VCDH

The solution, as I see it, is two fold: 1. A fundamental change in the way that military operators think when conducting business. Start acting like a consumer instead of thinking "it's not my money, why should I care?". 2. Vendors need to think of the military as a consumer and not as a license to print money. 3. Make the bureaucratic process more accountable, to the same extent that operators are. 4. Change the Bureaucratic Process to remind them of their job to support the operator as opposed to fighting over rice bowls or themselves. 5. Recruit managers for the bureaucracy that will streamline the process and give them the clout to enforce it. In short, give them a job to fix the system that they so dearly hate. Accomplishing this isn't going to be easy and will probably more than a bit painful. Firing a few people [permanent people with clout, not casual or contract employees] will probably help with the transition. It will also get the point across that times are a'changing. It will also probably never happen. Later D

I see many new exotic flavors of the month. I'll run down this list and add my 2 cents.... 1. Already done, probably, see OBL raid and the tail rotor of the crashed aircraft. 2. Been there and done that. Useful for OOTW and police operations. You can be a policeman or a soldier. 3. Isn't this Future Warrior? 4. Maybe....when we occupy Iran 5. Already done 6. Isn't this the LCS? 7. Can probably agree there. Iridium is a good system but I don't know how capable it is for Video and other 4G kinda stuff 8. I think we need to spend more time on secure datalinks that can't be hijacked. Please see recent RC-170 episode. 9. yeah right....good luck. I'm sure big oil will get right on that. 10. We already have the capability for nuclear launch warning from the fUSSR. How come we can't have stationary geosynchronous reconnaissance satellite? A few things I think the list could use: 1. A high speed [hypersonic] land attack weapons family using a modular family of warheads [including a WMD payload] with a range similar to TLAM. 2. A very long range, conventionally armed ICBM type weapon launched from CONUS with good accuracy and penetration capability to go places where #1 can't. 3. A family of fixed wing, carrier launched aircraft that can provide ASW, ELINT, Tanker, and Special Forces support [in short, an S-3 type aircraft that guys can do HALOs from]. 4. Smaller, and more numerous aircraft carriers to back up the big boats for lower priority conflicts [such as in Africa]. 5. Cheap, long range stealth bombers [to keep the Air Force in business] 6. Real time offboard targeting 7. A variable yield EMP weapon to provide for local, regional, and national scale attacks. 8. New SP artillery [for the Army] 9. A new class of SSKs [yes, that's a K] for the USN. 10. Most importantly, a complete and total overhaul of the procurement process. To include non-US suppliers and remove the priority that US based suppliers get. The idea is to force US suppliers to become more competitive and to move away from the cultural idea that a government contract is a license to print money. This isn't just a US problem either. Later D

IADS is difficult to implement because of the nature of the communications network in H3. It's by no means impossible but to do it in a realistic manner will require using multiple sides and a bit of work. There is a wiki article about it: Centralized Air Defense If you have any questions, please don`t hesitate to ask. Later D

F5 is the hotkey for UnRep. Select the ship you want to refuel/replinish, then hit the weapons button on the screen [the three vertical white missiles] or select F5. The cursor will then change to a crosshair. Double click on the supply ship and the two vessels will intercept each other. Refueling will take place automatically followed by the weapons transfer screen. You will be able to reload directly to either the mounts or the magazines. Be sure to use the buttons at the bottom of the screen. Clicking on the weapon record itself will only transfer one weapon at a time, making transfer a bit cumbersome. Once you're done, hit OK and wait. Weapons transfer at a rate of one per second so if you want to reload 30 bursts to a gun magazine, then it'll take about 30 seconds. Obviously you'll probably want to load up so expect transfers to take a few minutes. This may seem a bit unrealistic but most scenarios will not avail of this feature because they are usually only a few days long at the most. A unit state editor is in the works for implementation at a later date to allow users to alter the fuel and damage state of a unit [we can already do ammunition]. Later D [who returned from holiday at 0100 last night so this post may be a bit baffed....]

There is no set level of agressiveness but you can give the AO limited direction in the orders they have. For the AO to engage a target it must have the target localized [by which I mean it must have located it's exact position], and it must know it's posture [which is automatically given to it]. You can also set the AO to either engage immediately or to close and identify [which means determining the classification of the platform] prior to engagement. Typically the AO will not engage if it can't get a fix on the target. This is usually due to using older equipment [or the player using advanced equipment] or the sensors not being turned on. I usually set all AO units to have their sensors on or intermittant except for ASW ops where passive is the best way to go until the torpedos start to fly. It could also be that you did everything right. Flying under the radar, launching at the right time, effective Iron Hand, etc. Later D

Hi, What you are seeing is a function of the propulsion model that the game uses. IRL, a ship burns more fuel at an exponential rate for a given speed. The amount of fuel the platform has does not change, just the consumption rate of the fuel. It varies by platform type, and engine type. Typically gas turbines are the worst offenders since they are basically a jet engine, which by their nature are very inefficient to begin with. In the HUD and ANW DBs, fuel consumption for ships and subs on diesels are based on their cruise range from a public reference. Subs on batteries are referenced at 5 knots. Aircraft range is based on their cruising speed at their best altitude. Keep in mind that the fuel load given that you see in the game is the time left at that speed and not a range value. So if you decide to throw the hammer down and clip along at 30 kts, then you may only get 50 hours of endurance. However in that time, you'll travel 1500nm. Given the nature of most scenarios, you probably will never have to do that. Later D

Varyag supposedly sailed today for her first sea trials. I say 'supposedly' because I'm not quite convinced that she even has a power plant in her yet. When you get down to it, the article is fairly correct. PACFLT has some time to deal with this threat. They lack numbers and probably the technology [if the size of HHQ-9 is any indication they have quite a ways to go regarding rocket technology] to face an up and ready USN battle group. ASW should be their first priority since the USN has had a number of embarrassing incidents over the last few years. Later D

Whether under her own power or under tow, Varyag left the Port of Dalian according to Xinhua News. A quick search of the various Chinese forums shows an empty bearth where Varyag was supposedly tied up. Visibility was quite poor at the time which assists in a quiet/covert departure. Xinhua reports that the initial trial won't be long and that the vessel will return to complete her 'refit' soon. Hopefully we'll be seeing some periscope photos in the near future, hopefully they'll include the tug. Later D

There are two main reasons why this is happening: 1. There are different settings for different weapons in the DB. An example would be an aircraft that carries HARMs but does not carry some sort of support pod at the same time. What happens is that the missile will lock onto a radar but you don't have a choice as to what that is. An F-16 with a HARM Targeting Pod however, will bring up a list of radars to attack. 2. [and the most likely reason] The seeker on the HARM cannot see the radar you are trying to attack. This is either because the power output of the radar is too low [such as in LPI radars] or [most likely] the altitude of the aircraft that is carrying the HARM is too low and below the radar horizon of the target. In ANW, a passive homing weapon must be able to see the target that it's trying to attack before it can launch [think getting the 'tone' for a Sidewinder AAM]. What this means is that you have to allow the weapon to 'see' the target by increasing your altitude. Of course, this allows more of the bad guys to see you, but what's life without a little fun? Later D

It's not that hard to do in ANW. There is a certain amount of abstractness involved since it's really hard to visualize anything around the horn of Africa to be a 'safe zone'. Usually convoys only travel with one escort so a massed attack would generate some results. Co-ordinating such an attack would be something else. Either way, it may be better to attack in an area less likely to expect it. Later D

There's been a few things going on with me personally lately [promotion at work, house purchase and moving] and this really compounded it to the point that I haven't been doing so hot in the last 24 to 36 hours since I heard he died. He was a gentleman and could discuss anything with anyone. I'm having some real difficulty in accepting that he's gone. All I can say right now is that wherever he is, it's definitely a better place. I'll see you on the other side old friend. D

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step...." I doubt that half a dozen Varyag type carriers are going to appear in the next several years. Building carriers is not that hard, nor is getting the experiance. But the time involved is something else. A Navy is a huge investment and a much more visible one compared to the other services. The seat of purpose may be on land but allowing the Red Team to land there is a major epic fail of the navy. It's easier to train 4 guys to operate a tank than it is to teach 400 to operate a destroyer. But the old Royal Navy saying still applies...."It's not defeat we face if the navy is defeated, it's starvation.". In this case from an embargo. China is a net fuel importer and closing that off would lead to a very quick escalation. So what we see here is a nation that wants to protect it's sea line of communication. As a nation that espouses communism we may like to believe that they have more nefarious motives but they aren't carrying that out with this ship..... Later D

I am in Halifax, Nova Scotia for the time being and while I have access to a better description of what you are asking, it is several decks and around 250 feet away from me at the moment.... Simply put, there's a series of scriptable features available for missions that allow the user to specify pretty much anything that he or she wants to do with regards to how platforms conduct their missions. Right down to altitude and speed and actions to take if attacked. There's a wiki page on it but its only got the bare bones of a description. When I get home [i'm up to my eyebrows in regulatory and inspection issues] I should be able to post some more information. Sorry I can't be of more help for now. Later D

This is also how VetRep works in the game. Later D

I think it's important to put things in context here.... 1. Iranian missiles cannot reach CONUS at this time. 2. Iranian missiles CAN reach other nations in South and Central America....some of them are American allies. 3. I don't have Google Earth installed on this computer [yet...stupid gov't permissions...] but IIRC the Panama Canal and Guantanamo Bay are well within range of the current inventory of Iranian missiles. 4. Missile technology isn't all that hard to improve upon....so it's only a matter of time before Iranian missiles have the capability to reach the US. The natural assumption here is to compare this to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Geopolitcally, the response was way out of proportion to the situation at the time [from the Russians stand point, it would be perfectly natural to put missiles in Cuba, there were US missiles in Turkey]. In this case there is no threat [yet]. That being said, why would the Iranian's put a missile site there? The answer is that, to them, there is something to threaten. Since Iran can't realistically threaten the US in a military way then it must be economic. That leaves the Panama Canal. Dropping IRBMs on the Canal would close it very quickly and it may cause the economies of several nations to tip back into recession. The good news is that ATBM systems can be transported fairly quickly to defend these areas. Later D

I don't know for sure Ralf. I'd have to check the scenario to be sure but that's the usual reason for the problem. In all the years of Harpoon, postures have been on of the few areas that have given us the least amount of trouble. What I've done on several scenarios, is add a second side with the same name as another side. This adds confusion to the mix and can complicate the IFF process. For example, all of my scenarios have at least one neutral merchant ship. But if you're going to be looking for a merchant ship carrying nukes, then you could have the 'regular' Merchant Shipping side with all the neutral ships, and another 'Merchant Shipping' side that is hostile to your forces. You'd need proper intel or alot of luck to pick up the ship. This is also a useful thing to do when you are modelling a side embroiled in a civil war, or for targeting a specific set of units without fear of reprisal..... Later D

Hi guys, check the postures of the sides in your scenario. If a side is friendly to more than one other side then all three sides can see each other clearly. For example: Side A is hostile to Side B and vice versa....but Side C is friendly to both A and B and vice versa.....because both A and B share information with C, then C will pass on that information to both sides. This may be the cause of your problem. THis can be fixed by a simple change of posture between the linking side. Let me know how it works out. Later D

http://wiki.computerharpoon.com/index.php?title=Hotkeys I've been in contact with the programmer and he says that the 'K' key is indeed a toggle. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask. Later D [who's off to Halifax tomorrow on a job]

I'm already working on a possible solution. Hopefully I'll have something for the weekend. I'll post them here to try out. Later D

No. Mines are currently not implemented. It has been discussed and there are workarounds but they are problematic. The work around for ANW is to create an immobile submarine with a sensor that is capable of tracking the target entering the minefield. Once the target gets close enough then it fires a very short ranged weapon with a lethal radius that would destroy mine and damage the target. There are three problems with the workaround. First is the overall load on the scenario. A field of several thousand mines would take so long to create that it would be pointless. Also, the engine has to poll every sensor in every mine and that would make the scenario chug along at best. Second there is no differentiating between subs and surface ships as targets. Not unless you make a weapon for every contingency, not something a DB guy is likely to do. Finally the mines would have to have their own side and not share information with anyone else. This means there's no way to model the more exotic smart mines like Stonefish. In short there's too much work for too little return. Any implementation would probably follow the paper rules anyway. A scenario designer would draw a polygon and stipulate the density of a the mine field. Any unit entering the field would run a % chance of hitting a mine and suffering appropriate damage. The higher the density of mines, the longer they would take to lay, sweep and the greater % of hitting one. Later D

Hmm....I admire Mr. Tillman but I can't say I'm very much in agreement with this list. Some of the things that US Naval Aviation would call revolutionary had already happened. I was going to make a shorter post but that didn`t work.... #1 - Bureau of Aeronautics - Sure I can see that. It demonstrated the committment that the navy had to aviation and it's leadership under a big gun skipper only underscores that. #2 - USS Langley (CV-1) - From a strictly USN standpoint maybe. HMS Furious was operational during WW1 however #3 - Development of Dive Bombing - I also don't think dive bombing was all that revolutionary for the USN since it was largely an untried tool for them until Coral Sea and Midway. The attack on HMS Illustrious by Fliegerkorps X on January 10, 1941 is the first effective use that I can think of off the top of my head. The Combined Fleet sortie throughout the South Pacific and Indian Ocean during the first half of 1942 will probably yield other examples but that's used more as an example of massing. #4 - Fleet Problem IX, 1929 - Totally agree with one caveat....that the Fleet Problems as a whole should be included [although FPIX is the best example]. Technology is useless without Tactics and Doctrine and the Fleet Plans married all three into an effective tool. #5 - Development of Radar, 1940 Onward - Disagree by the simple fact that the tactical advantages were already well known and shown to dramatic effect by the by the RAF [battle of Britain] and the RN [Mediterranean]. #6 - Coral Sea and Midway, 1942 - Coral Sea yes, Midway not so much. Both were practical application of the Fleet Problems and validated what was learned but again the USN was beaten to the punch by the Royal Navy. A single air launched torpedo from a 1930's bi-plane decided the fate of Bismark and the Japanese derived their own attack on Pearl Harbor from the British strike at Taranto. #7 - Defeat of the U-Boats, 1943 - Definitely agree. The use of naval aviation closed the air gap between North America and Europe and shortened response time against U-Boats. #8 - The Postwar Revolution, 1949 Jets and Helicopters - Again I'm in full agreement here, especially with regards to the helicopter, which was a true game changer, especially for ASW. #9 - Close-Air Support in Korea, Summer 1950 - Didn't they already do this during WW2? An idea example of the usefulness of the aircraft carrier yes but nothing really pivotal. Perhaps he's referring to the development of the Forward Air Controller? #10 - Angled Decks, 1953 onward - Meh I suppose. Again this is a British invention that applied a global revolution to carrier operations, not just the US Navy's. Something that certainly belongs [and is conspicuously absent] on the list is the computer and it's evolution into a major component of naval aviation, especially in planning, fire control, and flight control. Later D

ISTR that there is indeed a hot key to reverse that....I think it's a toggle. I'll check it out. The victory conditions in ANW require a set % of damage to achieve. Typically any ship that suffers more than 60-65% damage will be down for the count and will eventually sink. The solution is more and more weapons. Depending on the target I usually try and allocate 150% of the targets DP in weapons. If you`re going up against dedicated air defense ships [anything with AEGIS] for example, then bring ARMs, decoys, and stand off jamming. In fact, it may be easier just to bring a sub in range and put two torpedoes into it. That will kill any AEGIS ship. As in real life, fire is the major killer. If the ship can get the fires under control and/or extinguished then it goes a long way to ensuring the survival of the ship. It can get very random though....I was once playing a game where a Russian convoy came under attack by NATO task force...CIWS couldn't handle all the leakers and the Sovremmenny took two RBS-15 hits. Ok not that bad on damage, only some minor critical hits bad fire though so I kept an eye on her. Eventually the fire was reduced from a 'conflagration' to 'minor' but this 'minor' fire managed to reach a magazine and the ship blew up. Re-Playing that same scenario a day or so later a SSK came out of nowhere and put a torpedo into that same destroyer. 97% damage but the ship was able to make port with most of her systems intact. Probably the most recent examples of ship damage in this manner will be USS Stark [missile hit], HMS Ardent [bombed, commanded at the time by a future First Sea Lord] and HMS Antelope [hit by a dud bomb that blew while EOD tried to defuse]. Later D

No need to feel that way. This game always had a steep learning curve. I've been playing since 1994 and I have yet to learn all the ins and outs. I generally don't bother with grouping two helos because it adds an extra layer of commands to deal with them. I usually just make a zoom window, set it on track mode relative to the target I'm prosecuting and zoom in and out as necessary. You can't group different types of aircraft in any case. If the two aircraft ARE the same, hit the 9 key on the number pad to toggle between unit and group view. The aircraft may already be grouped but you won't see it in unit mode. But no, I don't attack them as a pair or group. I maneuvered both in close, used on to maintain contact using either sonobuoys or a dipping sonar and then use the other to attack. The AO [not AI] is not smart enough to figure out it's been picked up and relies on the stealthy nature of the sub to get the job done. If they manage to get a shot off then you've already lost the first part of the fight regardless. It will be different in a MP game since the player will be able to detect an active sonar and will most likely attempt to 'do something' [the most effective will be to unload on the target if the sub is in range, change depth, or splash the offending helo with a SAM (Kilo's carry MANPADs and there's several tube launched weapons in development)]. Generally the idea is to get a weapon launch close enough to the sub so that it has no change to escape from the torpedo. The AO is smart enough to react to a torpedo so dropping a fish could be a good way to flush the target. Once the AO picks up a torpedo it will turn away from the weapon and run like hell [technically it brings to bear the quietest aspect to the torpedo but it's a little moot if you're cranking up 30 kts on your power plant....] and you'll most likely get a passive detection then. Another thing about tracking subs is that the quieter they are, the harder it will be to localize them. As often as not, the only indication that you'll have than a SSN is in the area will be when they give themselves away by firing. Their launch transient will give a rough indication of their position but by then you'll have torpedo's inbound. It can get fustrating.....seeing this polygon dance around you, knowing that there's a sub around but you can't narrow it down to get a shot. The best solution is the liberal application of active sonar but this can work both ways, especially in an MP game because the player will be able to get a fix on where your helos are and react accordingly. Don't forget decoys too. The AO is about as smart as the 1991 version of Iraqi air defense network in that particular case. Later D

No problem, if you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask and I'll try and answer as best I can [as long as I'm in town!] Later D

Forgot to address this: You can post your questions here. Compared to some other forums, this is probably the best run of the lot. Your runway question will require a modification to the scenario. I think Darren has tailored the scens for his DB. Suggestions are always welcome and I can make sure they'll reach the right people.\ Later D