VCDH

Ok just had a look at this one.... This is a weapons issue. Your four tubes are loaded with Mk48 torpedoes. You have to remove at least one Mk48 and replace it with a Harpoon missile of which you have 4. To do this: 1. Select the unit 2. Hit the F5 key twice, the logistics window should pop up. On the left is the mounts of your units [torpedo tubes, decoy launchers, etc]. On the upper right is the weapons available for each mount, and on the lower right is your magazine(s) and the total weapons you have in it. 3. Select a mount with a torpedo in it on the left. Then select the torpedo in the upper right box. The number 1/1 should change to 0/1. The mount is now empty. 4. Select the weapon you want to fill the mount with [in this case select the Harpoon missile IC 4/26] clicking once on that should transfer one weapon to the newly empty mount. 5. After a period of time, the weapon will be ready to use. You have to wait a bit because the crew on the sub has to remove the existing weapon and replace it with the missile. Once the weapon is loaded you'll see your surface weapon range circle increase in size. You can then launch the missile whenever your ready. When you launch the missile, keep an eye on it's ETA. The initial time you see is the time to it's seeker activation point. Once the seeker turns on, it will search for 15 seconds in a specific direction. If it doesn't pick up a target then it will change course 45 degrees and search for another 15 seconds. It will keep doing that until it runs out of fuel or picks up a target. Watching the ETA is a good way to tell what a weapon is doing in the time you have it on your screen. Unless you have a datalink to the weapon, eventually you'll lose contact with it and have to hope for the best. You can watch datalinked weapons all the way to the target, and in some cases control it. If you have any problems, then let me know. We can probably tweak this scenario to have the missile ready in the tube at the start of the scenario. Later D PS. and remember, there's no such thing as a stupid question.

Ok I just took a look at this. The helicopter is hovering at 100m and listening to the sonobuoy and not engaging the target but when I close the range and drop below 100m in altitude, the helicopter engages, albeit at max range. This is programed performance by the AO [the launch at Rmax I mean]. There are several possible reasons as to why it's not engaging a hostile target: 1. The helo is too high for the weapon to launch - air launched weapons have a maximum [and sometimes minimum] launch altitude. In this particular case the maximum launch altitude would be 100m but I don't have a current copy of the HUD check...Darren will be able to answer that question anyway. 2. Another unit is tasked to attack - The AO, by default, will only assign one platform to conduct an attack to conserve assets. This can be changed in the '.opt Files' tab of the H3 Launcher. Look for the 'Mission Strike Redundant' option file and enable it. I have mine turned off but it's really a personal preferance. I was able to manually lower the helo's altitude and it engaged automatically then without my input. When I hunt subs, I generally pair up air units while keeping ships as far away as practiable. In 99% of all cases, a sub will hear a surface ship long before the surface ship will hear them and by the time the ship does pick them up they are usually in torpedo range. A pair of helos, hopefully with a dipping sonar, usually does the job. One pinging, and another shooting [both would have torpedoes if I could arrange it, happiness means having lots of ammo on hand....]. I usually do this manually since the AO does a pretty decent job on air defence and surface warfare. Heavy torpedoes are usually more of a killer than SSMs IMHO. 3. The 'Focused Strike' option is not enabled for your mission [in this case the manually requested intercept]. I really doubt it's this however since this option only applies to a specific target that you know about before hand [i.e. a mission with that box checked will attack only the target(s) specified by the mission, and nothing else while on that mission, this would avoid using resources on less valuable targets of opportunity]. Bottom line, lower your altitude and the helo should engage....that's what it did for me. I know Darren regularly monitors this forum so he'll be able to answer the altitude question. Later D

Hi Don, Can you tell me exactly what you did in your scenario? Did you make a sub strike mission? Or was the aircraft on a sub patrol mission at the time? Also was the helo you are using carrying a dipping sonar? Also, was the submarine hostile to your forces or not? Later D

Hi, Can you tell me what submarine that you are using and what weapon you are trying to launch? Typically most weapons in the ANW DB cannot be launched if you are deeper than 50m. There could also be an error in the weapons engine that prevents a launch from a specific depth. If you let me know the weapon that you're trying to launch I will be able to determine what the problem might be. Also can you tell me if the sub you are using was on a mission and what the mission was? Later D

A good practice is to make your magazine edits, and then place your aircraft and check to see what loadouts are available. As often as not, removing certain sensor pods from the magazine may do the job as opposed to removing several weapon records. It can save you alot of time. Later D

Good news for the military, the oil sands, and big business. Bad news for health care, social programs, the gun registry, the environment, and the soon to be re-invoked death penalty. Brad, didn't your district go Communist or are you in Avalon? Later D

It makes sense from a military stand point what with the numerous reports of the pending 'launch' of Varyag [despite having absoluetly no information or evidence whatsoever of re-engining, sea trials, or power]. If indeed they are going to operate Varyag then this would explain the lack of activity regarding carrier aircraft. Yes I've heard the reports of them buying Su-33 and of the carrier mock up at some base. Wanna bet that this will be based on the Yak-141? Seems everything they're using nowadays is a knock off of an old Russian or cancelled Cold War system. Later D

LottoMax is our friend. And I wouldn't be too adverse to dropping a few hundred grand down that pipe once I got all my other affairs arranged.... Later D

I long ago gave up on the notion of anything happening with Harpoon in a short term time frame or any other program like Harpoon for that matter. There simply isn't the time, money, or user base [thanks mainly to the many people left unmentioned in this thread and their so called 'knowledge base']. So far, all i've seen from Red/Green/Blue/whatever Pill is a bunch of screen shots. Many a game has been hyped via this only to be found time and again in development hell. On the very rare occation I talk to the developers [the last time being years ago now, and I am even less inclined to talk to them now as I was back then] I was none too certain that they understood the scale of their undertaking. Their recent call for donations [or whatever they called it] has me wondering.... If their own Harpoon scenarios are any indication then we'll probably see a more air warfare centric game as opposed to a naval one. While only a fool would refuse to acknowledge the factor that air power plays in modern warfare, Harpoon is still a naval warfare game/program/simulator [whatever you like to call it]. I would prefer that it would stay that way as opposed to trying to model the first day of the air war in WW3. There is so much more to modern naval warfare than watching a multi-regemental Backfire strike take down a US Carrier. Specal Forces, Amphibious Ops, Mine warfare, VBSS, SAR, MARSEC, Anti-Terrorism/Piracy, ELINT, Space Warfare, OTH Targeting, Time Lagged Intelligence, Information Warfare are all encompassing aspect of naval warfare. First and foremost however is a new UI. Especially for ANW. I've talked about this briefly with Tony before but to be honest it's way over my head. I'm sure AGSI would love to hear suggestions regarding a cost effective way to go about a new UI. I certainly don't have any. And I can't devote the time that I have as XO either. The good news is that we have longevity on our side. The banning of certain people from the Matrix forums is a good step forward [although there's a few more to go in my opinion]. Matrix would be wise to take heed of the policies in place here. But I digress. Later D [part time professional purveyor of H3 MilSim and someone who was hardly a saint in these matters but at least knows how to work with people]

I'm heading that way [again] in the fall. I'll see what I can see when I get there.... Later D

How are they going to reinforce the hulls AFTER they are already built in French yards? Increasing the frame rate and/or scantlings isn't a minor issue to contend with and is in fact major surgery for a ship that big. The fact that the Russians are buying French hulls lets out much about the state of the Russian shipbuilding industry but the smart thing to do would be to do all the work in the French yards. Changing the design in a Russian yard may get the boats back in the water by the time Putin's grandchildren retire.....maybe.... Later D

If you are using the RE then you are probably missing the signature.dll file that goes into the same folder as the editor MDB file. The other option that you have is to generate a signature file in the ingame DB editor. In the edit drop down menu you'll see a 'generate signature' command. Export using the RE and then go into the ingame editor and use that command. You should be good to go then. Later D

Hi, Can you tell me what editor you are using? Later D

This is a round up of recent military operations in Libya for March 19th and the early part of the 20th Libyan time zone is GMT+2 so noon GMT is 1400 Libyan time Air strikes began against the loyalist forces on March 19 and lasted into the early morning and night of March 20. The first strike was reportedly a French air attack against a single vehicle, with some reports indicating that it took place near the eastern rebel-held city of Benghazi. Further air strikes involving planes reportedly from the French air bases of Dijon and Saint-Dizier, were mounted against Libyan ground troops in the area of Benghazi. The package consisted for 8 Rafale and 4 Mirage 2000 fighters and reportedly destroyed 4 Libyan AFVs. According to the French MOD, it struck Libyan ground troops that in the process of threatening Libyan civilians. The second phase of the attack consisted of U.S. and U.K. naval assets targeting radar, communications, fuel storage, command and communications and air defense with over 110 cruise missiles. Particular attention was paid to SA-5 SAM sites of which there are at least 3 in Libya. Following this, RAF Tornado jets armed with Storm Shadow missiles were used in an Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) role against a number of Libyan air-defense targets that are apparently close to the shore. Earlier today in Libya, a larger package of 19 aircraft including AV-8, F-15 and F-16s conducted strike operations into Libya. B-2 bombers were also involved dropping some 40 conventional munitions. It is now close to 4 PM in Libya and initial reports indicate that the attacks damaged a significant amount of the Libyan air defense network. Details have yet to be released into the public domain however. The initial air strikes stretched from Tripoli to Sirte and Sabha deep in the South. There have been no reported losses among NATO aircraft. Later D

CBC, CNN and Reuters have confirmed that French aircraft are over Libyan territory. CBC further reporting that they are conducting reconnaissance missions.

Updated scenario, DB and signature added. Some very minor tweaks is all Later D Cumberlandv2.zip

I have some musings for the long term..... 1. Boots on the ground, as attractive as they are to me, aren't really an option. The rebels have already told the West that. 2. While their intentions are good, and something we agree with, [Gadaffi either captured or turning up dead isn't all that bad right?], the rebels are nothing more than an armed rabble. 3. Gadaffi's armed forces [of which I have little data on] are highly trained, typical of 'loyal' units in many middle eastern nations. Rabble can't stand up to that, and were losing ground. 4. A quick look at Google earth will show just how bad a position the rebels are in. Fighting has been reported around Ajdabiya which is a road hub, the capture of which [if it hasn't fallen already] gives Gadaffi forces the ability to flank rebel positions around Benghazi and proceed to Tobruk via the down of Adam [which has an air base]. The capture of Tobruk and control of the Ajdabiya-Adam road would effectively surround rebel forces in Benghazi. I'm no ground warfare expert but if I can figure that out then you can be certain that a lot of other people have too..... It's interesting to note that rebel forces were holding their own until loyalist air power came into play. After that, it all went down hill for rebel forces. Removing Gadaffi's air power from the equation at the very least delays the defeat of rebel forces in Eastern Libya. It's well known that many nations have special forces in the region [Egypt, Denmark, and the UK for certain. Canada has forces 'in the region', and it's a pretty safe bet that the US has forces in country]. Egypt has acknowledged that it's helping to train rebel forces in resisting loyalist troops and it's a major function of special forces to act in that capacity [as a force multiplier]. There are a lot of Marines on those Kearsage and Ponce that can probably do that as well. So what the West is doing is buying time for the rebels to regroup, train, and perhaps become something more than an armed rabble that specializes in shooting what limited ammunition they have into the air for the benefit of television cameras. The recently announced Libyan 'ceace fire' [i'll believe it when I see it] really means nothing because it's better to live today and fight tomorrow, especially against the coming NATO attacks. The open ended nature of the UN resolution gives the West some leeway but that will vary depending on how united the players are. Given the nature of the UN, I am not optimistic of any united front staying together for long. The test will come with loyalist forces conduct their next major attack on rebel positions, probably some time in the future, once the pattern of NATO operations is set. The good news here is that the sheer distance of the Ajdabiya-Adam road [375 km or so] allows rebel forces to harrass loyalist forces attempting to move along the road. I don't know if loyalist forces have the manpower or logistics to hold the road however. Later D

Agreed. Despite what we've been seeing in the news it's gonna take at least a day for aircraft to set up shop in Italy. The rumors that planning has been completed probably indicates contingencies that already existed. I haven't heard of any command structure set up yet but this could be a NATO op. Later D

heh....It's interesting to note that the Libyans just called a ceace-fire but they are still sending "anti-terror" units into Benghazi. Just because there's no planes flying doesn't mean there's no ground operations underway..... Fighting continues in As-Zuwaytinah which lies between Ajdabiya and Benghazi. A correspondent reported the sound of constant bombing, with Libyan planes seen over the town. There are also unconfirmed reports that the Libyan navy has taken up aggressive positions just off the coast of the town.[bBC] Fire support I guess....they have alot of 76mm guns. Later D

Overnight developments on the Libyan issue: Egypt will not intervene militarily. [Reuters] Canada to send a detachment of six CF-18 aircraft to assist in the No Fly Zone, possibly to be based in Italy [Globe and Mail] French gov't spokesperson indicates that military action to come 'within hours' [AFP] Noway to be involved in a manner yet to be determined. [Al Jazeera] Sweden will not be involved for now [Radio Sweden] Denmark will be sending F-16s to assist in the No Fly Zone [DPA] Libyan military airfields is on the target list under the No Fly Zone. Italy has opened it's bases for operations against Libya. Air strikes will be launched from French and Italian air bases within hours [Al Arabiya] Air strikes against Libya involving US, French, UK and Canadian aircraft have completed planning and will begin operations in 'a few hours' from Corsica and Sicily. [RIA Novosti] Germany skeptical of military intervention. Poland to provide non-military support only. Russian participation an option. [AFP] Libyan airspace closed [Al Arabiya] RAF due to send Tornado aircraft armed with 'precision weapons' from RAF Marham and RAF Lossiemouth [AFP] Netherlands to join any military operation against Libya. Contribution to take whatever form the international community requests. [Nos News] Later D

In addition to Egypt, there's also several bases in Greece and an RAF facility in Cyprus. Not to mention enough bases in Italy to do the job. I think it's a bit early for that yet. I'd say that many nations in the region are probably crafting their responses to the No Fly Zone. I'd also like to know the just what the treaty between NATO and Italy says with regards the use of NATO bases in Italy. Bettino Craxi is quite dead and I don't think we'll see Berlusconi [sp?] call up Gadaffi and warn him that the first cycle is on it's way. Italy gets about 25% of it's oil from Libya so I can't say it's very cheap from there at the moment. In fact, oil isn't very cheap anywhere..... Enterprise is in the Northern Red Sea. She is about 1000nm from Tripoli so if she's going to be involved she has to transit the canal. Vinson is on Camel Station and isn't going anywhere due to commitments in Afghanistan and the situation in Bahrain. Kearsage is in company with Ponce and is south of Cyprus. I'm assuming there's at least one DDG with her. Last I heard Stout was in the area. Charles de Gualle's location is unknown but she recently [about 3 weeks ago] finished exercies in the Indian Ocean. So she could be in the area. No idea where the Italian carriers are. That's it for flight decks. The remaining US carriers are helping in Japan [Reagan and Essex], undergoing PIA [Eisenhower, due out in April], DPIA [Nimitz] or RCOH [Roosevelt, she's down for the duration, late 2012], are way out of position or are tied up in CONUS. It's going to take more than one carrier to do the job if Italy doesn't allow the parties involved access to their turf. Later D

I suspect we'll see Enterprise pass through the Canal in a day or so. She'll need the sea room. I also expect we'll see Charles de Gualle depending on her operational status. Anyone know where the Italian carriers are? Later D

You forgot Radians for mounts Later D

ya know....a submarine would solve that problem very quickly. Explosions happen.....how deep is it over there? Later D

Yes. The idea here is to provide deception. IRL the decoys can be towed behind the vessel or can be set adrift and remotely commanded to inflate. Remote activation isn't possible in ANW so what happens is that the user has to make a BOL shot and indicate where the decoy is going to go. The decoy then 'drifts' at 3 knots for the lifetime of the decoy [it's fuel capacity], which is 3 hours in this case. The AO, sees a ship traveling at three knots and attacks it accordingly. Not very good for simulating a ship at speed but I can see it being used for increased clutter....i.e. putting 6 to 10 decoys inside a 6 to 8 ship formation. I suppose a modern version what what we saw in 'Master and Commander' would be a small boat with a big ass reflector and it's own motor but that's a waste of a good UUV. Later D