first employed by “Pappy” Boyington (U.S.M.C.) 60 years prior against Japan. These insults quickly caused the Russian pilots to lose their temper and fire their AAMs at maximum range.

 

 

Once fired upon, they were able to respond in kind. By provoking the attack from maximum range, the JASDF was able to escape with the loss of only 4 planes while hammering their opponents as they aggressively pursued.

 

The fact that the Russians were supported by EW [Electronic Warfare] assets was quickly seen. It was very cool to watch the radar displays go to hash as ECM systems were activated. However, I would have been much happier to “do unto others” instead of having them “do unto me”. The lack of EW support in the JASDF inventory was sorely felt.

 

Strikers began to materialize near La Perouse Strait. From the number of resources the enemy was committing to the area, it was obvious that the enemy wanted that strait open very badly. A number of attacks from Fencers were barely defeated before their weapons release points. Two high velocity skunks were detected in transit through the strait. They turned out to be Lun-class PTMs capable of over 200kts! The SSMs [surface-to-Surface Missiles] on those vessels were very bad news indeed. The land-based SSM system was able to salvo their missiles just before incoming ALCMs [Air-Launched Cruise Missiles] destroyed their installations. The aerial attacks were very nicely coordinated with passage of the PTMs. It almost worked.

 

 

While the CAPs were slugging it out with the strikers, enemy fighters chased my AEW support all over the sky. Fighters were quickly re-cycled and managed to launch and slay the interlopers just minutes before they would have been able to kill these priceless ‘eyes in the sky’. Slowly but surely, the aerial situation was taken in hand.

 

SS Asashio was stumbled upon by a group of four ships which she quickly dispatched with well placed torpedoes. SS Wakashio detected the Kuznetsov CVBG but quickly decided to call on support from the air bases due to the heavy ASW support evident. Standoff missiles quickly dispatched the group.

 

While enroute to the Kuriles, an MCM [Mine-CounterMeasures] vessel suddenly exploded! Somehow, an SAG [surface Action Group] had managed to penetrate to SSM range under the fog created by the ECM. The Amphibs quickly radiated their defensive SAM systems while returning fire with SSMs. Luckily, the destruction of the MCM gave sufficient warning to the TF commander so that no additional damage was suffered. It was a very close encounter with the final missiles being destroyed by the Close-in-Weapons Systems [CIWS].

 

Once air supremacy had been seized over the Japanese territory and an electronic picket fence had been established, it was easy to move my assets to the disupted territory. An air strike on the base at Etorofu was successful in silencing it and victory was awarded.

 

This is a great scenario to see some new platforms that I had not seen before. Many were very big surprises to me. I did not realize just how short the legs were on an F-1 until I tried to order one on an intercept mission.

 

Thanks very much for sharing another exceptional scenario with the community.