VCDH

I was commenting on the excessive [white] corrosion that I saw, specifically on the propellers. I suppose the next question is....why shoot at the ROK? Later D

The problem is that the RoK must make some sort of response or they look a) weak in the eyes of the NKs [very very bad] and for national morale. The economic path that is being taken today is really the only option short of a war [which I really think is a NK bluff given the disparity in technology]. I suspect that we'll see some bolder moves by NK forces for the next little while. ISTR hearing about how NK soldiers were making faces and gestures after their 'nuclear test'. I also think that a UN solution is no solution either. There is no doubt based on the published pictures that it was some sort of external explosion. I wonder about the corrosion on the recovered remains of the NK 'torpedo' too. That being said there is only two possibilities IMHO, that of a torpedo [either an older Soviet model or a knock off of a Chinese one] or a mine. Of the latter, a moored [drifting?] influence mine is probably the most likely option given the type of damage. On the plus side, many navies are going to look hard at their ASW capabilities after this. It's going to be an interesting few days nevertheless. Later D

Hi Ralf, I assume that you're talking about the same DSD files used for Battlesets. We have a utility that allows you to create a DSD file. I'll see if I can get permission to post it here. Later D

Yes they are. I have two new scenarios ready for posting not and a third in the pipe. The first scenario is a 'what if' from the Falklands War of 1982. The second will be a missile boat engagement. The third will be about defending Iraqi oil terminals from an Iranian incursion. All three along with the DB will be posted to this forum in the near future. Later D

I'd probably give him a warning or two but after that, I'd probably ground him out with a noise short at the least. Also, running with the bathythermograph could also mean a speed penalty since there is a lag between getting the data and processing it. Later D

It's a nice article but I wonder why the Air Force Association didn't mention the navy's lead in BMD and the own dire straits of the USAF when it comes to procurement? The UCAV angle they took was beautiful. The recent cut off of F-22 airframes only highlights this problem and the lack of forward bases, especially in SE Asia tells the tale there. The one thing I do agree with is the lack of aircraft in the current CVWs. If anything the lack of Air Force support would along justify the increase in the number of aircraft for the wings. Later D

Modern as in 2009? I would have to say that NATO would have a pretty easy time of it today. Despite it's recent oil weath, the Russian Armed Forces are undergoing a massive change in operating requirements and doctrine at the moment. While the navy is still a submarine force and defense of it's strategic deterrent is still a priority, events on the international stage are forcing it to expand it's area of influence from coastal matters into the blue water. While the Russian Navy has considerable power influencing regional events [as last years fight with Georgia has shown], less can be said about operations farther abroad. This is partly due to the lack of money and recent experience in long range operations and partly with the poor state of Russian shipbuilding. Recently there have been published reports of the Russians abandoning their domestic shipyards and looking towards foreign built designs to meet their requirements. Specifically the requirement to increase their numbers of amphibious ships. According to a recent Proceedings article, Russia is looking at purchasing either the French Mistral or Dutch Rotterdamm/Johann de Witt designs. With regards to sea denial [including anti-convoy] operations, the North Atlantic is still NATO's lake and there is nowhere near the numbers of aircraft now that were available during the Soviet era. Even back during the later 1970's to early 1980's when the balance of power was tipped in the Soviets favor, there was still a requirement for blasting a hole in the GIUK gap so the Badgers and Backfires could exit into the North Atlantic to hunt. It wasn't until the later half of that era that the Soviets had the tactical aircraft to operate that far from home. The only alternative for the Soviets was to supress [as opposed to occupy] Iceland and possibly the UKs Northern air fields. The only way to do that long term was either through the use of nukes or [more likely] persistent chemical weapons. Either step is a major jump on the escalation ladder, and a reversal of the Soviet's 'No First Use' policy they so dearly espoused. With the draw down in Chemical Weapons, this really isn't a valid option in modern times. Submarines would have had a much easier time of it, especially if there was a period of at least several days to one week prior to hostilities to allow them to cross NATO barriers without molestation and scatter into the Atlantic. The qualitative gap between Russia and the West has narrowed since the 1989 but it is still there. The biggest problem for NATO would be the US moving on from ASW and into the so called 'littoral' operations. Their lack of ASW training will leave a large gap in the numbers of effective ASW units. This coupled with the retirement of the S-3 Viking will leave a large gap in ASW coverage for both the carriers and the convoys. The biggest problem the subs face is what happens when they run out of torpedoes. The Russians don't have that many sub tenders to go around and it would be too risky for them to undertake blue water operations. The best they could hope for is a sheltered fijord in Norway or maybe Greenland, which requires subs to cross the GUIK gap again. But again I emphasize that Russian units, while of better quality compared to what they had in 1989, lack the numbers and logistics to undertake sustained operations far from home for any period of time. With continued revenues from Oil and other natural resources I can see this changing inside of a decade but it will probably be longer than that. Russia has always been a land power first and currently most of Russians immediate problems lie in that arena [Georgia and Chechnya and to a lesser extent China and Iran]. Poland and the BMD issue are really bargaining chips for the Russians to get help on other matters with. Later D

I was looking at this incident several weeks back because it was of considerable interest to the organization I work for. We have crews that are trained for armed boarding and we conduct these drills pretty regularly. The general concensus is that the ship was on some job for the Russian government/military and something happened along the way to get them to take a more proactive role. There are any number of reasons as to what may have happened, from the non authorized transfer of sensitive material, to possible financial troubles of the ship owners, to just a paperwork mixup. ANW just recent received an upgrade that will now permit the takeover of another vessel. And we have just last week changed the abilities of sensors to classify targets via their hull name/number as opposed to just a class type [an argument could be made that painting over hull numbers and/or names of ships during wartime is now moot in the age of the information society]. The first thing we'd have to do is model merchant shipping. There are numerous sources available to give the scenario designer some idea as to numbers of ships that pass through specific areas. I use marinetraffic.com to keep track of any number of ships [as does my wife to keep track of me!]. A quck check of the UK area shows about 525 ships in the area West of Dover and a whopping 1760 East of it. Of those 1760 ships, 350 are currently in the Port of Rotterdam. Talk about a needle in a haystack. The good news is that AIS can make tracking ships alot easier. If the Arctic Sea didn't want to be found then all she had to do was turn off her radar's and AIS. Vessels searching for her then will have to close to make a visual ID of any target that shows up on radar but not AIS. I strongly suspect that the SOSUS net would come in very handy here, that or a platform with a good towed array.... From that point on it's a simple intercept exercise. However searching for the vessel might take several days of game time. Later D

Different nation, different priorities. Up here we've had UHC so long that the cost really isn't in the taxpayers mind. We've always had higher taxes here because of it and that's the way life goes. I don't know if it would affect your standard of living, since we're on par. That's not the case in Canada. Insurance is for the supplementary items that UHC doesn't cover. Stuff like certain kinds of pills, treatments [usually experimental], and anything not certified by Health Canada [our version of the FDC]. There is no requirement for getting health insurance in Canada but there is a requirement for car insurance. That's part of your problem there. Requiring people to get insurance will certainly line the pockets of the insurance companies. Canadian UHC has nothing to do with insurance as it's a government run system [with a government like bureaucracy too]. I strongly suspect that 'affordable' insurance in the US will result in something that covers accidents but little else and and they will fight for that too. Insurance isn't the answer. Maybe Canada, with it's smaller population [35 million] has it easy. But there is no denying a larger tax base is available for the US. I'm not saying that now is the time to do it, but I strongly suspect that the day will come when you'll have to think about it. My next question on this is: What will be the end result of the US does not change the way it's health care system operates? Later D

ok now that I can see....the media spin thing. Up here you see alot of the same thing but it's much more subtle...very much more in fact. There is no missing it however, and you can especially see it when it comes to the sitting Prime Minister. The television media are just waiting for the chance to stick it too him and when they do, the minority won't last very long. Ok back to health care..... I don't know about other Canadians, but the concept of paying for health care is so foreign to me that when I think about Americans doing it, I imagine set of cash registers not unsimilar to what I see at McDonald's....I know it's not like that of course.... ...but what happens when you can't pay? Later D

Ok so from what I'm reading here, there's no opposition to UHC, just that the current status quo is ideal for the current demographic. Brad is correct, it's never quite universal here. And our system [Canada] isn't 100% free either. There are certain drugs that aren't covered and they are usually pretty expensive. This is where our health insurance comes into play. Other Canadians please feel free to chime in here because I work for the Feds and they have a pretty outstanding package. So if Tony is correct then what I've been seeing on TV is, generally speaking, that the loudest, most radical message gets the air time, which is why we see Sarah Palin talk about Death Panels [WTF are those anyway?] and the President gets called a Liar....? Later D

I don't normally post these kinds of things....but I gotta ask.... ...what is wrong with Universal Health Care? I watch CNN and CBC....all I see is a big racket about how the US President is trying to bring big government into people's lives....and death panels if you like Fox News..... I went to Newport News to speak at a conference a few years back and the cabbie I got when I was on my way to the Nauticus museum to look at USS Wisconsin called me a socialist. He still didn't let up even after I pointed out how screwed he'd be if he got into an accident right now. So can someone from below the 49th parallel please tell me why Universal Health Care is such a bad idea? And no the cabbie didn't get a tip. Later D

It doesn't have to be long tons....it could also be metric tonnes or short tons or regular tons. Technically, you'd need the underwater volume of the vessel, and it's hull coefficent. Length, Beam, Draft [not depth] and the coefficent. This could generate a volume [i generally use cubic meters] that would provide a tonnage dependant on the medium the vessel was in at the time....Fresh water, dock water, sea water, brackish, etc. The coefficent can be found using Simpsons Rules but that is going a little into too much detail. Later D

Hello, I have completed 5 scenarios for ANW and I am looking for players to test them. They were designed using v3.9.4 and they use the ANW DB and I have uploaded the DB and scens in separate ZIP files to this thread. If you have the time, please download them and let me know what you think. They all have an emphasis on surface warfare. I am looking for balance and ease of play, and anything else you might think is worthy of comment. There are currently 5 more scenarios in the pipeline that will be posted for testing at a later date. Thanks alot in advance for your help Later D ANWDBv22.zip DESRON.zip

I'm only a little more than halfway through it yet. Been slogging thru it for the last 2 shifts [and one of those was refit so I was home every night, no book]. Probably finish it in September.... Later D

I've been slogging through it the last 2 shifts on patrol Brad, I'm finding it hard going. I have to say that they really really did their research on it, perhaps a bit too much even. I don't want to spoil it for you but I can't really agree with their premise 100%. The facts aren't adding up to the history involved. Later D

Speed is the demon that all air defense systems have to worry about nowadays, thanks to the VLS, the days of the subsonic ASM are numbered. Why worry about eight Harpoons when you can put twice as many missiles in the air before it reaches half way from your radar horizon? I still think Shipwreck is king though. A huge airframe backed up by a Mach 2.5 rocket. So huge that is carries it's own decoys [chaff and flares] as well as a dual mode seeker and a datalink that not only talks back to the launching platform but to other missiles as well. This was the big improvement over SS-N-12, that one medium altitude missile can designate for other, lower altitude missiles, with the smarts to understand that a replacement is required if the 'scout' missile is shot down. VLS removed the volume of fire requirement from the missile defense equation. Now it's shifted back simply due to bigger and faster weapons. Harpoon may have better ECCM but that won't mean squat if an SA-N-9 rotary launcher can empty 8 missiles in just as many seconds. There's also talk of the SA-N-9 mounts now being double stacked as well. Later D

Good idea but what if the archer can see the rocks that you are flinging at him? That's always the problem I've had with HARM. Sure it does a good job, but what about if the site see's the incoming weapons and engages them? Later D

sharks?

I loved that book so much that I'm on my second copy of it. My first is falling apart somewhere..... The thing that hooked me was the description of Russian SSMs and the SS-N-19s ability to designate targets for other missiles in flight. That comment was way ahead of it's time and even more suprising, it turned out to be true. I've always said that we should thank the war gods that we never had to face up to something like that. Later D

Destroyers....my favorites being the Kidd, Sovremmenny, Delhi, and the De La Penne class [guns....lots of guns]. I've always been a surface warfare freak at heart. Later D

I do fishery patrol with the Canadian Coast Guard. I get enough of that already Later D

yeah I'm doing a what if kind of thing for it Later D

yes....I spent a good portion of yesterday looking thru my rules set to find it but came up blank. Later D

Morning all, This may sound like a stupid question, but where in the hotel are the rules for night time operations? I have searched the paper rules and can't find squat on it. The reason I'm asking is because I'm working on a hypothetical scenario about a night surface action between the Argentine and Royal Navy units in 1982 and can't find any data on whether the Lynx helos used by each side were VFR only or not. If the helo's were not able to fly it would greatly complicate targeting because the aircraft would have to use radar. The RN's use of Sea Skua's would also be greatly curtailed. Many thanks in advance. D