hoydie17

They actually play that snippet at Verizon Center when the CAPS are down late in the game. LOL

Amazing, the first round was better than the 2nd round. . . . . the only matchup that's proving to be interesting so far is the Dallas/San Jose series, but I'm hoping Dallas finishes them off tonight. With the exit of the Habs, I no longer have any interest in the playoffs, other than seeing San Jose and Pittsburgh lose. . . .

Pens looked to have their feathers ruffled a little bit, see that slick little slew foot by Malkin? Think he'll get penalized for it by the league? I doubt it, given the Commish loves the Penguins and anything Crosby. Had it been Pronger, Brashear or Cote, or someone of that variety, there'd be at least a single game if not 3 game suspension.

You know it's gotta be pretty bad when the INDIANS send you back for asbestos problems. . . . .

You and me both, and if they ever do, the ship will be of limited utility. Shame, really. Agreed, every year she sits welded to the pier is a year of potential service life out the window.

Sean Avery (NYR) was taken to the hospital in cardiac arrest, wow. Hope he's okay, even though he is a jacka$$. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/r...y_hospital.html

I'll be surprised if India ever gets the Gorshkov. . . .

Well, this is always a subject in the real world of great debate. Sure the "soft kill" keeps the missile from hitting YOUR ship, but the missile seeker will continue to search for another target until it crashes into something or runs out of fuel. Modern day SWO's (Surface Warfare Officers) prefer the romantic idea of a hard-kill because they can brag about how great SSDS and AEGIS are later on, but unless you're on a carrier or amphib with RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) you're only real defense if SM-2's miss will be softkill such as jamming, expendable decoys. CIWS is good for targets that plod along on a relatively straight course towards the ship, but for many contemporary ASCM's, CIWS cannot engage weapons with high-G terminal maneuvers such as an SS-N-22. The thing is, some contemporary systems lock on to their chosen target shortly before they go "terminal" and if somehow they manage to miss their target due to softkill techniques, they'll have very little, if any, flight time remaining before they crash anyways, such as the Novator Alfa. So even if flythrough does occur, there is a reasonable chance that the missile may crash seconds after it misses it's intended target.

Greetings, and here we are with my first textual spillage of absolutely useless information about Electronics Warfare and how it's employed in Naval/Maritime warfare. So what is Electronics Warfare (EW)? I'll start by telling you what is isn't; It's not shooting missiles, guns or torpedoes, if you want skin on skin contact with targets and ordnance, I suggest going down the passageway and talking to those Fire Control guys. EW is often the red-headed stepchild of warfare in general, especially in Naval Warfare, as the benefit of EW Technicians is pretty much discounted unless the ship is staring down several incoming Anti-Shipping Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) and my "boys" down in the Fire Control shop are wetting their pants because AEGIS has once again shown them how spectacularly it can let them down. ;-) Or the Operations Specialists need someone to clean passageways for them the night before pulling into a foreign port. (Generally, the latter case is the most common.) Electronics Warfare by definition is the use of the electromagnetic spectrum to effectively deny the use of this medium by an adversary, while optimizing its use by friendly forces. (Wikipedia Definition) It is commonly divided into three sub-categories, Electronic Support (ES), Electronic Attack (EA), and Electronic Protect (EP), formerly known as ESM, ECM, and ECCM respectively. ES is the methods and technolgy used to exploit the enemy's use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum to detect, identify, locate, track and ultimately see to the enemy's untimely demise. Information gathered while conducting ES operations is typically referred to as Electronics Intelligence (ELINT) and falls under the broader scope of Signals Intelligence or SIGINT. Some fairly simple examples of ES in the Maritime domain are: - Submarines lingering off a hostile shore collecting electronic signals for processing - Surface ships detecting approaching aircraft by intercepting emissions from the aircraft radars. - Recon aircraft detecting the presence of enemy ships from communications intercept or radar signal intercepts. EA is the means by which a military force uses the Electromagnetic Spectrum to degrade or deny their adversary the use of the same. Effectively, making it more difficult for the enemy to conduct Electronic Support operations. Electronic attack can be broken down into two sub categories; Electronic and Mechanical. Mechanical EA is the use of physical objects such as Chaff or expendable decoys to deceive or otherwise negate the enemy's efforts to engage friendly forces. Where Electronic EA is the use on non-physical objects such as RF Radiation (i.e. jamming or meaconing) to negate enemy efforts to attack. Some fairly simple examples of EA in the Maritime domain are: - Electronic Warfare aircraft executing RF Jamming to deny the enemy the ability to see or detect the composition and posture of a task force or incoming air strike. - Surface ships launching chaff to confuse seekers on incoming missiles. - Engaging enemy radar sites with Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs) such as AGM-88 HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile) Electronic Protect is interesting as it consists of a combination of both ES and EA to be successful, by definition is the means and technology used to ensure friendly use of the electromagnetic spectrum in the presence of enemy EA operations. Essentially, making sure my task force can still detect an incoming thread despite the enemy's best efforts to conceal their presence. Some fairly simple examples of EP in the Maritime domain are: - Increasing the power output of an air search radar to "burnthrough" enemy jamming. - Frequency shifting of radar and comm signals to minimize the effect of enemy jamming. - Chaff discrimination software in the seekers of ASCMs. So that is a very simple (perhaps oversimplified) description of Electronic Warfare. Please feel free to comment or ask questions, I'll do my best to answer any questions if I can. As you may imagine some information is still classified and likely will be for the forseeable future, so there will be instances where I can not divulge information. Suggestions on future topics and discussions are welcome, please feel free to PM me if you have an idea for discussion. This information wouldn't have a heck of alot of credibility if I didn't tell you anything about myself now would it? Alrighty then, I'm Sean and about 2 years ago I departed Uncle Sam's Navy after 7 years as an Electronics Warfare Technician or EW and 3 years as a Cryptologic Technician (Technical) or CTT. My final rank at discharge was as a Petty Officer First Class, I qualified as an Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist, and served aboard two ships as ship's company, and several others on temporary assignments. My 2 regular assignments were to the USS Tortuga (LSD-46), a Whidbey Island-class amphibious landing dock, and as part of the commissioning crew of the USS Bulkeley (DDG-84) an Arleigh Burke-class (Flight IIA) AEGIS guided missile destroyer, as well as several special assignments.

Mmmm, not, but we can simulate it with short range of the chaff/flare/ecm, I suppose. i.e., 1,5-3 n.m., or so. That's possible, though it does turn the chaff/flare into an 'offensive' jamming weapon within that range envelope. Acceptable side effect, perhaps. The MK 216 round IS rocket propelled, but even then, it's range wasn't quite a mile from the ship before bursting. But that was the entire idea was to create 2 nearly identical "blips" on the radar screen fairly close together and confuse the weapon operator as to which one was the real one prior to firing. (A sharp operator could give an educated guess to wind direction and speed and compare that to the "ghost" target though.) Would it be possible to have the chaff round fired, and then be represented by another ship symbol, maybe in a different color that disappears after a set amount of time? That way when the AI or opponent selects a target to fire at, he will see two ship icons, and then it becomes a 50-50 chance on which one he/she selects? Am I getting too in depth again. . . ?

He appears to be suggestive of a future wild-weasel mission for the F-22's. . . . wonder if they could bring the old F-117's out of retirement for that like they did the F-4 airframe for Gulf War I.

Down with Crosby!!!!!! I'm trying to start a campaign here in DC for Sid when he comes back, get everyone to hold up some "Diver Down" flags whenever he takes a penalty or scores during the game.

Season ticket holder for the CAPS here, man that Game 7 against Philly. . . but I digress Being from Northern NY originally, I hold a special place in my heart for the Habs and Leafs. I'm hoping the Habs wake up and put Philly in their place, and ANYONE but Pittsburgh. . . . . Crosby annoys me.

Understand completely, just feeling things out a little bit, bare with me as a chip the rust off. . . . . *shudders thinking about those days again*

Allrighty, anyone want to propose a model for this? Things that could possibly be repaired Damage Point damage (i.e. the % damage) Sensor damage Runway damage Other critical hit damage Expect, that for repair engineers and equipments ist required, I propose the following approach: DP.new = DP.old - [(H+V)^E]*(1/Hi)*(1/U) were H=Sum(Dh)/5000 [= how much can be repaired per hours. Multiplied by duration (8760 = 24 hr * 365 days) = how long does it take to build a new base with 5'000 engineers or pioneers by hand Dh=Displacement of engineering units (mobile ground unit with the flag engineers or pioneers and no fuel propulsion); more or bigger units = faster repaired; 1 cubic meter = 1 engineer 5000 = correction factor so if necessary that it can be tuned to faster or slower] V=n/50 [= how much can be repaired per hour. Multiplied by duration (8760 = 24 hr * 365 days) = how long does it take to build a new base with 50 engineer or pioneer vehicles n=number of engineering vehicles (mobile ground unit with the flag engineers or pioneers and fuel propulsion); more units = faster repaired 50 = correction factor so if necessary that it can be tuned to faster or slower] E=Ea/En [= quotation available equipments for reparation Ea=available equipments for reparation En=necessary equipments for reparation] Hi=Numbers of hits during the last hour U=Utilization factor=Number of launches and landings during the last hour For Sensor damage I would propose: Sensor.damage.new = Sensor.damage.old - [1^E]*(1/Hi) were E=Ea/En [= quotation available equipment for reparation Ea=available equipment for reparation En=necessary equipment for reparation] Hi=Numbers of hits during the last hour For runway and Hangar damage I would propose DP.new = DP.old - [(H+V)^E]*(1/Hi)*(1/U) = 1 = very small repaired; 2 = small repaired; 4 = medium repaired; 8 = large repaired; 16= very large repaired were H=Sum(Dh)/75'000 [= how much can be repaired per hour. Multiplied by duration (168 = 24 hr * 7 days) = how long does it take to build a new base with 5'000 engineers or pioneers by hand Dh=Displacement of engineering units (mobile ground unit with the flag engineers or pioneers and no fuel propulsion); more or bigger units = faster repaired; 1 cubic meter = 1 engineer 75'000 = correction factor so if nasseccaery that it can be tuned to faster or slower] V=n/750 [= how much can be repaired per hour. Multiplied by duration (168 = 24 hr * 7 days) = how long does it take to build a new base with 50 engineer or pioneer vehicles n=number of engineering vehicles (mobile ground unit with the flag engineers or pioneers and fuel propulsion); more units = faster repaired 750 = correction factor so if necessary that it can be tuned to faster or slower] E=Ea/En [= quotation available equipment for reparation Ea=available equipment for reparation En=necessary equipment for reparation] Hi=Numbers of hits during the last hour U=Utilization factor=Number of launches and landings during the last hour Up to date, there is no modeling of engineers, pioniers and equipment, so that all parameters H and V are to set = 0.05, and E is to set = 1. Comments? Just thinking out loud here, so feel free to slap me around. . . What if the player has a recovery points which can be edited by the scenario editor if necessary for scenario purposes, but otherwise the effect of the recovery points are based upon where they are used (geographic location). The value could be assigned for major components, such as RADAR, RUNWAY, C2, FUEL, AMMO, STRUCTURE, etc. I'll stop short of saying that points could get accrued over time, because then it starts making HCE play more like those micro-wargames like Command & Conquer. The value would loosely translate into how long before repairs are effected, and MAYBE the option could be presented for the player to choose which component he/she wants to focus on repairing first. If I need to stage E-3's out of a base and the runway is damaged to VTOL capability, I can focus all my recovery points on the Runway For example, repairing damage at Reykjavik, Iceland may take considerably longer than repairing damage at a RAF base in Southern UK, due to the availability of supplies and personnel. Therefore it would take more player recovery points to bring an Icelandic runway back up to snuff for E-3 operations. To play into the wishlist concept that someone here played along with, if you can "invade and seize" an enemy facility, the recovery value would go down because you have to find a way of working with non-standard equipment that would be found say at a WP airbase compared to a NATO airbase. Again, I'm thinking out loud with no reasonable expectation of being taken seriously. . . or as they say on TMZ, "We're just sayin'."

Chiming in WAY late, but just joined up. . . Chaff can be used in a deceptive role as well, US and some other NATO forces use MK 214 and MK 216 NATO Sea Gnat rounds. The 214 is the stuff used for "seduction" tactics or against incoming missiles, it's radar cross section is smaller but much stronger to lure missiles into the chaff cloud rather than at the ship. The 216 is for "Deception" which has a much larger radar, yet weaker cross section and is used prior to the enemy operator firing his/her missiles in hopes that they'll select one of the ghosts to fire their weapons at. I'm gathering from CV32's comments above that the game at this point simply has chaff represented in one basic form for point defense, but in the future this could be something worthy of consideration. I'm not sure just how far down in the weeds this game is intended to go, but I thought at a minimum this would be good info. Sean