Waypoint Issue 3

WAYPOINT
THE MAGAZINE OF THE COMPUTER HARPOON COMMUNITY
Issue 3
February 2003
WAYPOINT
Front cover: The new Type 45 Daring-class AAW destroyer as depicted in a CGI illustration.
2
The magazine of the computer Harpoon community
WAYPOINT
is the monthly magazine of the computer Harpoon community, produced by the contribution of the
community members and freely distributed by the Harpoon Headquarters site (www.harpoonhq.com), the
premier Harpoon fan site on the net.
All the work submitted by contributors (articles, projects etc.) fully remains their intellectual property and
may be replicated/reproduced only under their explicit consent.
We continuously welcome and encourage input from the community – after all, it’s your magazine, and you
should be the ones to decide what gets presented! Ideas, suggestions, corrections, projects & articles of your
own, put your thoughts into words and email us at [email protected]. All emails are answered.
The Waypoint staff is in no official way associated with 360 Pacific, Interactive Magic, SpearSoft, AGSI,
UbiSoft or any other corporate entity related in any way to any of the computer Harpoon products.
STAFF
Dimitris V. Dranidis ([email protected]) - Lead Editor & Publisher, H2/3 material
Ragnar Emsoy ([email protected]) – Editor, H2/3 material
Michael Mykytyn ([email protected]) – Editor, H2/3 material
Kip Allen ([email protected]) – Wargaming veteran, “The Vet’s Pen” column
ISSUE CONTRIBUTORS:
Dr. Norman Friedman
David L. Rockwell
John McElhannon (aka Slick91)
Craig Paffhausen ([email protected])
Harold Hutchinson ([email protected])
LEGAL NOTICES, DISCLAIMER & COPYRIGHTS

The Harpoon series of Board Games has been (c) Larry Bond and Chris Carlson under various editions since
1977 and is still in print and protected by Copyright.
Harpoon, Classic, Classic 97, II (Harpoon 2), and III (Harpoon 3) and all their registered trademarks are (c)
Advanced Gaming Systems Inc. 1988-2002. All worldwide rights reserved Harpoon Online is (c) AGSI and
Kesmai Corporation. Harpoon 4 is (c) UbiSoft 2002 - all worldwide rights reserved. The newer databases,
help files & supplementary material for H2/3/2K2 are produced with permission of AGSI for non-
commercial distribution by each developer who applied for and received acknowledgement by AGSI.
We assume no legal responsibility for the quality of the information contain herein or whatever damage
(direct or indirect) caused by the presented material. All military information on these pages is sourced from
declassified material found in books, magazines, web sites and mails from fellow Harpooners and military
enthusiasts. However, if we have used sensitive material or copyright-protected material of any type, please
let us know so that we can remove it. Any information that does not correspond with declassified info was
obtained through the imagination of the editors.
The colour illustrations of the Sturgeon SSN and Delta-III SSBN are from David Miller & John Jordan’s
book “Modern Submarine Warfare”, Salamander editions. The colour illustrations & cutaways of the B-1
and F-111 are from the “World Aircraft Information Files” collection. In both cases all rights of the original
owners are fully reserved. The Waypoint staff claim no legal rights and/or ownership of the mentioned
graphic material.
3
WAYPOINT
CONTENTS
FROM THE HQ ....................................................................................... 5

In the long run
NOTICEBOARD ...................................................................................... 9
THE DOCKS........................................................................................... 13
Survivors of Son Tay (H2/3)
The Humbler (H2/3)
Kola 3 (H2002)
Doolitle 2 (H2002)
THE VET’S PEN .................................................................................... 18
TacOps: Harpoon on land
TECHNICAL .......................................................................................... 22
Configuring H3 options: .ini, .opt and H3Launcher
The quick & easy guide to derivative platforms in H3
JED SPECIAL ........................................................................................ 36
Up Periscope, Up Antenna
Submarine sensors come to the surface
THE ART OF WAR ............................................................................... 52
Shipboard phased-array radars
Platform Audit: The supersonic Tupolev bombers in service today
PLATFORM PROFILE......................................................................... 78
F-111 Aardvark (& EF-111/FB-111)
Sturgeon-class SSN
B-1 Lancer
Delta-class SSBN
Moskva-class CVHG
THE FAQs............................................................................................. 106
Q & A ..................................................................................................... 128
4
FROM THE HQ
In the long run

Just over a month ago Jesse Spears, the developer of Harpoon 3, made an announcement on
the long-term future of the simulation (for those who missed it, it is featured on the news
section on our previous issue). His statement was nothing less than groundbreaking, at least
in the domain of the Harpoon series.
In no ambiguous terms, J.Spears stated that he plans to build and support an alternative
version of the Harpoon 3 simulation, in addition to the existing one. The sole difference
between the two versions will be the structure of the program: the existing version will
continue to have all the program logic encapsulated in the single executable, while the
alternative version will have the various program subcomponents (wargaming mechanics,
interface, AI logic etc.) broken down into separate DLLs, whose source code will be
available to the public for editing & recompiling. A central “closed” executable will still be
present in order to prevent wholesale theft of the source code, but the rest of the program
will be essentially reap for modifications.
The main motive for this version was stated by the developer himself: “The advantage is
the same for any Open Source-style project: Lots of eyes looking at the code and lots of
brains thinking about the code will find more problems than just one set. I'll integrate bug
fixes and significant changes back into the main source tree from time to time, but for the
most part, I'll stay away from [this version].
You'll still need to buy a copy of the game to work on the Open Source project, since I'll be
the only one building the "Main" Application (everyone else will just build DLL's), but if
you have Modifications you think need to be in the game, you can work on them (and share
them with everyone else, or not if you don't want to). I will ask that all bug fixes be rolled
back into the Open Source project (or at least given to me so I can roll them into the main
source tree).”
These news gave us all here at the HQ plenty of food for thought. So, H3 is going for a
semi-open source architecture. This is, without doubt, great news for a community who, in
the past, has long been advocating greater participation from the part of the users on what
gets into any of the Harpoon simulations. We have been asking a bazillion features every
time a new version is in the works; now for the first time we will have the opportunity to
examine the actual code and, if possible, add our wish-list items ourselves.
We have also been thinking something else. This transformation of H3, if indeed it
materialises, will set a new paradigm in the non-classified combat simulation market. One
that is worth examining, contrasting it with hitherto existing practices and considering its
potential relevance for another project in the works: Harpoon 4.
5
WAYPOINT
Until now, in the computer entertainment industry, there have been three main paradigms
with regards to after-market program modification:
1) The program is deliberately “sealed” in its structure. All supporting data (graphics,
sound, separate code chunks etc.) are purposely protected from modification, either by
encryption to a proprietary format or by being rolled-up into the main executable or by
some other mechanism.
2) Most of the program is locked, but some bits and pieces of aesthetic purpose (3D
models, textures, sound effects files etc.) are deliberately left open to modification. This is
particularly popular in flight simulations, as it allows the creation of custom skins for
aircraft and other virtual objects. Until very recently, user access to the program’s 3D
models in simulations was a taboo issue, but the explosion of mod-making across the
games industry in the late years has been beating hard on that barrier. Third Wire’s “Strike
Fighters – Project 1” (not uncoincidentally the creation of T.Kawahito, a long-time
advocate of empowering user mods) definitely points the way forward in this respect,
allowing full user customisation of the simulation’s objects and their behavior.
3) A significant portion of the program material is left user-accessible, including data that
determine how the program interacts with the user, as well ats its internal mechanics. This
also includes cases where the program is structured deliberately so as to allow user
modifications to both its appearance and behavior. The old Microprose (R.I.P.) was a
decisive advocate of this approach in its last years: Tank sim buffs may recall the public
distribution of a Word document that described, in excruciating detail, how the text files
that contained the battle scenarios of M1 Tank Platoon 2 could be modified (or new ones
created from scratch), and how the behavior of the simulation objects could be determined
to a fine degree by the same parameters. Falcon 4 raised the bar significantly in this
respect, by allowing modifications on aspects such as operational doctrine, complete 3D
shapes, OOBs, tactical AI behavior and myriad other details in addition to the more
“traditional” custom skins and sound effects. (It was most unfortunate that Hasbro did not
actively encourage the dissemination of information regarding these mod capabilities).
Fleet Command, a program not overwhelmingly popular with certain members of the HHQ
crew, had the almost-redeeming feature of modifiable doctrine files that could dictate the
behavior of AI-controlled units. Harpoon 2, with its fully modifiable database as well as a
mission editor that was essentially writing the book on AI behavior, was another example.
A semi-Open Source H3 would declare a new way of doing business in the sim/strategy
genre: admitting without shame that the released product is imperfect to begin with, and
actually encouraging users to work in modifying the offered program, either to polish the
rough ends or to adjust it to their own personal needs & preferences – or both. This is
essentially what Microsoft has been doing for over a decade now with most of its modern
applications (Office VBA anyone?), and the practice seems to be a resounding success.
In the entertainment software industry of these days, a product’s post-release lifecycle can
typically be measured in the span of a few months. How many games can you name that
are being actively supported (a free patch/upgrade in the works, developer participation in
discussion forums etc.) six months after having hit the shelves? Not many. However good
6
the intentions of the development team, they have no choice but to support the title they
released (after much effort on their part) just for a while and then move on to other
projects, or get in serious trouble with their publishers. Such is the scheme of things.
Past experience however indicates that the products with the greatest degree of “openess”
to outside tampering are the ones with the most long-term sales. A small selection of
examples follow:
o Harpoon 3 started as a project after J.Spears, in his own words, got sick of having
people contact him and ask where they could find a copy of H2. That was years
after the release of the program, long after even the last copies had vanished from
the bargain bins. H2’s longevity can easily be attributed (apart from its inherent
qualities that made it one of the best simulations ever) to the efforts of dedicated
members of the Harpoon community.
o Falcon 4 has recently been observed being still in store shelves, for as much as
20GBP! That is a full four years after first release, and 3 years after the last official
patch was released. People are still bying the simulation, install F4UT’s SuperPak3
(freely downloadable from the web) and simply enjoy the finest non-classified air
combat simulation of all time. In simple terms, Infogrames is still making money
from a product that would normally not be even mentioned on the company’s
website.
o Fleet Command, until the recent eruption of interest over the expected release of
H4, still attracted sales and interest as a result of NWS’s series of upgrades. Not bad
for a product that was initially released in a very poor condition in mid-1999.
o Microprose’s Gunship!, (what should normally be called Gunship III), is still

attracting sales as a result of a large modding endeavor by a team of Gunship-
maniacs. Again, a product released in a premature state is having a second life
thanks to outside efforts.
o The source code for AAA titles like MiG Alley, Battle of Britain and most recently
Comanche-Hokum (among others) have been made available to the public in their
entirety. Mod projects are already in full swing for all three titles and are expected
to re-arouse interest around them. Interest that more than often translates to renewed
sales.
The general underlying message of the customers to the producers & publishers is clear:
Secrecy leads to reduced interest, and sales are limited to those that will buy the product no
matter what its condition. Openess leads to sense of participation, which leads to increased
and longer-term interest, which leads to more and longer-termed sales.
Now, let us think for a second how all this relates to the upcoming release of Harpoon 4.
There is every indication that H4 is going to be a superb product, crafted by a dedicated

development team. Unless the developers at Ultimation are divine entities however (a
7
WAYPOINT
thought that has entertained us occasionally ☺), there will be flaws, there will be bugs, and
there will be things that people will wish they were just a little different.
Now, we have no doubt that Ultimation is commited to providing support and fixes to the
product after its initial release, as they have with their previous titles. But for how long? 3
months? Six? How long until the market competition forces them to concentrate their
efforts in other projects? What happens to the (patched) program then? Does it remain in
the same form (remaining flaws and all) forever afterwards? Remember, the wargaming
crowd is not going to turn to “the next best thing” after 6 months (unless it’s really great).
And like most niche groups, grognards tend to have a voice of influence well out of
proportion ot their market size.
This is were the question of open structure comes in. How “open” is Harpoon 4? Is most of
the “meaty” stuff broken down neatly into individual-but-cooperating modules, or is
everything rolled-up into a messy heap? (as reportedly was the case with the H2 code when
J.Spears took over ☺). That, we don’t know, as we have no knowledge of its source code
whatsoever. If the structure of the program inherently discourages modifications and
general tampering with part of the code or data, then the whole point is moot.
If, however, the hurdle is not in the technical domain, but in Ubisoft’s belief in “keeping
their IP to themselves”, it might be wise to reconsider this approach.
Who gains from excessive secrecy over the code? No one. The product suffers as it grows
“old”, careful customers turn to other titles that offer greater openess, even the most
dedicated followers rapidly lose their interest as they realise that they have no chance of
ever having their program work the way they want it to. Eventually the product becomes
“just another” abandonware title in a long line of products.
Who gains from extensive modability, not simply on data (textures, sounds etc.) but on the
program internals themselves?
o The users, who get to have the program work their way.
o The developers, whose “to-do” list of fixes, improvements etc. shrinks dramatically
as the users themselves do much of the work – and for free!
o The publisher, as sales increase both immediately and in the long term, and the title
has a good chance of standing the test of time and building a strong reputation of
excellence (“From the makers of ‘XXX’”)
For these reasons, if the technical ability exists to enable post-release code modifications
on Harpoon 4, we at the HHQ highly encourage Ubisoft’s project manager(s) responsible
for the title to provide their explicit permission for such developments. In our opinion,
everyone stands to gain.
Harpoon HQ
By the Players for the Players
8
NOTICEBOARD
This section deals presents news of interest to the computer Harpoon community: everything from new
databases, new versions, new ideas expressed, to official press releases, to world events of relevance to
computer Harpoon. Have some news that you would like to spread around? Drop us a line
([email protected]) and we’ll credit you with the piece of news reported.
A new discussion group has spawned! The Harpoon’s Point is a Yahoo-hosted group for
discussing anything related to any version of Harpoon, as well as other air/naval strategy-
related titles (Fleet Command, Strike Fleet, Victory’s Fleet-series etc.). So if you’re into
talking air and naval stuff, check it out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harpoint
Inspired by last issue’s tactical discussion on sealing the Persian Gulf, Michael Masters
has pointed us to a relevant article on the perils of transiting the Straits of Hormuz, as
viewed by the sailors themselves. The article is available here:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/5149924.htm
Some Australian navy news, courtesy of Peter Grining from the HDG:
The HMAS Warramunga (#3) fired the first ESSM Jan 28. AFAIK Australia is the first customer for ESSM
(CFW 02/03 says the RAN will be the 'first ship in any Navy to fire ESSM'). All Anzac frigates from
'Warramunga' and on are fitted for quad-pack ESSM vice RIM-7P, 'Anzac' (#1) and 'Arunta' (#2) will be
upgraded in the future.
They are also being fitted with Nulka (4th Gen decoys, #3 on), Harpoon II (2004, 'Ballarat' #6 on), SH-
2G(A) vice S-70B-2 Seahawk (2005). AFAIK they will receive a second Ceros 200 director (9LV200 with
RA, EO modes) sometime between now and 2007. Not sure on what sort of towed array and if they are still to
fit one at all.
An update on Russian torpedoes by Ragnar Emsoy and Peter Grining of the HDG:
Combat Fleets 2002/2003 says the APR-3 is still under development, the earlier APR-2 entered service in
1981. APSET-95 is the export name for the UMGT-1, this is used in later versions of the SS-N-14/15/16. The
APSET-95/UMGT-1 can also be used by aircraft, although Russian ASW aircraft seem to use AT-1/2/2M and
APR-1/2, along with depth charges.
I have also found out that the UMGT-1 torp is the warhead for SS-N-16, while the AT-3 is the aircraft
version. In-service date is said to be 1981, but I do not know if the torps entered wide-spread service.
Searches on the web reveals nothing new and would in many cases suggest the APR-2 and AT-2M are the
main weapons in use today. No hard evidence on APR-3 either.
Ragnar Emsoy posted his “first look” impressions and interesting tidbits from the new
research book “Soviet Long Range and Naval Aviation Missiles”:
My first impression was how thin this book was. This is it?? But when I opened it, there were lots and lots of
cool graphs, pictures and great info.
9
WAYPOINT
I first checked out the Kh-20 (AS-3). It appears 130 missiles were built, and were first intended for strikes
against the USA. Later they were also given an anti-carrier role. It took 22 hours to prepare and mount the
missile, and problems with the guidance package often required the missile to be 'manually guided' (via
command datalink). The missile was considered obsolete by the mid-70s, replaced by AS-4.
Then, the K-10 (AS-2). The missile was intended for use by the Naval Aviation in the anti-ship role, and the
Northern Fleet Naval Aviation tested the nuke variant in 1962 near Novaya Zemlya. There were at least two
operational versions, K-10N (conv) and K-10SNB (nuke). The book also say a special ECM drone called K-
10SP also entered service. Lastly, there were a number of experimental versions.
The Tu-16K10-26 was considered by the Soviet's to be their most potent anti-ship platform until the
introduction of the Tu-22M-2. (Remember that the missile-armed Tu-22K Blinder never entered AV-MF
service, and only about 60 of these aircraft were built. The AV-MF only operated the Tu-22R recon version)
Most interestingly, there is a pic showing a Tu-16 carrying one AS-2 under the fuselage and two AS-6 under
the wings. Could it be the AS-2 is the ECM/decoy version? Hmm.…
KSR-2 (AS-5) is said to have a dual land/sea role, to be used against high radio-contrast targets. Service
entry 1962, main carrying a/c was the Tu-16K-16. A total of 4 naval aviation regiments were fitted with this
missile. The weapon was mainly intended for use against frigates and destroyers, while anti-carrier strikes
were considered to require 40-60 missiles. The upgraded KSR-2M allowed higher launch altitudes and
longer ranges thanks to better seeker.
The KSR-11 was the anti-radar version of the above missile, entering service with the AV-MF in 1962 and
Long-Range Aviation in 1965. I believe this missile was also codenamed AS-5.
Egypt is said to have launched 82 missiles at Israel, only 5 of them hit. Missiles fired by Iraq against Iranian
oil facilities had little success too. Reason being the export variant had a simplified seeker with only one
operating frequency.
And then... the Kh-22 missile (by far my favorite Soviet weapon, hehe ☺)
It appears the first version was the Kh-22PSI, which carried a 200kt nuke warhead and was guided by INS
only.
Next, there was the Kh-22 (no designation) with a 950kg blast-frag warhead (500kg explosives) and a PG (?)
type active radar seeker. The same missile with a nuke warhead was designated Kh-22N, and is said to be the
'main' version.
There is a diagram showing the Kh-22 and Kh-22N being used against a land target (a bridge). The missile
locks on the target while still under the Tu-22 Blinder's belly. The aircraft turn away after launch and the
missile finds its own way to the target using autopilot and active radar. It says the missile goes into a 30-
degree terminal dive, but the diagram shows a 60-degree dive. Could it be the Soviets really mean 60 when
they say 30?
These versions were only carried by the Tu-22K Blinder. Kh-22 and Kh-22N in 1967, Kh-22PSI in 1971 due
to problems encountered during development.
According to the book, the Kh-22 was to be used mainly against sea targets. A fan of Kh-22PSI missiles
would be launched first, then Kh-22 and Kh-22N would be launched to take out surviving vessels (presumably
the aircraft carrier).
The missiles for the Tu-22M-2 Backfire were Kh-22M (active radar, conv. warhead) and Kh-22MA (with
“terrain-following correction system”, whatever that means), conv. warhead, and were fielded in 1974. The
Kh-22P (passive radar) was planned but never fielded with the Tu-22M.
The Tu-22M-3 had the Kh-22N (inertial + active radar in last stages of flight, conv warhead), and Kh-22NA
10
(inertial, nuke warhead), service entry 1976. The planned Kh-22NP (passive radar) was cancelled. The Tu-
22M-3 could also use the earlier Kh-22M and Kh-22MA.
The Tu-95K-22 used the Kh-22N and NA missiles and entered service in 1987. The first test launch from a
Tu-95K-22 took place in 1981.
A total of 1000 Kh-22 missiles were delivered. Today, the early Kh-22 versions have been scrapped. Only Kh-
22N remains, the nuke version has been retired. 386 nuclear-armed missiles were turned over to Russia from
Ukraine after 1991.
The February 2003 issue of the Journal of Electronic Defence

(JED) takes a detailed look at the offensive avionics available
to Soviet/Russian attack aircraft: Strengths, limitations, past
history, current operational status and future projects. Other
subjects we picked from this month’s issue include:
Tackling the problems of communications between

ground and air forces in the face of civilian
interference
Electro-optical systems for combat helicopters
B-1B DSUP upgrade cancelled – preluse to early
retirement?
Exocet Block III – the direct competitor to Harpoon
Blk II
New versions of the Predator UAV ordered by the USAF
Plus a wide range of defence-related news from around the globe
An unmissable resource for the serious student/professional of military technology, the

online version of JED is available here: www.jedonline.com. Access to the online content
requires a free registration.
It has been confirmed: Harpoon 3 v3.5.9 and DB2000 v6.4 are going to be officially and
concurrently released to the public on the first days of March. The latest versions of the H3
simulation and its defacto-standard database will join forces to break apart one of the oldest
abstractions in the Harpoon simulation series: common ready-times for all loadouts on all
aircraft. Now for the first time, each loadout on each aircraft in the simulation’s database is
going to have its own preparation time, depending on a myriad of factors. DB2000 creator
Ragnar Emsoy commended on the new feature:
H3 v3.5.9 comes with the much-improved version v6.4 of the DB2K database that MUST be used in order for
the custom ready times to work properly. All of the DB2K scenarios have been rebuilt to work with this
database. […]
Custom Ready Times means no more generic 30 minute ready times for all aircraft, from an A-4 to a B-52.
Each loadout will get its own preparation time, so you'd better allow six hours before prepping your F-15Es
for a deep strike, but if you arm them for light air-to-air, they can fly in 15-30 minutes! A common Blue-side
trick in Harpoon Classic, 'Classic 97 and 'Classic 2002 is to simply shuttle your carrier-borne strikers back
and forth until the Red CVBG/SAG runs out of defensive missiles and countermeasures. No real strategy, no
11
WAYPOINT
real effort, just a pre-determined exercise in attrition. Same if the Red side has lots of Backfires and some
good escorts - they can simply do the "take off - launch stand-off ASMs - land" dance all night long.
Essentially the side with stronger air assets will win every time. *Yawn*.
H2 (and by extension, past versions of H3) improved this situation by enabling limits on the ordnance
available to air assets, but unfortunately the air-hyperactivity remained as a result of very short ready times.
The same dances as before, with the difference that now they eventually stop when you run out of ammo. If
aircraft in real life were so omnipotent as they are until now in Harpoonland, the world's armed forces
wouldn't bother buying anything else other than aircraft. (That the budget priorities of some branches do
indeed come close to that philosophy is another matter altogether...). In Harpoon currently, it is almost
impossible for your surface assets to avoid being monitored by aircraft almost continuously – in real life, it is
perfectly feasible to avoid both aircraft and satellite surveillance, simply exploiting the gaps in their
availability.
Not doing the [land - prepare - take off] dance every half-hour means having time to plan better, maneuver
your non-air assets, check your forces for casualties from the last clash (a tricky thing in large scenarios),
prepare your forces better (reload specific weapons of your choice, form custom groups etc.), replenish and
re-supply your forces etc. In short, it means having an overall better and more realistic wargaming
experience - and isn't that what we all aim for?
In real life, modern strike aircraft fly two to three strike missions per day. This goes for both carrier-based
air power as well as for land-based tactical aircraft, including F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, A-6E, Mirage 2000,
Rafale, Su-24M and Su-34. Older jets like the F-4E Phantom were normally able to produce 2.5 sorties per
day, while the super-complex F-111D was not able to do more than 1.5. Many countries are known to not
being capable of maintaining high sortie generation rates and this has also been taken into account.
The F-117A only flies at night, which results in one sortie per 24h, while early models of the B-2A could only
manage one sortie per 48h due to difficulties with their RAM coatings.
Bombers like B-52 and B-1B (as well as later versions of the B-2As) normally only fly one mission per day,
while in-theatre bombers like the Tu-22M Backfire can do 1 to 1.5. CAS aircraft can often produce 5-6
sorties per day.
Now, what we have done in the DB2000 is to begin by enforcing general figures for entire classes of aircraft
and loadouts/missions, and then run through the list repeatedly refining the data in each turn, to suit specific
aircraft, loadouts, different countries, different timescales, different tactics and doctrines, and so on and so
on. And with each refining pass, supported by our research, these figures get closer and closer to the real
thing.
So the values we have used for the Harpoon3 DB2000 database are based fully on real-life figures. Typically,
modern strike aircraft will be able to fly three sorties per day (ready time is six hours), older aircraft two
sorties (10 hours ready time), long range bombers can fly one or one-and-a-half sorties (12-18h ready time),
while CAS aircraft have a 2h-ready time. Air-to-air missile loadouts and most other configurations (incl
guns, torpedo, simpler A/G loadouts) will have 30- to 120- minute ready time.
12
THE DOCKS
The Docks section lists new additions to the community: New scenarios, new utilities, new tools, significantly
new versions of existing material etc. Naturally, the focus of new additions is scenarios. Think you can write-
up a good summary or comment on any scenario you have given a spin recently? Made the next Harpoon-
related killer app? Tell us about it ([email protected]) and share it with the community. All of the
material covered is normally available at the HarpoonHQ download sections.
Harpoon 2 / Harpoon 3
Survivors of Son Tay
By Klaus Behrman
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST ASIA

DATE/TIME: 12 SEPTEMBER 2002, 11:00 H Z
Back during the Vietnam war, the USA launched a brilliantly executed commando raid on
the prison of Son Tay west of Hanoi, only to find out that American POWs were moved to
another location shortly prior to the raid.
After hostilities ceased, most POWs were released to the International Red Cross, but
some were still unaccounted for. According to Vietnamese officials, some escaped and
must have died; and two others died in prison.
Some USAF and CIA officers never believed that story, and a few days ago a former
Pathet Lao general, who defected to Thailand, briefed the CIA chief of station in Bangkok
that there are still twelve survivors of Son Tay in a prison camp northeast of
Louangphrabang in Laos. The Vietnamese kept them there because of their intimate
knowledge of Russian/Vietnamese interrogation techniques and as a last bargaining chip in
case something with the peace negotiations with the U.S. went wrong.
The American president decides against a negotiated release of these remaining prisoners
of war, because the USA need to show a position of strength in view of the resurrection of
worldwide terrorist groups. And, in addition, there is a need to send a message to the
remaining communist nations of the world that you do not fool around with the US of A.
Contrary to standard procedures, the rescue mission has to be launched without delay, as it
is feared that the defection of the Laotian general might force another relocation of the
POWs. US forces in the region scramble to launch a rescue mission which must not fail.
Scenario Briefing
Orders for Commander U.S. operations:
13
WAYPOINT
An attempt long ago to rescue some of our best men from a Vietnamese prison camp failed
- many of you may have heard of our unguided (by proper intelligence) mission to rescue
our POWs from Son Tay prison camp near Hanoi.
This was many years ago. A few days ago, a former Pathet Lao general defected to
Thailand and openend his heart. While we do not have exact coordinates, we know that the
Vietnamese have moved our last missing boys years ago somewhere near and northeast of
Louangphrabang.
Lacking the usual preparation time and due to the urgency of the situation, the President
has ordered an immediate rescue mission, which, due to important political considerations
and, of course, for the sake of the remaining survivors, must not fail.
ORDERS
We have been tasked to move north towards the Gulf of Tonkin and jam Vietnamese and
Laotian radar sites as much as possible. We need to move with the utmost speed in order to
be in launching position for our helicopters.
Once you launch the MC-130E Delta Force flights, you have to provide escort and air
superiority missions as well as suppression of possible enemy radar activities.
You also need to scout the theatre of operations with your reconnaissance-capable planes.
INTELLIGENCE
Nobody has an idea about how Vietnam would take an incursion over her territory into
Laotian airspace at the present moment; expect them to be hostile due to their ultimate
responsibility for the POWs and their need for a public denial of the situation. However,
operations against Vietnamese forces should be limited to the defence and protection of
our special forces, and your Marines moving into Laos.
Thailand has not allowed us to use their airspace for combat-related operations, meaning
you have to launch your MH-53Js from there but cannot return to your base - the Pave
Lows have to proceed to the ARG in the Gulf of Tonkin; but a close friend in the Thai air
force promised a helping hand in case the situation over Laos gets out of control.
Unfortunately, China has just announced it will be conducting ASuW exercises in the
South China Sea and the Gulf of Tonkin.
EXECUTION
At your discretion. But, in order to be more specific:
a) Our AWACS is down for at least 8 h due to maintenance problems (spare parts are
being flown in from Pearl Harbor), so the USN has to cope with tactical reccon; (PLEASE
USE THE AWACS AT PAYA LEBAR ONLY AFTER 10 H GAME TIME).
14
b) Obviously, the only way to get out our guys is by helo, so move tankers up north, and
possibly prepare as many as helos as possible in case the Delta Force Pave Lows get shot
down.
In this respect, note that the Delta Force must parachute their troops from MC-130Es in the
vicinity of the prison camp, supported by two AC-130 gunships. The prisoners will be
flown out by two Pave Lows launched from Thailand and must then be flown to the ARG;
Delta Force troops parachuted over the camp need to be recovered by the Super Stallions
on board ESSEX.
FLAG: Paya Lebar

Recommended EMCON: C (no emissions)
Victory conditions: 2 Pave Lows and 8 Super Stallions have to hover over the camp
marked by the reference points for a minimum of 10 min. The helicopters must then fly to
the ARG. Game time is 2 days.
Communication is a major factor in this scenario, so you must think hard what and where
to deploy in order to stay in contact with your troops, because assigning them to AI-
controlled missions will not work (never works in my scenarios).
The Humbler
By Michael Mykytyn
This is a quick force-on-force CVBG battle. A small test to see how good you are at
meeting your match instead of the usual Kirov, Kuznetsov match... Good Luck.
Notes:
You will notice ASW and submarine units missing from your CVBG composition.
This was done on purpose; it's a air and surface exercise.
The Stennis Battle Group is set in a typical CVBG posture. It works, but you are
encourage to experiment.
Scenario Briefing
John Stennis CVBG
Sitrep: You've spent the last 6 months on station waiting for this moment. Starting last
year CINCPAC enacted a new wargame that every carrier must take part in when returning
to the west coast. Basically, on your way past Pearl you must engage your replacement
CVBG that is heading out in a mock force on force battle. The outgoing group is always
reinforced by Navy and Air Force units from Pearl.
15
WAYPOINT
Orders: Completely destroy the outgoing battle group and supporting forces. In this case
the Carl Vinson CVBG.
Intel: Mock intell reports have come in all night. Your opposition includes the Carl
Vinson CVBG, elements of CruDesRon 1 out of Pearl Harbor and no less than 2 Fighter
Wings out of Wheeler AFB. No submarine activity is expected. Scenario duration is six
days.
Harpoon Classic 97/2002
Kola III (EC2000 Norwegian Sea Battleset)

By Bruce Fenster and Byron Audler
Many of you may have tried Byron Audler's Kola Scenario which was previously posted
on Edward Ladner's Harpoon Pages (http://home.infi.net/~edladner/). Byron designed this
scen in response to comments that the AI would be a somewhat "lame" opponent for a
formidable blue CVBG foray northward to the Kola Peninsula. As a result of several
AAR's supporting that view, I have tried, with Byron's advice and support, to even the
odds a bit and provide you, the blue player, with a more spirited Red defense.
To accomplish this we had to address 2 factors that often made for an easy Blue victory in
the original scenario: a) Blue's tremendous aerial advantage from his 48 Phoenix-armed F-
14s, and b) the all too frequent unwillingness of Red subs to attack the Blue CVBG. These
factors were originally addressed in Kola II, currently available on Ed's site, and meant for
play with the HC97 game engine.
The improved aerial and submarine warfare AI in Harpoon 2002 has necessitated yet
another revision. It's a work in progress and I have uploaded 2 files here for you to
experiment with.
'Kol3_1' is an exact replica of Kola II except as pertains to AI submarines. This rev takes
advantage of Bret Mckee's reprogramming and you should find the subs to be quite an
improvement over what previously existed in Harpoon Classics.
'Kol3_5' is my latest attempt to pare back on the AI Backfire component. Bret's new aerial
AI has made the original version too lopsided in favor of the AI aerial attack. I'm still
refining it, but it should be more "balanced" and afford the player at least a fighting chance
to get a victory.
Good luck and good hunting.
Victory conditions are now as follows:
Blue Minimum Victory -- Destroy 3 Bases

Blue Total Victory -- Destroy all 4 Bases
16
Red Minimum Victory -- Destroy either carrier or 6 escorts

Red Total Victory -- Destroy both carriers
PS: Please note that your CVBG is already approaching the Kola Peninsula and the game
engine does not allow ASW or CAP to be airborne at start-up. Expect hostle activity from
the opening moments and deploy accordingly.
Doolitle II (A scenario for the EC2000 Norwegian Sea battleset)

By Brad Leyte
BLUE ORDERS
The Russians have launched a massive attack throughout the Norwegian Sea theater,
seizing a beachhead near Orland about halfway down the coast of Norway. The
Norwegians are still in the fight, but it is doubtful for how long. The enemy has followed
up their first wave of attacks with the deployment of not one, but two, very large carrier
battle groups. Intel indicates that both Kuznetsov and Varyag have put to sea, together
with a large number of escorts, including nuclear powered battlecruisers and ASW
carriers. At least one of these CVBGs is expected to bolster the beachhead in Norway,
while the other may threaten Iceland or even the North Atlantic.
Arrayed against the gathering Russian storm cloud, the US Navy has advanced a two-
pronged defence. The Mobile Offshore Base Mitchel has forward deployed to a large fjord
in eastern Greenland, together with a modified Air Expeditionary Wing. The Wing will
have its hands full in defending against the two Russian CVBGs and in supporting our
counter-attack.
And, in the south, we are pushing ahead with a plan to retake Norway. A PHIBGRU has
been rapidly assembled and is now heading north for the Gap. It is critical that the group
successfully reach its objective.
Send comments to [email protected]
17
WAYPOINT
THE VET’S PEN
TACOPS — HARPOON ON LAND

By Kip Allen
I’ve been a military simulations buff for many years. My interests in the genre are multi-
environmental — that means land, sea and air.
By far, Harpoon 3 is the best tactical/operational-level naval simulation in my experience.

Everything from the formation editor to staff allowances, from the detailed database to
Internet community of ’pooners put it in a class by itself.
But Harpoon 3 has a rival for my affections. It’s called TacOps 4, designed by Maj. I.L.
Holdridge, USMC (ret.). One of my gaming buddies calls it, “Simply the best tactical-level
land combat simulation ever made.” I agree with his assessment.
TacOps has all the elements that make Harpoon 3 so successful. As I earlier stated,
everything from the formation editor to staff allowances, from the detailed database to the
Internet community of enthusiasts.
As H3 places the player in command of a force of ships, subs and aircraft; TacOps places
the player in overall command of a land force ranging in company size up to multiple
brigades and regiments, complete with air strikes and off-map artillery. The forces may be
American (both Army and Marine), Canadian, Australian, New Zealand or German versus
various opposing forces ranging from the former Soviet Union to Middle Eastern terrorist
training camps. Players may assume command of either the Western or OPFOR side.
On the most basic level,

both Harpoon3 and
TacOps4 are true
simulations — that is, they
can mirror real-life
situations as well as
capabilities. As Harpoon
addict Dimitris Dranidis of
Harpoon HQ (known as
“Sunburn” on the bbs) puts
it, “A simulation, no doubt
about it. Many things that
would please Joe Gamer
were pushed aside so that
the authentic feel of being
stuck in a CIC could be
preserved.”
Looking at a typical map in TacOps 4
18
The H3 player is in the virtual “CIC” as Dimitris notes; in TacOps, the player is in a virtual
headquarters site, looking at maps. Both are somewhat abstract using NATO and other
symbology.
The overall look and “fog of war” uncertainty principle are quite similar to Harpoon3.
Extensive research has gone into both simulations, both in terms of hardware and
capabilities. In H3, the database includes information on all the weapons systems, aircraft
and ships to aid the player in determining the best strategy and tactics given his existing
force. The database is constantly being upgraded, as new information becomes available.
Mike Mykytyn of Harpoon HQ notes:
“Entries are added, updated or deleted as new information becomes available or

improvements to the game are made. All sorts of open sources are used, compared and
scrutinized to produce the most accurate model of each platform that the game engine will
allow. We are currently working with Larry Bond, Chris Carlson and a talented team of
database writers to get our respective data sets as accurate and as close together as
possible.”
Again, TacOps mirrors this ability. Maj. Holdridge included extensive databases, as well as
official training manuals, that give the same information to TacOps players.
Browsing the database
19
WAYPOINT
As is the case with H3, this database has different levels to aid in determining what weapon
system is most effective against specific targets. Weapon systems from individual snipers
to anti-tank missiles to T-80 tanks are available.
Another similarity between the

two simulations is the use of
“staff.” In H3, the player may
assign different tasks, such as
formation and weapon
selection to his “staff” who will
then make the appropriate
decision.
Again, the player has a

somewhat similar ability in
TacOps. While it is handled
differently, the TacOps player
has the option to issue certain
doctrinal orders to all units,
such as “shoot and scoot.”
Now, what was the flank armor protection on the M-1A1 again?
The player may also give
orders to specific units, just as
in H3. Here again, doctrine plays a role. As an example, the player may order a specific
unit to refrain from firing unless an enemy unit comes close enough to see it. Or, the player
may order a unit to target a specific enemy unit or give targeting priority to a specific target
class.
This behaviour control provides the ability

to dictate an individual unit’s doctrine
functions in much the same manner as the
H3 mission editor.
Issuing orders
The way both H3 and TacOps mirror real life may be measured by how much stock the
professionals, that is the military, put in wargaming for training purposes.
Jim Dunnigan, one of the fathers of modern wargames, is an author and a Defense
Department consultant. Speaking at a recent DoD conference on wargaming as a training
aid, Dunnigan said:
20
“When commercial wargames flourished in the 1970s, there were many examples of these
games (or their technology) being used to address transformation or predictive issues. The
game Sinai predicted the innovative tactics the Egyptians used to breach the Bar Lev line.
Games like “The Next War” examined many, previously undiscussed, tactical and strategic
options on the Central Front.”
Specifically, the U.S. military took a keen interest in TacOps. In fact, Dunnigan noted the
military even utilized wargame hobbyists to help develop new tactics.
“On the tactical level, you can use a COT (commercial off the shelf) product like TacOps
(created by a retired Marine officer) for speculative experiments. This was already done to
test Medium Brigade concepts (see After Action Reports for the “Team Trackless” project
at http://www.strategypage.com/tt/msiepage.htm”
American, Canadian and other Western militaries now use TacOps for training purposes.
Harpoon 3 has also joined those ranks. The Royal Australian Navy officially uses Harpoon
3. On a non-official basis, Dimitris noted that numerous naval training departments
worldwide, as well as the Air Staff University at Maxwell AFB, USAF, are also using
Harpoon 3 or its direct predecessor, H2.
Another similarity is that both games have good online sites for information, updates and
exchange of ideas. For Harpoon, the Harpoon Headquarters (www.harpoonhq.com) and
Jesse Spears’ developer site (www.harpoon3.com) are the most familiar. For TacOps,
TacOps headquarters at www.battlefront.com/resources/tacops is the premier site and Jim
Dunnigan’s www.strategypage.com links to the Team Trackless site.
The one area where the two split is the mode of play. Harpoon3 is currently strictly a
solitaire simulation. TacOps may be played by up to eight players, either sequentially on a
single computer, on networked computers or by e-mail. This gives TacOps a decided edge
in playability. This difference is destined to disappear. Harpoon 3 is in the process of being
converted to a fully multiplayer simulation platform – in fact, the underlying code has been
fully restructured to facilitate this transition and all the latest executable versions of the
program have doubled-up as test beds for this transformation.
Both TacOps and Harpoon3 are pushing the envelope as far as simulations are concerned.
They are constantly evolving, and with each new incarnation become more and more true
to life, thus blurring the line between a game and a simulation.
Regardless of this evolution, both TacOps and Harpoon3 mean many hours of informative
enjoyment for their respective devotees.
21
WAYPOINT
TECHNICAL
Technical material….internal wargaming mechanics, database modifications, sensor & physics models,
how-to’s, hardware and related subjects. Think you know the perfect hardware setup to run any of the
computer Harpoon versions? Found a way to make H4 run on a Spectrum 48K in Windows-emulation
mode? Want to analyse some God-forgotten detail of the sensor or physics or damage models that you feel
could use some tweaking? In the mood of tutoring others about some facet of Harpoon that you have
mastered over the years? Go ahead and share your knowledge with the community.
CONFIGURING HARPOON 3 OPTIONS: .INI, .OPT AND

H3LAUNCHER
By Michael Mykytyn
Life is full of options, and fortunately so is Harpoon Three. Outside that bit of wisdom, you
may be wondering where to find this optional stuff with your new game. Well, the
developers (old and new) have given you plenty to choose from and two different methods
to change them. I hope to give you a quick and easy explanation, so you can get right to
the fun stuff.
Part I: The Harpoon3.ini File
The first mechanism of change in the game is the infamous Harpoon3.ini file. You have to
remember that back in the 90s gaming day this was the primary method to change the
properties of one’s game. So being that this game is rooted in that period, its usage still
exists1. This file is a small 10 kilobyte file found in your main Harpoon 3 directory
(c:\games\harpoon3 for example) and goes by the filename of harpoon3.ini. You open it
by simply double-clicking the file, which will then open through your default text editor
(Notepad or whatever else you are using). You’ll know you are in the right place when the
first line you see is: [Harpoon3]. As a note, you unknowingly created this file when you
first ran H3, so this is where all the values derive from.
Changing the ini file is an easy process. At the end of each entry there is a value that you
are allowed to change (marked in this piece by a bold font). You simply scroll down to that
entry and replace it with the appropriate value of your choosing and then save the file. I
will explain the proper values of each one in this document. As with all editable files, there
is great wisdom in backing-up the original version and we suggest you do so if you make
any changes.
1
Ed: It also means not having to mess with the Windows registry. This has two immediate benefits:
You can move the program folder around without having to re-install it, just by adjusting the paths in
the ini file.
You don’t have to re-install it if you re-install Windows.
After preaching the active use of the Windows registry for nearly a decade, even Microsoft has now realised
the frequent troubles this can cause and is now recommending that applications have their own XML-
structured ini-style file with them instead of storing everything in the registry. Full-circle and all that…☺
22
Section of Ini file Further Explanation

; ================================ The first item you will see is your display options.
; Super VGA Modes Supported As you can see this simply is a listing of possible
; ================================ display modes of computer. 800 by 600 is always
; 101 640 x 480 x 256 the default but you may change as desired. Higher
; 103 800 x 600 x 256 resolutions give you more “real estate” space
; 105 1024 x 768 x 256 (particularly for the tactical displays) but the text
; 107 1280 x 1024 x 256 becomes a bit harder to read. Experiment and you’ll
; find out what suits you best.
; Anything other than one of the
; listed modes results in the
; screen resolution set to 101
; ================================
SVGAMode 103
; ==================================== The next section of the ini deals with your sound
; Sound Directives options. This is fairly self-explanatory and works the
;==================================== same as the above mentioned section of the ini. You
; 0 No Sound simply replace the value after sound to suit your
; 1 Voice only needs. Keep in mind the voices are neat but Jesse is
; 2 Music only no Barry White. I suggest you turn these off,
; 3 Voice and Music only particularly in larger scenarios as you may get many
; 4 F/X only “Vampire!” calls concurrently.
; 5 Voice and F/X only
; 6 F/X and Music only
; 7 Voice, F/X and Music
; ====================================
Sound 7
; ==================================== The next section of the ini file has to do with the
; Animation Settings: Can be set to ON or OFF Animation settings. The Animation settings are the
; ==================================== little movies that are displayed when certain actions
take place in the game (weapons are launched, planes
Animations ON are shot down, ships are hit etc.). As you can see,
you have a wide range of settings to play with in this
; ==================================== section of the file. The first section, Animations, is a
; Animation window persistence, may be on or off general setting which allows you to turn them all on
; ==================================== or off. If you do not wish to have any animations,
you simply set this one to off and your job is done.
AnimationPersist OFF If you wish to keep them on, but with specific
settings, you must work through the rest of the
; ==================================== section. “Animation persist” simply gives you the
; If Animations are set to ON, the following settings option to allow the animation to remain on your
; may be specified. If Animations are set to OFF, screen until you turn it off or not. Finally, the last
; these items are always off in the game, no matter five options gives you control of each animation
; what the following settings are. individually.
; ====================================
WeaponLaunch OFF
WeaponHit ON
23
WAYPOINT
PlaneLaunch OFF
PlaneLand OFF
PointDefense OFF
;==================================== The next section of the ini covers aircraft logistics,

; Aircraft Logistics Setting which is fairly important to most players. The basic
; Set this variable to ON if you want to limit premise behind this one is giving yourself an option
; the number of aircraft weapons available to of limited ammunition with your aircraft or
; the contents of the parent unit's magazines unlimited. You choose “ON” to enforce aircraft
; ==================================== logistics (ie. limited weapons for your aircraft) and
“OFF” to ignore them
AircraftLogistics ON
; ==================================== Next, we’ve got a section designed for scenario

; Class Restrictions - Scenario Editor Only writers only, called Class Restriction. What these do
; is allow the scenario editor to view the database only
; Set ClassRestrictionByCountry ON if you wish by class or year. Changing these values is simply
; to limit the classes available to ones used done by change the default values from “OFF” to
; by the selected country. “ON”. When you turn “Class Restriction by
; Country” to On and then access the scenario editor
; Set ClassRestrictionByTime ON if you ALSO and choose to add a unit, a list of nations is produced
wish from the country file. When you select the desired
; to limit selection to classes and individual country a list of its platforms will be produced for
; units which were historically in service that you to select. When you turn “Class Restriction by
; year. This option only works if Time” on and then access the editor you will be
; Class RestrictionsByCountry is set ON. given a selection based on the date you’ve chosen
;==================================== when first creating the scenario.
ClassRestrictionByCountry OFF *IMPORTANT: The DB2000 does not support

the country file so these options will not function
ClassRestrictionByTime OFF properly. If you are using the DB2000 then leave
this settings to OFF. This function will work only
with the default database.
;==================================== The next section is allows you to change the default

; Load Scenario file extension file extensions for Harpoon to load and save
;==================================== scenarios and games. These options are change by
LoadList *.SCN,*.SAV simply editing the extensions listed in the file.
;====================================
; Save Scenario file extension
;====================================
SaveList *.SAV
;==================================== The next set of options really should be left alone

; Directories where resource files are stored except under certain circumstances and assuming
;==================================== you really know what you’re doing. The only options
ResDirCount 3 that would be a concern to any player are the res, dat
and dat2 locations. These must be changed when
ResDir1 C:\harpoon3\resource using other databases. The database writers should
24
include a detailed file explaining how to change

ResDir2 C:\harpoon3\sound these values correctly with any database release. The
DB2000 and default database do not require you to
ResDir3 C:\harpoon3\dat2 change a thing which means that these values should
be left alone. All these paths must be adjusted
;==================================== properly if you move the folder to any other location
; Directory where startup music is found in your hard disk.
;====================================
MusicDir C:\harpoon3\resource
; ====================================
; Directory where intro animation is found
;====================================
IntroDir C:\harpoon3\resource
; ====================================
; Directory where runtime animations are found
;====================================
AnimDir C:\harpoon3\video
; ====================================
; Directory where map data is stored
;====================================
MapDir C:\harpoon3\mapdata
;====================================
; Directory where scenerio data is stored
; ====================================
ScenarioDir C:\harpoon3\battlset
;====================================
; Directory where annex data is stored
; ====================================
AnnexDir C:\harpoon3\database
;====================================
; Directory where doctrine tables are stored
;====================================
DoctrineDir C:\harpoon3\doctrine
;====================================
; Scenario creator scratch file
;====================================
ScratchFile C:\harpoon3\scratch.map
;====================================
; Palette save file
;====================================
25
WAYPOINT
Palette C:\harpoon3\resource\default.pal
;====================================
; Default Palettes file
;====================================
DefaultPalettes C:\harpoon3\resource\pal.bin
; Map Preferences The next set of editable options in the ini are the map
; options. As you can see a bit of math is required to
; 1 Show coastlines (should ALWAYS be on) get your desired result. It is worth noting that you
; 2 Show international borders can change these options within the game - however,
; 4 Show ice caps they will only work for your current game. If on the
; 8 Show land other hand you alter them through the ini file, they
; 16 Show water will be the default standard for all scenarios you
; 32 Show data blocks play. The default value shown here is suggested, as
; 64 Show ice pack adding anymore may clutter your map.
; 128 Show unit paths
; 256 Show groups
; 512 Show sonobuoys
; 1024 Show current unit data block
; 2048 Show current unit path
; 32768 Show reference points
; 65536 Show communication networks
; 131072 Show wind data
; 262144 Show cloud data
; 524288 Show precipitation data
; 1048576 Show surface threat zones
; 2097152 Show submarine threat zones
; 4194304 Show air threat zones
; 8388608 Show restricted navigation zones
; 16777216 Show neutral zones
;
; Add the values for the features you wish
; to have displayed
;====================================
MapPreferences 15830273
;==================================== This next section deals with displaying latitude and

; Map Lat,Lon Line Increment longitude lines on your map. Again this information
; Lat,Lon lines can be added at 1,5, or 10 degree can be set within the game but you will need to set
intervals. them each time you play the game
; A zero for this value will turn the lines off.
;====================================
LatLonIncrement 0
;==================================== This next value in the ini allows you to change the
; Realism levels: reality settings in the game. This is of particular
; 0 Full realism interest to all those wondering why they can’t
; 1 Auto DataLinks communicate with their subs. As mentioned in the
; 3 Instant Side ID description, there are five settings to choose from
26
; 7 Instant Unit ID which are: full realism, auto data links, instant side
; 15 Instant Detect ID, Instant Unit ID and Instant Detect. These can
; also be set at the start of a scenario.
; Automatic networks gives the user instant
communication “Full realism” will enforce communications rules.
; with all units on his side that have communications Meaning if you have units which leave the
equipment. communication threshold you will not be able to
; Instant side ID gives you the allegiance of all issue them orders until they enter that threshold once
contacts. again. Submarines are the best examples and will
; Instant Unit ID automatically classifies contacts. only surface to communicate when they reach
; Instant detect will show you all units in the game. waypoints.
;====================================
“Auto Datalinks” allows you to communicate with
RealismLevel 1 all units, including those that have left the
communication threshold. Most players of this game
utilize this setting as it allows them the most control
while still maintaining a strong degree of reality.
“Instant side ID” gives you the ability to know the

contacts side identification on contact.
“Instant unit ID” gives you the ability to know a

unit’s identity immediately upon detection.
“Instant Detect” enables you to see everything on

your map, just like looking at a chess board.
;==================================== The next setting is the Executive Officer Popup Box

; Executive Officer Box Popup preference Preference option. You simply add the values of the
; Add values for the following popups options you would like to include to activate each
; New Contact 4 popup. Keep in mind that all of this information
; Contact Change 8 displayed by the popup is also displayed in your
; Hit or sunk ship 16 message box within the game. Only select those you
; General Information 32 feel that you would need, as having too many popups
;==================================== can become cumbersome. I especially advise you to
ExecutiveOfficerBoxAppears 16 make sure that you leave the “new contact” popup
out of your game, as the start of your game could
flood your screen with them.
;==================================== The next option is the executive officer assistance

; The following preference is for the selection. You simply add the values of the options
; amount of assistance the AI gives the human you would like to include to activate each option.
; player. The bits in the value are assigned as There are five which are Navigate Paths, Allocate
; follows Weapons, Assign threat axes, default formations and
; manage air assets.
; Navigate paths 1
; Allocate weapons 2 The “Navigate paths”, “Allocate weapons” and
; Assign threat axes 16 “assign threat axes” are fairly self- explanatory and
; Default formations 32 must for those who do not wish to spend a lot of time
; Manage Air Assets 64 micromanaging their formations.
;====================================
“Default formations” set fixed formations within the
ExecutiveOfficerAssistance 19 formation editor. You can change them but if they
are not set the AI will assign a standard formation
27
WAYPOINT
which is suitable but may not be exactly what most
harpooners would use. Finally, the “Manage Air
Assets” selection gives the computer control over the
air assets within your formation. It will assign all
variants of the missions offered in the formation
editor. It is highly advised you turn this option off
as it is not the best manager of your air assets. It will
often take aircraft that you would use for your
missions and is anything but efficient.
;==================================== The next selection in the ini file allows you to adjust
; Selects the size of the button on the the size of the buttons that are displayed on your map
; map/zoom window's toolbar. window within the game.
;
; Values are:
; Small 0
; Medium 1
; Large 2
;====================================
ButtonSize 1
;==================================== The next option in the ini file is the symbol set
; Selects the type of icons that will be option. This selection allows you to change the unit
; displayed on the map/zoom windows. Icons within the game. The NTDS (Navy Tactical
; Data System) symbols are the standard symbols used
; Values are: in military circles. The Stylized icons look like the
; NTDS 0 units they are depicting, and are suitable for
; Stylized 1 beginners.
;====================================
SymbolSet 1
; ==================================== The final selection is the mouse speed selection. To

; Mouse Acceleration change this setting you simply edit to value to match
; 2 is the default the mouse speed you would like.
; larger values slow down the mouse
; 1 is faster
; ====================================
MouseSpeed 2
Part II: Option Files
The second mechanism of change within the game are the option files (.opt). Jesse Spears
has included these files with the current build of the simulation to allow you to turn certain
features on and off. If you look within your Harpoon 3 directory you will see a folder
named options. Within that folder you will see a folder named disabled, and in each you
will find the files that correspond to each available option which I will describe in detail
below. To activate options you simply leave the corresponding files in the option folder.
28
To deactivate options you simply move the corresponding file to the disabled folder. Jesse
does update these folders when appropriate, and you can always find the newest set of
options files at http://www.harpoon3.com/harpoon3.html
Option File Description

AALog.opt This file enables usage of the After-Action Log. This is a
log which collects all the messages you see during the game,
plus the behind-the-scenes weapon calculations that you
normally don’t see. Very useful for debriefings and after-
action reports. When activated, the log for the next scenario
will be generated and stored in the “AA logs” folder.
DSCFixThermalLayer.opt This file fixes an earlier bug from H2. The thermal layer is
now at the correct depth, and subs use it very effectively.
Normally it should always be enabled.
DSCNo3Xeyeballs.opt This file fixes a problem with optical sensors. DO NOT
ENABLE THIS IF YOU ARE USING DB2000.
DSCNoRandomFringeRadar.opt This file fixes a random radar range bug and should always
be enabled.
ExtrashortPointDefense.opt This option provides a little extra information about point
defense but keeps the messages short to just tip off the
player that certain things are being used. (ex. You will see
the worlds “buzz” or “zap” when various types of ECM are
being used). This option is not recommended for most
players, as the messages are a bit cryptic.
ExtraVerbosePointDefense.opt Allows every computation involved in point defense to be
included in the AA log. Keep in mind that this increases the
log size quite a bit.
Moviemaker.opt This file enables the auto-snapshot feature. The game will
automatically save screenshots of the game at user-defined
intervals, thus creating continous frames which can then be
subsequently used to make a replay of the scenario. See the
relevant article on the January 2003 issue for more details.
RuninWindow.opt This file allows H3 to be run in a window rather than full
screen mode. The resolution used will always be one step
lower than the desktop resolution.
ShowPointDefense.opt This prints out some basic information to the AAlog and
must be on for ExtraShortPointDefense.opt and
ExtraVerbosePointDefense.opt to work.
UseNukes.opt This file enables the usage of nuclear weapons within the
game. It is highly adviced you leave this option off unless
you are running a scenario that specifically deals with these
weapons.
VerboseWeaponDetection.opt If you have this option enabled you will receive extra
feedback about weapon detections and targeting. You must
have the AA Log option enabled or be in watch mode.
29
WAYPOINT
Part III: The Harpoon 3 Launcher
Now all of this may seem like a lot of work to configure the game. Fortunately, Paulo
Moneta has written a small application called the Harpoon 3 Launcher that will allow you
to edit the Ini and arrange your options with much ease. It can be found here:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/utilities.htm and works marvelously. This application is very
intuitive but the writer has included a help file to get you through setup and its usage. The
Harpoon HQ highly recommends you use this file.
Hopefully, you know have a better idea of the options available to you in Harpoon 3. This
document will be updated to reflect any changes, new information or corrections that have
to be made. Please let me know if any information has been left out or there is something
that may not be clear.
30
THE QUICK & EASY GUIDE TO DERIVATIVE PLATFORMS IN H3

By Harold Hutchinson
A derivative platform is one that is based on the same hull and dimensions as the original
platform – everything else is open for modification, enhancement, or replacement. This
article will discuss a number of derivative platforms that go from minor upgrades to
making them absolutely unstoppable juggernauts.
Why Create Derivative Platforms?
Of course, some people might ask why one would want to create a derivative platform
when there are databases available.
There are many answers to that question. Let me begin by stating that the normal
databases, the Harpoon User’s Database (HUD) and DB2000 are both very well done.
Developing a database takes a lot of time and effort, and the teams who put them together
deserve the appreciation of the Harpoon community.
That said, I believe a big part of the fun from Harpoon is in asking questions that start with
the words “what if” and taking things from there. It is most often done with scenarios
created by users2 that almost always involve a lot of simulated death and destruction.
I am of the opinion that database editors like PFEDIT (for DOS) and DATed (for Access
97) give computer Harpoon users the ability to do the same thing with platforms. One can
create a derivative platform to give themselves an edge in a scenario, to try out a couple of
ideas they might have been kicking around for a while, to make a scenario more
challenging, or to take into account upgrades made to a platform in a database3.
The derivative platforms discussed in this article were created by the author and are based
on platforms from the HUD. Some of the platforms and components are in service, some
are proposals, and some are ideas I came up with.
Upgunning Ships
This is one way to create a derivative platform. For this case, we will use a pair of naval
platforms – cruisers from the United States of America and the Soviet Union (now the
Russian Federation). The first is an “up-gunned” version of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
The second is the Sverdlov II-class cruiser, a postulated upgrade of the Sverdlov-class light
cruisers used by the Soviets. In both cases, these ships have received additional weapons
capabilities.
2
Many of these scenarios for DB2000 are available at Harpoon HQ (http://www.harpoonhq.com).
3
The mere presence of the capability to create a derivative platform might also be cited a reason to create
such platforms.
31
WAYPOINT
For the American cruiser, the “up-gun” derivative was easy. The forward five-inch mount,
a Mk 45, was replaced with the Mk 45 Mod 3. The Mk 26 Mod 1 missile launchers4 were
replaced with Mk 26 Mod 2 missile launchers. And the Mk 32 triple mounts for Mk 50
torpedoes were replaced with a triple-launcher for the Mk 48 ADCAP. In short, the up-
gunned Tico has more weapons, the weapons are more powerful (particularly the torpedo
armament), and they reach further.
The Sverdlov II was a simpler “up-gunning” than the Ticonderoga-class cruisers. In this
case, the only change was the addition of four quad Sunburn launchers and six CADS-N-1
close-in-defense systems. The result is giving these old veterans an added kick that would
allow it to provide an incredible punch in a surface fight, and come home alive.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the mounts will require sensors. Check the
directors and make sure they are on the ship. Having missiles that will not shoot because
they do NOT have a director is NOT what you want to have happen in the middle of a
scenario.
Platform: Up-gunned Ticonderoga-class cruiser
Original Platform: Ticonderoga-class cruiser
Changes from original

Forward 127mm/54 mount replaced by Mk 45 Mod 3 mount
Mk 32 triple torpedo mounts replaced by triple ADCAP mount
Mk 26 Mod 1 missile launchers replaced with Mk 26 Mod 2
Two RAM launchers added.
Note: For the Bunker Hill and Antietam entries in the database, the VLS mounts
remains the same, but the other systems are changed as above.
Platform: Sverdlov II-class cruiser

Original Platform: Sverdlov-class cruiser

Add four quadruple mounts for the SS-N-22 Sunburn
Add six CADS-N-1 mounts
Rearming Submarines
The best example is the conversion of the first four Ohio-class SSBNs to Tomahawk
carriers – SSGNs. This was a simple matter of creating the new weapons records and the
mount5.
4
This was using the non-VLS equipped Ticonderoga-class cruisers as an example. The Ticonderoga-class
cruisers that have the Mk 41 VLS are discussed in the note with the platform profiles.
5
The Ohio SSGN already exists in the DB2000.
32
Of course, this also presented the second opportunity to create another derivative platform,
the notional Delaware-class special operations submarine (SSN(SO)). This was done by
removing the launch tubes, and creating a DDS shelter mount.
Platform: Ohio-class SSGN

Original Platform: Ohio-class SSBN

Replace Ohio SLBM tubes mount with Ohio TLAM mount.
Platform: Delaware-class SSN(SO)

Original Platform: Ohio-class SSBN

Replace Ohio SLBM tubes mount with DDS
Flying High
Aircraft are, in a way, the hardest platforms to use as a basis for a derivative. One has to
keep more in mind, but one can also add a host of weapons systems. The best example is a
variant on the venerable B-52G bomber, inspired by an article about the Air Force
considering creating an electronic warfare version of the B-52.
This derivative is a classic example of cutting and pasting a system onto another platform.
First, it is intended to retain the same bomber capabilities as the B-52G/H6. The electronic
warfare suite selected was that of the EA-6B Prowler. Then, I added a derivative weapon.
Platform: EB-52G Stratofortress
Original Platform: B-52G Stratofortress

Add ALQ-99 jamming systems.
Create loadouts suitable for SEAD role
That takes us to the next topic in creating derivative platforms.
Things That Go Boom
A weapon is the easiest derivative to create. The options are vast, and the process is as
simple as adding a different warhead or sensor. This can be particularly useful when you
6
The EB-52G as postulated by the author might be viewed by some as an end-un around the START treaty
between the United States and Russia.
33
WAYPOINT
want to give a derivative platform something that makes it distinct from the original – or if
you just want to give an original platform something with more range, a bigger punch, or
both.
For example, the derivative weapon created for the EB-52G’s primary anti-radar armament,
the AGM-167 Anti-Radar Cruise Missile, is an AGM-129 with the nuclear warhead
replaced and a HARM seeker installed.
Weapon: AGM-167 Anti-Radiation Cruise Missile
Original Weapon: AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile

Replace 200-kiloton nuclear warhead with 1,000-pound Bullpup warhead
Add HARM seeker
Another derivative that I postulated, the Nuclear ADCAP, is a regular ADCAP torpedo
with the high-explosive warhead replaced with a 20-kiloton B57 warhead.
Weapon: Nuclear ADCAP
Original Weapon: Mk 48 ADCAP
Change from original

Replace high-explosive warhead with B57 nuclear warhead (20 kiloton)
I also created two derivatives of the ERGM round from the Mk 45 Mod 3 mount. Both are
designed for sub-killing. The first is a conventional round – practically unchanged from
the regular ERGM round, save for the target flags and a lower hit probability. The second,
a variation of the conventional ASW round, replaces the high-explosive warhead with a
five-kiloton nuclear depth charge.
Finally, there is the RIM-120 Sea Slammer – a replacement for the Sea Sparrow in a point-
defense role. This was a derivative weapon used in making a derivative naval vessel – the
USS Iowa modernized on the basis of recommendations made by the United States Naval
Fire Support Association7 (http://www.usnfsa.org; the recommendations are available at
http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/fsao/fsao14.htm).
7
The author is well aware of the countless debates on USENET and other discussion threads concerning the
feasibility/wisdom of modernizing and reactivating the battleships. The author respectfully disagrees with the
experts who conclude that such a modernization/reactivation is not the best course of action.
34
Weapon: RIM-120C Sea Slammer

Original Weapon: AIM-120 AMRAAM

Adjusted the minimum launch altitude.
Added a new director.
Platform: BBG 61 Iowa (USNFSA)

Original Platform: BB 61 Iowa

Remove all twin 127mm/38 mounts
Remove all Tomahawk ABL
Add four 61-cell Mk 41 VLS
Add four 32-cell Mk 41 VLS
Add two 48-cell Mk 41 VLS for Sea Slammer
Add four RAM
Add four 25mm/80 Bushmaster
Add four Mk 141 launchers (increase total to eight)
Add TPQ-47 Firefinder radar
Final Thoughts
Computer Harpoon offers the best opportunity to try out derivative platforms – everything
from ships to weapons.
The derivative platforms and weapons that can be made are limited only by the imagination
of the Harpooner who decides to create them – and that is before people begin to create
entirely new designs from scratch. That will be covered in the future, along with a more in-
depth look at creating the components used in platforms.
35
WAYPOINT
JED SPECIAL
Every month, the Waypoint presents a selected article from the renowned
Journal of Electronic Defence, covering subjects relevant to air and
naval warfare. The appearance of these articles on Waypoint is the result
of an exclusive agreement between the HarpoonHQ staff and JED, and is
covered by the explicit consent of JED. All rights of the original authors
are reserved.
UP PERISCOPE, UP ANTENNA
Hunter-killer submarines increasingly are hunter-gatherers of intelligence
By Dr. Norman Friedman
Lieutenant Commander Greg

Sammut, commanding officer of
the Australian attack submarine
HMAS Farncomb, orders the
firing of Mark 48 torpedo in a test
off Perth in 1999. Submarine
commanders are expected to
fulfill a wide range of SIGINT and
EW missions in addition to their
traditional attack roles. (Royal
Australian Navy photo)
Last year a senior submarine officer remarked that for some time all US nuclear attack
submarines had been "nationally" tasked - assigned, not by fleet commanders who needed
anti-submarine cover, but only by the US National Command Authority. That was a
technical way of saying that submarine missions had almost reduced to only two: electronic
reconnaissance and cruise-missile attacks against land targets. Of the two, electronic
reconnaissance is by far the most important. Typically it is characterized as "indications
and warning."
We now know that much of the US submarine force's Cold War time was spent in various
forms of reconnaissance. For example, only a submarine could get close enough to shore to
localize some air-search radars and to pick up their distinctive emissions. Because the
submarine acted covertly, it could hope to detect tests of war-reserve operating modes,
whereas the radar's operators would be well aware of the presence of ferret aircraft or of
satellites. For that matter, a submarine might pick up reactions to the approach of an
airplane. Overall, the submarine's advantages were its stealth and its ability to loiter. More
than a decade ago, in connection with the design of what became the Virginia-class, a
submariner commented that other platforms could pick up 97 percent of target electronic
36
emissions - but that only a covert submarine could pick up the 3 percent a target normally
turned off in the presence of known collection platforms.
Now, moreover, the percentages are changing. Many countries depend more and more on
cellular-telephone nets, not for special purposes, but for most of their telephone service.
Wiring their countries is just too expensive to be practical. Because cell phones are radios,
their signals can be collected. Recently, for example, US prosecutors have cited intercepted
cell-phone conversations between terrorists as evidence of Osama Bin-Laden's involvement
in various plots. However, cell-phone emissions are necessarily quite weak, to avoid
interference from signals emitted at much the same frequency in neighbouring cells. Many
of these telephones operate at radar frequencies, so their signals can be trapped in
atmospheric layers near the surface. Collection requires proximity to the emitters. It also
entails considerable computing power, since a mass of signals must be disentangled. Both
might be provided by an embassy or consulate in a city, but a submarine is a very attractive
platform.
Silent Service Call
Covertness is obviously
relative. A submarine
loitering in waters subject to
heavy surveillance will
likekly be detected if her
ESM mast remains above
water for hours at a time. On
the other hand, a glance at the
naval reference books will
show that Third World anti-
submarine warfare capability
is somnolent at best. Those
promoting anti-submarine
sensors and weapons seem to
have had little sales success
even in places, such as the The old destroyer-escort HMAS Torrens dies at the hand of a Mark
Gulf, where submarine 48 torpedo fired by the Collins-class submarine HMAS Farncomb in
threats have recently a 1999 test. The submarine was over the horizon and submerged
when it fired the torpedo. Real-life missions of submarines are more
escalated. Merely remaining likely to feature over-the-horizon intelligence gathering and cell-
submerged gives a submarine phone interception. (Royal Australian Navy photo)
most of the necessary
covertness. Moreover, a
nuclear submarine can outrun most potential Third World pursuers.
From the submarine's point of view, the signals being intercepted are changing quite
rapidly. Open or flexible architecture is more and more important, and especially so for the
submarine, as compared to other interception platforms. Because the submarine's innards
must be contained within a hard pressure hull, it is especially difficult to install large pieces
37
WAYPOINT
of equipment. Moreover, it is very difficult to enlarge the pressure hull; the volume
available when the submarine is built is essentially the volume she will have throughout her
lifetime. By way of contrast, a surface ship can easily grow extra deckhouses. Radomes and
other bulges often emerge from veteran ELINT aircraft. For a submarine, however, the
volume of the enclosed pressure hull must exactly match the submarine's underwater
weight, so it can neither grow nor shrink. Ballast built in when the submarine is completed
provides limited compensation for additional weight, but the key word is limited. From the
Ohio-class on, American submarines have been designed with unusually large hatches for
new equipment, but that does not change the very high cost of cutting open a pressure hull
and installing, say, a new databus.
The new Virginia-class incorporates a high-capacity asynchronous-transmission-mode

(ATM) bus, to support whatever new sensors she will need during her lifetime. That is
usually taken to mean new sonars and perhaps new electro-optical periscopes, but it is
probably even more applicable to new higher-capacity ELINT sensors, the input from
which must be processed on board, hence must flow through some sort of databus.
Traditional submarine ELINT systems were stand-alone affairs, in which mast-mounted
sensors were connected directly to recorders and to analysis stations, but current
submarines are built around distributed multi-computer combat systems. Several navies,
including the US Navy, are installing photonics masts that carry electro-optical cameras in
place of traditional periscopes. Such masts do not penetrate the pressure hull, and so are
called "non-penetration masts."
For the future there are two very interesting possibilities, both being pursued actively by
the US Navy. One is a remote sensing device mounted on an unmanned vehicle. The US
Navy is currently fielding unmanned undersea vehicles for minefield reconnaissance, but
electronic reconnaissance, using a mast deployed by the vehicle (or even a buoy deployed
by the vehicle) is clearly a possibility. For that matter, current submarine masts (such as
periscopes, as well as electronic sensing masts) may well ultimately be replaced by buoys
connected to the submarine by fiber optics. The distance to a remote buoy is not too great,
and the great advantage the buoy offers is that it does not mark the submarine's position the
way a conventional mast does. Clearly the submarine would need to know the buoy's
precise position, but existing technologies, such as fiber-optic gyros, promise exactly that.
The other possibility is the micro-UAV currently under development. The US Navy's Team
Submarine, which is sketching out the next-generation US submarine, emphasizes the
submarine's role in preparing a 21st-century battlespace, conducting reconnaissance and
then providing valuable land-attack firepower. Such a submarine might easily launch an air
vehicle which could dispense micro-UAVs. They, in turn, could seek out and land on the
antennas of cell-phone nets. In such positions, the micro-UAVs would pick up cell-phone
traffic and might even use the target cell-phone system to transmit their reports home. At
the least, the micro-UAV would probably be able to take its power from the cell-phone
antenna on which it landed.
38
The Telltale Sail
All of this is aside from the

traditional target of submarine
surveillance: enemy radar systems.
Any US naval surface force
attacking land targets faces, among
other things, coast-defense anti-
ship missiles. The missiles, in turn,
usually depend on coastal radars
for targeting. It follows that part of
any large-scale littoral operation
will be the detection (and, if
possible, neutralization) of the
radars and the missiles. Many of
these radars exploit local
phenomena such as ducting, which
The submarine Seawolf (SSN 21) puts to sea in
both increase their surface- Narragansett Bay for her first at-sea trial operations on
surveillance range and greatly July 3, 1996. The Seawolf-class represents the US Navy's
complicate detection from the air most advanced attack aubmarine, and perhaps the end of
or from space. An offshore the line dedicated attack submarines. Only three Seawolf
submarine is ideally placed to subs are likely to join the fleet. The follow-on Virginia-
class is designed for a broader array of missions, with an
detect the radars, which will emphasis on intelligence gathering, EW, land attack, and
probably be used sporadically to covert operations. (US Navy photo, courtesy of General
complicate detection. The Dynamics)
submarine may also be well placed
to land SEAL teams to destroy both radars and missile launchers she detects.
Current US nuclear attack submarines bear physical evidence of the importance of

electronic surveillance in the form of their tall sails. The sail houses the upper part of
each retracted mast, so total mast length is roughly the sum of hull diameter and sail
height. When the submarine is at periscope depth - i.e., with the mast fully raised - her
steadiness depends on how deep in the water her hull is. The longer the mast (the higher
the sail), the steadier the submarine, because the deeper her hull the less she is affected by
waves on the surface. Sail height carries real prices. First, the sail is an important source
of drag. Second, because the sail distorts water flow along the submarine's hull, it can
create patterns that interact with the submarine's propeller to create noise (this is not a
problem in new classes using pump-jets). Third, the sail causes snap roll; when the
submarine turns, it acts as a plane and can cause inadvertent dives. These are real
problems, and at least twice, in the designs of the Thresher- (later Permit) and Los
Angeles-classes, there were serious attempts to eliminate sails entirely. In the Sturgeon-
class, successors to the Threshers, the sail was considerably enlarged specifically to
improve electronic-surveillance capability. During the Cold War, the Soviets apparently
had far less interest in electronic surveillance (perhaps because they doubted their
submarines could survive in US waters), and they used much lower sails - which the US
Navy considered copying in the Seawolf-class. That this was not done suggests strongly
that electronic-surveillance requirements carried the day.
39
WAYPOINT
Other navies vary in their interest in surveillance. At least during the Cold War, the UK
Royal Navy was clearly intensely interested in surveillance, and indeed British firms
sometimes displayed special receiving antennas. One US firm, Southwest Research, has
made a special communications-band receiving antenna for British submarines, and the
Royal Navy sometimes acknowledges submarine installation of COMINT receivers. The
Royal Australian Navy sees its new Collins-class primarily as a surveillance platform.
Although the submarine's ESM and ELINT capacities were not affected by current
problems with the craft's combat system, the Australians have taken the replacement of the
combat system as an opportunity to buy a new open-architecture electronic-surveillance
system. The Israelis clearly see their new Dolphin-class at least partly as surveillance
platforms, as indicated by the elaborate array of masts which have been shown protruding
from their sails.
Surveillance places considerable demands on a submarine. She needs the space for system
operators, and the system may need considerable electrical power for receivers and for
computers. The submarine's sail must, at least for now, accommodate extra masts. On-site
analysis is necessary both to focus the submarine's finite resources and because the
submarine's ability to transmit back what she obtains can be quite limited. US submarines,
for example, have EHF satellite dishes, but they cannot transmit lengthy messages, because
sustained exposure can be dangerous. Considerable effort is currently going into increased
antenna gain, which should make for higher data rates during the bursts available to a
submarine. This same improved antenna performance is needed so that submarines can
send images back via satellite. For the future, it may be possible for a submarine on
surveillance duty to lay a fiber-optic net extending well out to sea. She may communicate
acoustically with the net, and a node well out to sea, clear of likely surveillance, may
retransmit messages to a satellite, thus evading the current limitations on transmission time
and on antenna gain.
There is also a more traditional side to submarine electronic warfare, a combination of self-
defense and tactical targeting (or situational awareness) support. Submarines are inherently
quite vulnerable, and they are easiest to detect when they poke masts (or their hulls)
through the surface. Thus, it has long been important for a submarine to be able to detect
hostile radars, so that she can crash-dive before the users of those radars come within lethal
range. Typically a submarine has an omni-directional warning antenna atop a periscope. It
functions much like a radar warner on an airplane, and indeed some submarine warning
systems are versions of aircraft systems.
The World Tools Up for Sub EW
Outside a few major navies, submarines are powered by diesels feeding batteries; those
diesels breathe only when the submarine is either surfaced or snorkelling. In either case, a
radar target is presented, and radar warning is vital. Clearly the antidote to radar warners
would be the sort of stealthy radar typified by the Thales Scout or the Philips Pilot. It seems
surprising, then, that serious proposals to develop versions for maritime-patrol aircraft
have, apparently, found no buyers. The surface versions which have been bought seem to
have been conceived mostly to preserve surface combatants from detection, rather than to
40
promote attacks on submarines. It is possible

that operators of maritime-patrol aircraft
consider it more useful to force submarines to
dive over a wide area, and thus to reduce their
mobility, than to multiply the chances of a
successful undetected attack. One argument
would be that the sound of an airplane coming
close enough to attack can be detected by the
submarine, particularly if the latter has a very
sensitive passive sonar, such as a towed array.
Thus, reducing radar counter-detectability
might not seem sufficiently valuable.
Then there is situational awareness. Fifty

years ago, US submarines were exploiting
ducting to detect and track surface formations
passively, from well beyond the visual The Lockheed Martin ASTECS (Advanced
horizon. At the time, they had no weapon with Submarine Tactical ESM Combat System) or
AN/BLQ-10, for the Virginia-class integrates
long-enough range to exploit the data they threat warning and intelligence gathering, as
were able to collect, but their ESM sets well as sufficiently good direction-finding for
certainly clarified the tactical situation, far anti-ship and land-attack missile targeting. It
better than the traditional quick periscope may be backfitted to the Seawolf-class (to
scan. With the advent of anti-ship missiles like replace the AN/WLQ-4) and perhaps to some
Los Angeles-class vessels. (US Navy photo)
the US Sub-Harpoon and the French Sub-
Exocet, such data became far more useful. If
the target ship could be tracked precisely enough, she could be attacked. At the very least, a
missile could be sent down the line of bearing to the detected ship. From a technical point
of view, the requirement for targeting, as opposed to simple situational awareness, is
reflected in a demand for more precise direction-finding. Simple ESM sets use six or eight
ports (generally cavity-backed spiral antennas), the amplitude of whose outputs can be
compared.
The step beyond clarifying the tactical situation, to support actual targeting, is
interferometry, in which the phases of the signals picked up at the ports are compared. In
US service, for example, the advent of a precision (interferometric) direction-finder (DF),
the AN/BLD-1, presumably reflects a need to be able to target a missile beyond the
horizon. The most publicized example of an upgrade to support missile targeting is the
Racal Sea Lion, supplied to Denmark after the Royal Danish Navy bought Sub-Harpoon
missiles. The Danes particularly wanted high precision so that they could distinguish
neighbouring emitters in a crowded area.
The US Navy built the Sturgeon-class with electronic reconnaissance in mind; one series of
submarine was specially enlarged to provide space for operators. The associated automated
ELINT system was General Dynamics Mountain View's (ex-GTE) AN/WLQ-4 (Sea
Nymph), which presumably could not fit on board a much more tightly designed Los
Angeles. A modernized version is on the new Seawolf-class. Los Angeles-class submarines
use the AN/WLR-18 (Classic Salmon) to cover 5 kHz-2 Ghz and the associated AN/WSQ-
41
WAYPOINT
5 (Cluster Spectator) to cover 30 Mhz-40 GHz. Both are automated. The difference in code
names (Classic vs. Cluster) suggests that the WLR-18 is primarily for SIGINT, whereas the
WSQ-5 is primarily a radar-intercept system for tactical intelligence gathering. The
standard narrowband submarine radar-analysis unit is General Dynamics Mountain View's
AN/WLR-8, installed in place of the AN/WLQ-4 in the Los Angeles-class; the associated
radar warner is the AN/WLR-10. Ohio-class strategic submarines carry a variant of the
WLR-8. The standard US submarine suite includes the AN/BLA-4, a monopulse radar DF
antenna, Litton's AN/BLD-1 radar DF (interferometer, for missile targeting), and the
AN/BRD-7/8/9 for communications intercept and DF. The new Seawolf-class places the
BRD-7 antenna atop a mast which includes BLD-1 functionality. There is also a periscope-
mounted radar warning receiver, the AN/BLR-15, which provides limited directional
information.
The next-generation system is Lockheed Martin's ASTECS (Advanced Submarine Tactical

ESM Combat System), or AN/BLQ-10, for the Virginia-class; it may be backfitted to the
Seawolf-class (to replace the WLQ-4) and perhaps to some Los Angeles-class boats.
ASTECS integrates threat warning and intelligence gathering, as well as sufficiently good
DF accuracy for anti-ship missile targeting. Presumably the same DF accuracy would
support attacks against land targets by future short-range bombardment missiles.
ARGOSystems (now part of Condor) makes the AR-700 series of submarine ELINT/ESM
systems, which have been bought by, among others, Australia (AR-740 for the Collins-
class), Egypt (to support Sub-Harpoon), Germany (Ginny for Type 206A submarines,
replacing the DR 2000), Greece (to support Sub-Harpoon), the Netherlands, Sweden, and
Turkey. Chile is to use an improved version (the AR-900) on board her French Scorpene-
class submarines. South Korea uses a GTE/Israeli ESM set. Litton Marine's Guardian Star
is being installed on Canadian Victoria (ex Upholder)-class submarines.
Many German-built Type 209s, as well as older French export submarines, are equipped
with the French Thales (formerly Thomson-CSF) X-band DR 2000U ESM set, essentially
for radar warning. Originally, it did not even have an automatic radar identifier. This set
provides limited radar direction-finding using six cavity-backed spiral antennas and simple
amplitude comparison. The digital derivative is the DR 3000U (ARUR-13 in French
service).
New German submarines (Type 212) use DASA's (now EADS) FL 1800U, which covers
0.5-18 GHz in five bands. The antenna, the USK 800/4, contains four spiral antennas under
a dome which also accomodates a radar warner. Typical DF accuracy is 5°, obtained by
integrating DF values as the periscope mast under the antenna rotates. DASA also produces
a submarine HF intercept and DF receiver and antenna, which the Royal Navy uses on
board all its nuclear attack submarines as CXA(2); the German designation is Telegon 12.
In Israel, Elbit produces the TIMNEX 4 CH series of ELINT and missile-targeting sets.
The system covers 2-18 GHz in four bands, and there is also a radar warner for the
submarine's periscope. DF resolution is 1.4° (accuracy is 5° at 2-8 GHz and 3° at 8-18
GHz). Besides Israel, the system is reportedly used by China, Taiwan, and South Africa,
and it was formerly on board Australian Oberons, now retired.
42
Existing Italian submarines use the Elettronica THETIS (BLD-727, a designation

suggesting a DF unit rather than an entire ELINT or ESM system). However, the new Type
212s are to use German systems, probably including FL 1800U.
The standard Japanese submarine intercept suites are the ZLA-6 (Yuushio-class) and ZLA-
7 (Harushio- and Oyashio-classes).
Russian submarines and their export variants all carry radar warners (with DF arrays). The
simplest is the 1-10 GHz Nakat (Flag; NATO Stop Light), whose antenna carries four tiers
(bands) of DF antennas, eight per tier. Some carry a pimple at the top for an omni antenna
feeding an IFM. The antenna feeds a simple CRT, and analysis is generally manual. For
example, a Foxtrot (Project 641)-class submarine decommissioned in 1994 had only a
simple commercial CRT, and its ELINT library seems to have consisted of a blueprint
listing the frequency ranges of Western radars (some of which, such as the SPY-2, did not
exist). The successor was the radome-enclosed array which NATO called Bald Head
(MRP-10 Zaliv-P). Typically, the
dome is integrated with a radar
antenna. It covers the usual tiers of
DF ports. Modern submarines,
such as Akulas (Project 971) and
Oscars (Project 949), carry Rim
Hat (Nakat-M), which is integrated
with the Snoop Pair back-to-back
search- radar antennas. The radome
conceals tiers of DF spirals; the
name implies similarity to the
original Stop Light (Nakat-M Republic of Korea ship Lee Jong Moo (SS 66) (left) and
reportedly dates from 1961). the USS Columbus (SSN 762) steam off the cost of Hawaii
Russian diesel-electric submarines during RIMPAC '98 exercise. A P-3C Orion patrol
of the Tango- (Project 641B) and aircraft flies over the formation. World submarine fleets
increasingly are tasked to support their nations'
Kilo-classes (Projects 877 and 636) intelligence services. (DOD photo)
are equipped with the MRM-25EM
(NATO Squid Head) ESM set. The latter's intercept array incorporates an IFF transponder,
an unusual feature for an ESM set. During the Cold War, the Soviets exploited ducting and
tropospheric scattering to target missiles beyond the horizon, but they claimed that
submarine antennas were far too small, hence their beams too broad, to exploit such
phenomena; submarines apparently relied either on their sonars or on third-party targeting
assistance (ducting systems were placed aboard many surface units). Soviet submarines
also carried HF/DF loops (NATO name, Park Lamp), but they seem to have been intended
primarily to support reception of radio command signals at periscope depth rather than for
intelligence-gathering. (US submarines used DF antennas for much the same purpose, from
World War II onwards)
In South Africa, Avitronics (a Celsius/Grintek company) developed the Shrike ESM

system for both modernized submarines and modernized fast attack craft. It covers the 2-18
GHz band, and offers 5-6° DF accuracy.
43
WAYPOINT
Spanish submarines have been refitted with the locally-produced (Indra) BLQ-355 ESM
system, which replaces the British Manta system. This system has reportedly been
exported.
In the UK, Racal (now part of Thales) produced a series of submarine ESM systems,
beginning with Porpoise (used by Chile and by Turkey). A high-precision (2° DF accuracy)
version substituting a more powerful processor, Sadie, was developed for the Royal Danish
Navy as Sea Lion. The latter uses amplitude comparison for 5-8° accuracy and
interferometry for 2° accuracy. The Royal Navy submarine equivalent is UAP. Versions for
attack submarines employ a separate missile-targeting mast carrying a pair of large spiral
antennas on its back. At least three British nuclear attack submarines are equipped with a
COMINT system employing a US-made (Southwest Research) AU-506 antenna, under the
name Cluster Sentinel, which suggests a joint US-British program.
Crises and potential crises can occur anywhere in the world, and of all naval forces, a fast
nuclear submarine can probably reach a crisis area in the least time. Moreover, it can go
entirely alone, and it can arrive and stay covertly. The submarine's ability to loiter for
weeks in a target area sets it apart from transitory platforms such as stealthy aircraft. For
statesmen, its inherent stealth promises that its mere presence is not likely to exacerbate the
crisis it is monitoring, as may be the case with surveillance aircraft. These reasons suggest
that the role of the submarine will continue to evolve, and the electronic tools it carries will
evolve along with it.
Dr. Norman Friedman writes the bi-annual Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Systems, as well as a
monthly column on World Naval Developments in Proceedings of the US Naval Institute . He is the author of
20 books, including a two-volume history of US submarines, and his articles have appeared in numerous
international defense journals. He serves as a consultant to the US Navy and has lectured at several war
colleges in the US, Canada, and the UK.
44
SUBMARINE SENSORS COME TO THE SURFACE

The next generation will focus on intelligence gathering and brown-water ops
By David L. Rockwell
The UK's Trafalgar-class nuclear attack subs will receive new communications ESM
systems, befitting their status as intelligence gatherers. (BAE Systems photo)
Many submarine forces worldwide have seen the same decline in numbers undergone by
the US Navy (USN) since the end of the Cold War. Blue-water roles have lost importance
and new missions, especially in the littorals, have risen to take their place. In Europe, many
navies have already halved their fleets or plan to retire subs to such a level over the next
decade. But despite a much greater emphasis on smaller diesel attack submarines, sensor
systems are sometimes even more sophisticated than on US subs.
International Waters
The US nuclear attack submarine's role of stalking unfriendly subs and protecting carrier
battle groups has lost some primacy since the implosion of the Soviet military.
Nevertheless, in early 2000, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a study recommending at
least 68 fast- attack submarines as necessary to meet critical operational requirements in
2015. This is above the 50 subs used as a baseline since the 1997 Quadrennial Defense
Review. Reports indicate the primary rationale for the upped requirement is the need for
SIGINT and other special operations (see "SIGINT Basis for Warnings Against Cutting
Attack Sub Fleet", JED April 2000). Pacific and Atlantic fleet commanders further testified
in June 2000 that at least 75 subs are needed to meet future requirements for surveillance,
reconnaissance, forward presence, and exercises with allies.
All existing US Navy nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) and nuclear ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs) were designed for the Cold War, even the new Seawolf (SSN-21)
class. The ubiquitous Los Angeles-class (SSN-688) subs, which will continue to form the
45
WAYPOINT
bulk of the Navy's attack submarine force for another two decades, were so tailored to Cold
War deep-sea missions that their on-the-surface intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities actually decreased from the earlier Sturgeon (SSN-637)
class. GTE Government Systems' (Mountain Home, CA) AN/WLR-8(V) radar warning
receiver was used for signals-intelligence (SIGINT) on early Los Angeles- and Ohio-class
(SSBN-726) subs, but production ended in 1993. The addition of Watkins-Johnson's
(Gaithersburg, MD) portable AN/WSQ-5(V) passive electronic-intelligence (ELINT)
system was necessary in the late-1980s and 1990s, after the electronic-support-measures
(ESM) shortfalls of the Los Angeles class became clear. The Seawolf class instead received
an upgraded (V)1 version of the Sturgeon's GTE Government Systems AN/WLQ-4 Sea
Nymph SIGINT system. Both the Seawolf and the Los Angeles classes mount Litton
Amecom's (College Park, MD) AN/BLD-1 mast-mounted precision ESM direction-finder
(only from SSN-719 on) and Sanders' (now BAE Systems) AN/BRD-7/8/9 radio direction-
finders. All US subs are also receiving Litton Marine Systems' (Charlottesville, VA)
AN/BPS-16(V) navigation and surface-surveillance radar.
The UK is a member of the select club that operates nuclear subs, and the country's future
sensor demands echo much of US policy. At the Royal Navy (RN) Submarine Service's
centennial conference in late 2000, plans were revealed for network-centric operations and
increased effectiveness in the littorals. Emphasis on submarine intelligence, surveillance,
targeting and reconnaissance (ISTAR) will dovetail with the RN's new operational concept,
the Maritime Contribution to Joint Operations. To overcome the traditional 12-hour delay
with conventional submarine-communications broadcasts, the UK's Defence Evaluation
and Research Agency and Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd. (Sydney, Australia) have
developed the broadband Recoverable Tethered Optical Fibre (RTOF) communications
buoy. A computer-controlled winch allows the RTOF to remain stationary on the sea
surface, without a plume or wake, while the connected sub maneuvers freely. The SSN
TDL [Tactical Data Link] project will connect all UK subs by 2004, with Link 16/Satellite
TDL to enter service aboard the Trafalgar class by 2006.
Other RN developments also parallel those of the USN. Captain Steve Ramm, Deputy
Director Equipment Capability (Under Water Battlespace) with the Ministry of Defence
(MOD) spoke at the RN Submarine Service's centennial conference of a remotely
deployed, distributed sensor network using COTS technology. A 50-km, 10-node system,
currently in the technical-demonstration phase, Ramm said, "can be provided for a unit cost
of not more than the best Mercedes on the market today." BAE Systems (Farnborough,
UK) and DERA's Marlin UUV, acceptance trials of which will be completed next year,
could move sensors into place or could carry its own sensors. The Trafalgar- and the new
Astute-class nuclear attack subs will also receive a new communications ESM suite
designed by DML (UK) and manufactured by Argon Engineering Associates (Fairfax,
VA). Eight systems are to be delivered from 2002-2010 under a $38-million contract
awarded in mid-2000. These will coordinate with Thales Ltd.'s Outfit UAP(V) Radar ESM
systems aboard all UK subs. Finally, Pilkington Optronics will provide a non-hull-
penetrating optronic mast for the first three Astute-class boats, the first of which will
launch in 2004. The mast will mount high-resolution color and low-light-level cameras,
along with a thermal imager. Current UK subs, as well as the Australian Collins class, all
mount masts by Thomson Marconi Sonar.
46
The French are developing Europe's other major new nuclear submarine, under the $3.5-
billion Project Barracuda. Six Barracuda-class attack subs will replace the Amethyste class
from 2012. The Amethyste-, L'Inflexible M4-, and Le Triomphant-class nuclear ballistic-
missile "dissuasion" subs - still in production - all mount the Thales DR 3000 ESM system.
Germany's HDW Group continues to produce the increasingly ubiquitous Type 209, Type
212, and Type 214 diesel subs. The first of four U212s is due to enter service with the
German Navy in 2004, with Italy to get two from 2005 (built by Fincantieri). All these will
have the EADS/Thales FL 1800U ESM system, derived from the highly successful FL
1800 S-II for surface ships. They will also mount the Zeiss-Eltro Optronic (ZEO) SERO 14
search periscope with an optical rangefinder, thermal imager, and GPS. Greece ordered
three next-generation Type 214 subs in March 2000, with the first to be delivered in 2006,
and in November 2000 the Republic of (South) Korea (ROK) also selected three Type
214s, to be commisioned from 2007-2009. Earlier Type 209 subs are still being built for
Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and the ROK. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have
combined to study a next-generation "Viking" diesel submarine, which would probably
mount a non-penetrating mast and networked ESM systems. Production could begin as
soon as 2005. The three Swedish Gotland-class subs, which entered service in September
1999, mount Thomson Racal's Manta ESM system.
Outside Europe, Israel received its last of three Dolphin-class submarine from HDW in
October 2000. Customized for Israeli needs, the Dolphins will replace five Gal-class subs
in service since 1977. It has been reported that the Dolphins will mount the Elbit (Haifa,
Israel) Timnex series ESM system. Egypt also plans to replace its older Chinese Romeo-
class submarines, with the Dutch-designed Moray class, perhaps to be built in the US. The
Romeos carry Condor Systems' (San Jose, CA) AR-700-S5 ESM/DF system. Australia's
troubled Collins-class submarines were to receive all-new combat-control systems, but this
program has recently been frozen by the Australian government.
Finally, in the Americas, Canada's four new Victoria-class (ex-RN Upholder-class) diesel
attack subs will receive Lockheed Martin Librascope's Submarine Fire Control System,
cannibalized from recently retired Oberon-class-boats. Reports indicate that the Victoria-
class subs will also mount the Guardian Star Mk 4(V) ESM/DF system from Litton Marine
Systems. In South America, Chile ordered two Franco-Spanish DCN Scorpene diesel subs
in mid-2000, to enter service in 2005 and 2007.
Uncharted Waters
The US Virginia (SSN-774) class has been designed from its beginnings in the 1990s as a
new type. According to Admiral Frank Bowman, director of USN naval nuclear propulsion,
there will be an emphasis on sensor and communications connectivity, rather than the
extreme solo sub operations of the past: "Our attack submarines must incorporate new
technologies to monitor, report, and respond in real time to the tactical situation, both in
shallow water and on the beach." Beyond this, the great success of submarine-launched
Tomahawk missiles in Kosovo has proven the submarine as "an ideal platform for the land
47
WAYPOINT
attack mission," according to Admiral (ret.) William D. Smith. The US Naval War College
has also conducted numerous studies which show surface combatants becoming
increasingly vulnerable as more nations have access to satellite imagery and GPS-guided
weapons. New sensor systems will give
the Virginia class a comprehensive ESM
and electro-optical (EO) capability equal
or superior to that found on dedicated spy
subs in the past.
The core of these requirements will be met

by the billion-dollar AN/BLQ-10 Sea
Sentry system (formerly ASTECS).
Lockheed Martin's Naval Electronics &
Surveillance Systems-Syracuse (Syracuse,
NY) - teamed with Condor Systems (San
Jose, CA), ST Research (Newington, VA),
Raytheon Co. (Lexington, MA), and others - has been developing the BLQ-10 since July-
1995 under an engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract. It will provide
automatic detection, acquisition, identification (including specific-emitter identification),
analysis, and direction finding (DF) for radar and navigation signals emanating from
commercial and military ships, aircraft, submarines, and shore-based emitters. The
production AN/BLQ-10 systems are being built in two configurations: a forward-fit
Virginia-class configuration (AN/BLQ-10[V]1), which includes full system capability in
both the communications and radar bands, and the back-fit Los Angeles-class configuration
(AN/BLQ-10[V]2), which covers the radar band only. The BLQ-10 does not have a
communications DF capability and will, thus, not replace the AN/BRD-7/8/9, but will
otherwise provide a comprehensive ESM fitment. SIGINT capabilities can also be
improved for some missions with additional "plug-in" equipment, including special
processors, algorithms, or hardware. The BLQ-10's open architecture makes this easy,
according to Rick Suciu, Lockheed Martin's BLQ-10 program manager. On the Virginia
class, the BLQ-10 will directly interface with the Command, Control, Communication and
Intelligence System.
BLQ-10 operational evaluation (OPEVAL) was completed in mid-2000 (see "Sub ESM
System Successfully Completes OPEVAL", JED, September 2000), being declared
operationally effective and operationally suitable. Following a $32.6-million limited-
production contract in late 1999, the first six systems are to be delivered for two Virginia-
and four Los Angeles-class subs. Milestone III was reached in December 2000, when the
US Navy exercised options for an additional three systems, one for Virginia and two for
Los Angeles classes. With production now underway in Syracuse, the next task is to
reconfigure the BLQ-10 for the Seawolf class, according to Suciu. This would provide
newer technology, including expanded frequency coverage and greater automation.
Lockheed Martin is also working on a slightly smaller BLQ-10 for the Ohio class, but the
Navy has no plans for these upgrades yet. But even without Ohio production, total BLQ-10
procurement funding will probably exceed $800 million, according to Teal Group Corp.
(Fairfax, VA), a market intelligence firm.
48
In order to remain stealthily out of sight, most submarine surface sensors have been
mounted on masts, traditionally hull-penetrating systems such as the Kollmorgen
(Northhampton, MA) Type 8 periscope. All of the US Navy's current submarines mount a
version of the Type 8, according to Kollmorgen, and in November 2000 the US Navy
awarded a $5.9-million contract modification to fund development and production of an
infrared (IR) capability for the Type 8B Mod 3 periscope aboard the Los Angeles class.
Many international navies already have an IR capability on their submarines, and it is
probable that all US subs will eventually get versions of the current development system.
The current contract funds a two-year development program, after which a pre-production
IR system will begin at-sea testing and evaluation. The easily detachable add-on IR module
will include a forward-looking IR (FLIR) camera, optical mechanisms for precise FLIR
orientation, and a thermal- management system. The program also includes a new IR-
imaging display.
The Virginia class will mount a new mast system: the Universal Modular Mast (UMM).
The UMM is an integrated system for housing, erecting, and supporting eight non-hull
penetrating mast-mounted sensors. Important sensor systems will include two photonics
masts and two high-data-rate (HDR) satellite-communications antennas. Kollmorgen is
serving as UMM prime, after an EMD contract awarded in 1996, and after acquiring mast-
producer Calzoni SpA (Bologna, Italy) as a subsidiary. Since there will be no hull-
penetrating optical periscope, all data will be transmitted via fiber-optic cable.
Kollmorgen is also prime contractor for the AN/BVS-1 photonics mast, which underwent
at-sea risk-reduction testing aboard the USS Annapolis (SSN-760) last year. A $17.5-
million production contract for the second Virginia-class sub, USS Texas (SSN-775), was
awarded in December 1999. BVS-1 sensors include a Sony #XC-003 (3-chip/RGB) color
TV and #XCH-1125 monochrome high-definition TV, a Raytheon 3- to 5-micron,
640x480-pixel staring-array FLIR, and an eyesafe laser rangefinder. Also mounted are
ESM antennas for the BLQ-10, and a communications and GPS receiver. Retrofitting
photonics masts on Seawolf and Los Angeles classes has been discussed, but with the
recent Type 8 IR contract, this is
probably unlikely for the near
future. An export version with
more limited sensors, Kollmorgen's
Model 86 Optronic Mast, was
contracted in early 2000 for four
Egyptian submarines.
Raytheon Co. (Marlborough, MA)

has developed the HDR multiband
dish antenna, which allows direct
communication with a number of
satellite systems, including Milstar Those days are gone. The Los Angeles-class attack
submarine USS Scranton surfaces near its charge, USS
and the Global Broadcast Service. George Washington. Increasingly, US submarines are being
While not a sensor itself, the HDR called upon for intelligence gathering and brown-water
is crucial to propagating the operations, rather than for fleet protection. (US Navy photo)
Virginia's voluminous digital data.
Intelligence data, including digital visual images, will be transmitted in real time, instead of
49
WAYPOINT
waiting for physical delivery or sending only simple text messages - as has been standard
procedure with submarine intelligence information.
Beyond Virginia
In July 1999, DARPA awarded 18-month research contracts to two design teams - the
Team 2020 Consortium (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and
others) and the Forward PASS Consortium (Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, the
BBN division of GTE, and others) - to investigate the design of future attack submarines.
The project focused on sensors, payloads, and subsystems, including improvements in
payload capacity, modularity, and deployment. Concepts studied included covert local
sensor networks, rapid response close-coupled precision strike, harbor & riverine
penetration, covert deployment and operation of air and ballistic missile defenses,
deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned underwater vehicles
(UUVs), and submarine hosting of force-level command and control functions.
Developments will undoubtedly be incorporated into later Virginia- class subs.
The US Navy finalized its Submarine Joint Strategic Concept for the 21st Century in
October 2000. This built on the Defense Science Board's Submarine of the Future (July
1998) report, the JCS fast-attack-sub study (Spring 2000), and the Navy Department's
Naval Maritime Concept (April 2000). A primary conclusion was the need to "extend the
tactical horizon" using distributed sensors and covert off-board vehicles. Although still at
the concept-formation stage, distributed surface and subsurface sensor networks, linked by
fiber optics, will be a major focus of research and funding over the next 20 years. Plans
also exist to field UAVs and UUVs aboard the Virginia class under the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency/US Navy Payloads and Sensors program (see "Photonics
Upgrade, Unmanned Vehicles Enhance SSN-774 Capabilities" JED, November 2000). The
Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS) UUV will reach initial operational
capability in 2003. An out-growth of the LMRS, the Multi-Mission UUV program is
scheduled to begin in FY04. This will build on the LMRS design by providing "plug and
play" sensor packages for potential missions such as intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR). The Navy has proposed sensors for electro-magnetic and electro-
optical ISR, and indications, and warning. UAVs launched from subs may be further down
the road, but Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems has reportedly already designed a
submarine UAV recovery system.
If submarines are to retain their crucial importance in the world's navies, they too must rise
with new abilities. The US Navy's new Virginia class is doing just this, designed from the
outset as a multipurpose, modular, upgradable platform whose inherent stealth abilities will
make it a crucial addition to the littoral battlespace. When the USS Virginia goes on patrol
with the US Navy - probably in the brown water off a far-flung coast - it will bring a host
of new sensor capabilities.
Dr. David L. Rockwell is senior electronics analysts at Teal Group Corp., a provider of
competitive market intelligence for all aerospace and defense fields.
50
Jimmy Carter
Some found it odd when the third Seawolf-

class submarine was named Jimmy Carter
(SSN-23), breaking US Navy traditions of
fish, city, and state names. But now even the
former president may find it odd, as his
namesake is being converted to a spying and
special operations sub. The Multi-Mission
Project will create the most capable and
expensive submarine in Navy history, by
lengthening SSN-23 with a mid-ship "ocean
interface" section behind the sail. A wasp- President and Navy submariner Jimmy
waisted inner pressure hull and full-width Carter (left) hoists a replica of the USS
outer hull will create a large steamlined Jimmy Carter (SSN 23) at a naming ceremony
space for special weapons, SEAL in the Pentagon on April 28, 1998. The USS
(Sea/Air/Land special forces) delivery Jimmy Carter will see duty as an intelligence-
gathering reconnaissance platform for secret
vehicles, larger mines, UUVs and other missions. (DOD photo)
equipment. An advanced communications
mast will aid the Jimmy Carter 's other role, as an intelligence-gathering reconnaissance
platform for secret missions. Specifics regarding sensor payloads are classified, but sources
claim the new sub will replace the veteran USS Parche, a converted Sturgeon class spy sub
due to retire in 2002. SSN-23 delivery has been delayed from 2002 to 2004.
51
WAYPOINT
52
THE ART OF WAR

The Harpoon series has always been about realistic strategy simulation: the application of real-life tactics,
plans and methods to defeat adversaries that are as closely modelled after their real-life counterparts (or
hypothetical OPFORs) as possible. In this section we include material relevant to the application of strategy
at all levels – from the trenches all the way up to high command. Subjects of historical and technical nature,
where they relate to real-world events and strategies, are also covered here. And lest we forget: ”To know
tactics, know technology”.
SHIPBOARD PHASED-ARRAY RADARS

Requirements, technology and operational systems
By Dimitris V. Dranidis
The sight of huge planar arrays aboard warships has been with us for a good two decades
now, beginning with the fleet introduction of the Aegis system and more recently
expanding with the current European naval construction programs. At this point, most
defence analysts agree that such radar systems
are going to become the standard norm not only
in naval construction programs, but also
throughout the various military branches. In the
naval section, this obviously begs the common-
sense question by the observer & taxpayer: Ships
have done quite satisfactory with plain-old
rotating mechanical radar sets for over half a
century by now, so what’s the deal with these
funky new, slick and ultra-expensive gismos?
Given that naval forces worldwide have to
answer that awkward question in times of
constantly reduced budget appropriations, it is
worth taking a closer look at the subject of
phased-array radars: the principles behind the
technology, the problems it is meant to overcome
and some of the operational systems of the past,
the present and the near future.
An SPY-1 radar antenna
The problem
For modern shipboard AAW systems, the most critical performance requirement is the
ability to successfully counter saturation attacks: such attacks may include numerous
aircraft and particularly anti-ship missiles converging from multiple directions in close
coordination, with the clear intention of overwhelming the defences.
The successful engagement of each of these targets by the AAW system(s) requires their
precise tracking so that useful fire-control grade can be supplied to the ship’s overall
combat system. Conventional mechanically-scanned 2D or 3D radars achieve this tracking
53
WAYPOINT
by correlating successive radar echoes for each target. This function is often referred to as
“Track-While-Scan” (TWS) and is usually performed for multiple targets at the same time,
the system’s computational power permitting. Obviously, the higher the sweep rate of the
radar, the finer-grained the tracking information is going to be for each air target. In
mechanically-scanned radars, the rotation speed of the radar antenna and the update rate of
target information (often referred to as “data rate”) are obviously identical.
However, the data quality required for the successful control of anti-aircraft weapons
dictates very high data rates, much higher than the rotation speed of typical mechanical-
scan radars. If the data rate is not increased, targets of high speed or high agility are
virtually impossible to engage. The obvious solution, spinning the radar antenna faster,
entails a significant drawback: In pulse and pulse-doppler radars (ie. The vast majority of
mechanically-scanned radar systems), the ability to detect targets at long range is directly
relevant to the total electromagnetic energy reflected back to the receiver from the target
(in more detail, it is proportional to the transmitter’s PRF and the time duration of the
target’s presence within the main lobe
[radar beam] of the transmitter). As
the radar antenna spins faster, it has
less time to gather the reflected
energy – thus, the target detection
range shrinks dramatically,
particularly for targets with reduced
radar signature or under the cover of
surface clutter. This places the AAW
system designer between a rock and a
hard place: he has to accept either
short-range penalty or poor fire-
control solution.
The answer to this problem, and the

accepted practice for most current
warships, is to provide separate radars Strategic phased-array radars such as this PAVE
dedicated to the target-tracking PAWS unit have been in service for decades, but their
great expense has until recently prevented them from
function. This creates a clear being mass-employed in tactical military branches
separation of duties: the surveillance
radar performs the initial target detection and low-quality tracking, and then passes this
data to the tracking radar, which performs the high-quality tracking and fire-control
operation (frequently providing illumination for radar-guided weapons). But this solution,
while perfectly adequate for the “single incoming target” scenario, is severely handicapped
in a saturation attack scenario: as the maximum multi-target ability is equal to the number
of dedicated tracking & illumination radars, and with a very finite number of these systems
being installed on the ship (typically 2 for frigates & destroyers, 2-4 on cruisers etc.), it is
quite easy to overwhelm the ship’s defences with multiple simultaneous attacks. Clearly,
what is needed is a way to provide target-tracking data of very high quality (sufficient for
weapons guidance) while at the same time being able to do this for a very large number of
targets, and without sacrificing long-range performance.
54
The technology
The requirement for the concurrent high-quality tracking of a large number of targets
essentially dictates breaking off from the shackles of mechanical scan: the need for high
data-rate means that the radar beam has to jump between widely-separated targets near-
instantaneously in order to quickly provide updates on their status, something impossible
for a mechanical antenna. On the contrary, this is perfectly possible if the management of
the radar beam is instead handled electronically, by antennas formed by multiple
independent transmitters, spaced at predefined regular intervals. Understanding how this
works calls for a small diversion into EM physics (fear not, the principle is simple).
Let us assume that we have a flat radar antenna composed of regularly-spaced transmitters.
All transmitters emit the same signal. For each transmitter, the signal follows the typical
sinusoidal pattern, with a maximum and a minimum amplitude value. Naturally, as the
multiple transmitter elements are tightly stacked, there is strong interference between them.
In our case, this is intentional and welcome: according to the principle of constructive
interference, the electromagnetic energy received at a point in space from two or more
closely-spaced radiating elements is at a maximum when the energy from each radiating
element arrives at a point in phase (concurrently). These “pulse-intersection” points, if
joined together, form an apparent (virtual) dimensional plane. The vector axis of the main
lobe of the transmitted pulse (i.e, the main radar beam) is always perpendicular to that
apparent plane (wave front) of the electromagnetic field generated by the transmitters.
Now, when all elements transmit in the same phase (as happens with mechanical-scan
antennas), the plane of the EM field is parallel to that of the antenna, and the main lobe will
be staring right forward (boresight). By shifting the order of transmission however
(essentially altering the relative phase of the EM pulse on each transmitter, i.e. making
some of the transmitters shoot their pulse slightly ahead of after others), the apparent EM
plane rotates, and the main lobe can be steered around, right out to the maximum scan
limits of the antenna. Because this is an electronic, not mechanical operation, the steering
of the main beam is near-instantaneous, thus fulfilling the need for rapid updates between
targets.
55
WAYPOINT
Initially, this principle was applied to 3D mechanical-scan radars. These use an antenna
formed by multiple horizontal slotted waveguides, each of them being an independent
transmitting element. By altering the phase of the RF pulse transmitted by each
waveguide, the beam can be steered on the vertical axis in order to provide altitude data on
multiple targets – but horizontal scanning still depends on the antenna spin. Radars that
employed this
technique include
the APY-1/3 of the
E-3 Sentry
AWACS aircraft,
as well as most 3D
air-search radars
installed on USN
ships in the 70s and
80s (most notable
being the SPS-48
family) as well as
most modern air-
Phased-array technology finds its simplest form of implementation in single-
surveillance radar
dimension scanning systems. This graph demonstrates how 3D radars like sets. This single-
the SPS-48 series use the vertical steering of the beam to stabilize against dimension scanning
ship movement by forming a “virtual” horizontal axis independent of the was adopted as an
true boresight axis. A similar technique is used by E-3 Sentry AWACS interim step
aircraft to stabilize the beam when banking to turn.
because of the high
cost of independent
transmitters and the general immaturity of the technology at the time. With the rapid cost
decrease of such transmitters however, it became practically feasible to populate an
antenna with multiple elements both horizontally and vertically. This in turns means that
the radar beam can be steered on both axes, thus eliminating the need for mechanical scan
altogether.
The ability to provide a high data-rate on a large number of targets at sufficient range is
not the only advantage of electronic-scan arrays. Other benefits include:
Because of the near-instant redirection of the main beam, a single radar unit can
perform multiple functions concurrently: For example long-range air surveillance,
low-rate tracking of neutrals or suspected contacts, high-rate tracking of confirmed
hostiles and radar illumination of hostiles within weapon parameters. These duties
typically require the flawless cooperation of several different mechanical-scan
radar sets to be successfully performed, as previously described. While obviously
beneficial to a ship of any size, this consolidation of capabilities is particularly
important where hard upper limits on size & displacement are present, thus limiting
the number of sensors that can be installed (as is normally the case with most naval
forces).
56
Upon detecting a potential target, a mechanical-scan radar system typically waits

for a second sweep return so that it can correlate the two echoes, extract course &
speed information and start a new tracking process. Depending on the sweep rate
(typically not very fast for long-range surveillance sets), this wastes valuable time
against an incoming enemy aircraft or weapon. Furthermore, if for any reason the
target denies one or a few sweeps during tracking (if, for example, the targeted
aircraft temporarily drops under the horizon or masks even for a few seconds
behind an island or mountain range) the radar will typically drop the track8 and will
have to start all over again, with the same inherent delays. This means that, by
periodically somehow breaking the track (denying LOS, jamming, beaming etc.) an
enemy aircraft or weapon has a good chance of approaching dangerously close
without being successfully tracked and engaged. Phased-array radars can start a
track immediately upon detecting a target, since they can instantly reposition the
beam upon it instead of waiting for the next sweep. Furthermore, while they too
can be disrupted by much the same track-breaking techniques, they can counter
them much more effectively: for example, the main beam can be instructed to
increase its dwell time on the direction that the threat was last detected (at the
expense of reduced scanning on other, non-threatening sectors), so that when
eventually it does (unavoidably) reappear, it will be immediately re-detected and
the track will recommence instantly.
All mechanical-scan radars typically create secondary beams (sidelobes) in

addition to the main beam produced. These sidelobes are highly undesirable as they
represent both a significant prize for enemy ELINT assets and also a source of
vulnerability to jamming. Electronic-scan arrays produce sidelobes of relative
lower signal strength; they are therefore less vulnerable to such exploits.
This advertising graph from Lockheed Martin emphasizes the multifunction capability of the SPY-1
radar; similar advantages are offered by most phased-array systems
8
Many radars have a “track memory” feature to counter such problems, and for some time after loosing
57
WAYPOINT
Like most electromechanical devices, mechanical arrays are vulnerable to own

vibration and have strict maintenance requirements for the effective operation of
their moving parts. Electronic arrays have no moving parts and suffer from no
vibration of their own. They are also inherently better stabilized against the ship’s
motion: mechanical antennas have complex multi-axis stabilization systems to
compensate (themselves a source of maintenance & reliability headaches), whereas
electronic arrays simply steer the main beam counter to the detected motion.
Mechanical-scan radar systems typically have several single points of failure

inherent in their design: if the servo motors for the antenna spin fail, the radar is
out. If the stabilizing servos fail, the tracking data quality gets so bad that the radar
is good as out. If the antenna itself gets bend out of shape even partially, the radar
is out. The list goes on.
Electronic-scan sets, while not impervious to sub-system failures or damage
(particularly with regards to the RF pulse-generator tubes), are typically more
resistant to them. This is partly a result of the modular structure of the antenna
itself, and of the disposable nature of the independent transmitter elements: if any
of the transmitters fails, the others will take over. This means that the antenna can
have a significant portion of its elements destroyed (e.g. from the fragments of an
ARM detonation) and still be able to function, albeit at a reduced capability.
Mechanical-scan antennas are designed under a certain set of operational

assumptions, which in turn drive the technical specifications: the radar will
transmit a pulse of such and such energy and frequency, with a given PRF, forming
a beam of a given width (the physical size & shape of the radar antenna is precisely
formed over these requirements), rotating at some set speed (thus having a fixed
data rate) etc. etc. Now, what if the adversary uses a new jamming technique or
employs different technical characteristics than those predicted? What if the land-
or sea-clutter is greater than expected? What if the tactical circumstances call for a
higher data-rate than the “standard”? What if years of actual operational
employment show that the desired technical specs are different than those of the
hardware in hand? In any of these cases, the hardware has to be redesigned and
physically rebuilt.
Electronic-scan systems, while having their own physical limitations with regards
to transmitted power, scan coverage etc, are considerably more flexible on their
operation within these limits. Their technical characteristics are largely driven by
the controlling software rather than the underlying hardware. This means that by
altering the software code, the same piece of hardware can be modified/enhanced
to adjust to new threat environments. The system’s software-driven nature also
increases the tactical flexibility of its operational employment: The precise
characteristics of the transmitted beam can be altered on-the-fly to suit the tactical
situation at hand, rather than arbitrary pre-assumptions based on imperfect
intelligence.
track they will keep searching in the expected direction of the threat, trying to re-acquire. This however is
only effective if the target does reappear soon.
58
The next step: AESA
The technology described so far assumes a system comprised of a number of transmitter

modules, but only one receiver module, forming a single main beam. Such antennas are
often described as passive electronic-scan arrays. The next evolutionary step in this
technique is to make each of
the transmitters a receiver in
its own right, essentially
constructing an antenna
formed by thousands of
independent (but coordinated)
transmitter-receiver (T/R)
modules. Such systems are
referred to as active
electronic-scan arrays
(AESA). This technique
obviously requires a much
higher level of electronics
integration and is more
expensive to develop than the
previous solution, which is
why systems embodying this
principle have only very
recently began reaching
operational status.
The benefits, however, fully

justify the extra costs &
complexity: instead of
forming a single main beam
and electronically steering it
around, the presence of
multiple T/Rs allows the
forming of multiple
independent main beams,
each assigned to its own task.
So, instead of having the
single beam being time-
shared between the various
duties (surveillance, tracking,
fire-control etc.) and hop
from one target to another,
we can assign each of the
beams to a specific function
or permanently “stick it” to
follow a specific target, while
other duties & targets are
59
WAYPOINT
handled to the other beams. This “true” multi-function capability opens up other potential
uses: for example, since it is possible to transmit two or more signals with completely
different characteristics concurrently, it is perfectly feasible to have the radar antenna
double-up as a powerful jammer. AESAs are also inherently less power-hungry, as each of
the T/R modules transmits a low-power EM pulse, the beams being formed by the
intersections of the pulses (This contrasts to the very powerful EM pulse being transmitted
by passive electronic-scan systems). This is a significant consideration when thinking
about the applicability of such a technology on platforms with a limited power budget.
Past, present and future platforms: Failures and successes
SPG-59/Typhon
The first attempt for an operational phased-array system commenced on 1958 as a US

Navy venture. The aim was to develop an extremely advanced SAM system called
Typhon, which would offer significantly enhanced multi-target abilities than the existing
family of Terrier, Tartar and Talos systems. These systems, while technological marvels in
their own right, were never designed to handle the then-emerging threat of huge numbers
of bombers and anti-ship missiles entering service with the Soviet Naval Aviation (AV-
MF). The intended solution to this problem was track-via-missile guidance (adopted much
later successfully in the land-based Patriot SAM), in which radar signals were received by
the missile, but forwarded and processed on the surface ship with its much greater
available computing power. The system structure called for a radar component able to
perform all the different duties (including fire-control & terminal target illumination on
multiple contacts) concurrently. It was therefore sensible that the first venture for an
operational phased-array radar (PAR) began with this project: The heart of the new system
would be the massive SPG-59
electronically scanned tracking
radar, which could track
multiple targets and intercept
missiles. This would be
matched to an extremely
advanced missile, able to
intercept both fast aircraft and
missiles out to 110nm.
As soon as the technological

R&D commenced in earnest,
the hurdles began
materialising: the state of the
art was not up to par. While it
The Typhon missile during trials was practical to construct
multiple parallel waveguides
for height-scanning on
conventional 3D radars, making small individual transmitter elements was simply too
expensive – the yield rates were too low to satisfy mass-production requirements, and the
60
modules themselves suffered from reliability problems. The costs of fully constructing
even a single complete PAR antenna was going to be prohibitively high.
Even worse, from a naval architect’s point of view, were the enormous projected power
consumption requirements of the system. At the time of development, the only power
source that could even begin to satisfy the power feed of the radar would be a nuclear
power plant. The question on the employment of nuclear power on surface vessels was a
hot issue at the time; although the carrier Enterprise and a single large cruiser (Long
Beach) had already been authorised for construction, their extravagant costs were causing
a turmoil of controversy. The combination of these reasons, together with the increasing
development difficulties, led to the cancellation of the project in December 1963.
SPG-32/SPG-33 SCANFAR
The SPG-32 and SPG-33 systems were the USN’s next attempt at PARs, and commenced
in concurrence with the cancellation of Typhoon. To avoid some of the pitfalls and dead-
ends of the SPG-59/Typhon
endeavour, some of the operational
requirements were relaxed: target
illumination for SARH weapons, for
example, was not required from the
radars as it would be tasked to
dedicated director sets, and some
redundancy in the surveillance role
was to be provided by the presence
of other conventional mechanical-
scan systems (SPG-59 was
envisioned as the sole radar system
aboard a warship). The requirements
for the precise tracking of multiple
targets concurrently fully remained,
however, and were further perplexed
by the need for effective ECCM
against the then-emerging dedicated
jamming & chaff-laying escorts of
the AV-MF. While the cost of
electronics had significantly reduced
The characteristic antennas of the SPG-32/33 radars are
during the turn of the decade, it was
evident in this 1970’s shot of the cruiser Long Beach.
still going to be a massively Note the four separate missile illuminators
expensive undertaking. The relevant
technology was only beginning to mature; transistors were not yet available in mass
numbers to be employed, so the system had to rely instead on vacuum-tube elements.
Despite these headaches, the program proceeded on the operational deployment level,
being installed on the carrier CVN-65 Enterprise and the cruiser CGN-9 Long Beach.
61
WAYPOINT
That the system was installed on the sole two nuclear-powered surface vessels of the USN,
and on two of the largest ones in displacement, was by no means accidental. Like the SPG-
59 before it, the SCANFAR system was insanely power hungry. A high power demand is
one of the inherent design weaknesses of passive electronic-scan systems, and in this case it
was compiled by the power requirements of the vacuum tube arrays. Furthermore, despite
the advances in electronics miniaturisation since the late-50s, the antennas still ended up
being very heavy and bulky. Fitting them into a ship of lesser displacement would create
severe stability problems, unless they were placed very close to the waterline (thus
drastically limiting their effective range). Even on the Enterprise, they were positioned just
high enough to avoid the vertical fins of aircraft parked on the flight deck.
The role of the system as fitted on the Enterprise was to provide a clear air picture, updated
instantaneously. Both wide-area surveillance and specific target-tracking were on the
requirements list, but it was discovered during development that each profile called for the
use of slightly different beam characteristics. This eventually necessitated the parallel
operation of two antennas of different shape: the SPG-32 used a wide rectangular antenna
for air surveillance, while the SPG-33 used a vertical-positioned square set for target
tracking. The same set was installed on Long Beach, but there the system also had the
additional role of handing-off precise tracking data to the missile illuminators. In both
installations there were four antenna pairs covering 90 degrees each.
The system proved unsatisfactory throughout its operational career. Even when it worked
(which was not often the case), the system was unable to provide the practical benefits
expected. This was mostly the result of the imperfections of the analog or analog/digital
subsystems used rather than fundamental design flaws in the system itself. The additional
maintenance load imposed on these two ships (which had a sever effect on their overall
availability as fleet units) was deemed excessive compared to the benefits. As a result, both
Long Beach and the Enterprise had their antennas and internal system electronics removed
during their late-70s/early-80s overhaul, and had them replaced with other more
conventional sets.
SPY-1/Aegis
RCA electronics received the initial contract for the development of Aegis and its most
important component, the SPY-1 radar system, by the USN on 1969. The radar was to
cooperate with a new modified version of the RIM-66 Standard SAM, which was then
beginning to enter service en masse. The lessons from both Typhon and in particular
SCANFAR were fresh in the minds of the system designers, and therefore a great deal of
effort was directed on ensuring that the resulting system would be a “real”, practically
useful system rather than a paper tiger. For example, from the onset of the design stage
emphasis was placed on the integration of wholly digital elements both for the control &
manipulation of the main beam (and the sidelobes) as well as the subsequent processing of
the received signal. This ensured that the system would work “as advertised” much more
frequently than its predecessors. It also had the equally important side effects of making the
antenna considerably lighter and also of reducing the power requirements (this latter
benefit proved to be crucial on the operational deployment). A clear separation between the
62
hardware layer and the controlling software was made, in order to facilitate long-term
system upgrades. Significant emphasis was given on system maintainability and reliability,
in many cases even sacrificing outright performance for the sake of total system uptime (a
trend that has since been growing in importance in both the military and civilian sector).
In 1974 a prototype antenna was ready for installation on the trials ship AVM-1 Norton
Sound. Along with the fitting of a single antenna on the superstructure, the ship also
received the prototype modules of the entire system, including an entire CIC “box”, the
processing computers, the display consoles, the fire-control modules and missile
illuminators etc. Between 1974 and 1979-80 extensive tests and trials were carried out in
order to both test and improve the basic concept. The results were impressive. The adoption
of much more modern computing elements (of a much larger scale of integration than
anything hitherto employed) not only realised the projected performance figures but also
drastically improved reliability. The system’s operational readiness never fell under 96%,
which is even more impressive considering that the crew was formed mostly by members
of the regular crew of Norton Sound, people far from ideally suitable to handle the system.
The multiple target engagement capability was first demonstrated in 1977: the ship
launched two Standard-2 (RIM-66C) missiles against two BQM-34 target drones. The
missiles were not SARH-illuminated all the way as typical with all previous naval SAMs;
instead they were initially launched at a preset point in the sky and guided there by their
onboard INS units, then received mid-flight updates on the target positions from the SPY-1
radar. Terminal SARH illumination for the endgame was provided by a single SPG-62
illuminator time-shared between the two missiles. Both targets were destroyed.
From the beginning of the testing period, there was an intense debate within USN circles as
to how to deploy Aegis. There were many basing proposals: one (“DG/Aegis”) called for
the mass-employment of the system on top of low-cost, limited capability vessels. It was
argued however that this would create a mismatch between the awesome capabilities of the
combat system and the very limited firepower of the parent vessel. Another proposal was
the so-called “Strike cruiser”, under which sixteen large, nuclear-powered cruisers (which
might aptly be described
as pocket-Kirovs) would
be constructed and
allocated at two per group,
to form the then-projected
eight wholly-nuclear
CVBGs. This however
meant that Aegis would be
deployed on a relatively
small number of ships and
thus the technology would
not get the widespread
service it deserved.
A graph of the CG-47 class. The antennas of the SPY-1 Eventually what was
system are visible on the front-end of the superstructure, just adopted was an
under the bridge. The rear-facing antenna is located on the
after end of the superstructure, abaft the main mast. intermediate solution:
63
WAYPOINT
using an enlarged version of the successful Spruance-class hull and matching Aegis with
the “standard” cruiser weapons outfit of the era, including two dual Mk-26 launchers (to be
later succeeded by vertical-launching systems). This design emerged as the Ticonderoga-
class missile cruiser, with the lead ship becoming operational in 1983.
A description of the SPY-1 radar is unbalanced if taken out of the context of the Aegis
combat system it supports. The radar itself operates in the S-Band (typically in 3.1-
3.5GHz), and uses four passive electronic-scan array antennas of 3.65x3.65m each. The
beam width is typically 1.7deg. In the initial operational version SPY-1A (installed in CG-
Lockheed Martin’s presentation of the SPY-1 line, apart from the typical marketing blurb (all weather
performance…), contains some useful information on the technical characteristics and capability
improvements of each successive version. Notice the antenna size difference in the most recent versions.
47 Ticonderoga, and all subsequent class ships until CG-58 Philippine Sea), each antenna
uses 4096 elements grouped into 32 transmitting batches. The transmitter elements are
powered by 32 Cross-Filed Amplifier (CFA) units connected in parallel, each of which has
a 132KW peak output. For each of the four antennas, the produced beam is controlled
exclusively by the Aegis system: The core of the system (Mk7 Mod3 Baseline 1 & 2
configuration) is comprised of 16 UYK-7 mainframes, 1 UYK-19 server and 11 UYK-20
minicomputers (all provided by Unisys). The computing modules are grouped together
physically to form a unified main processing unit, interfacing through 4 Hughes AN/UYA-
4 color displays and 4 additional PT-525 smaller displays with a capacity of displaying up
to 128 target tracks (this is an artificial limit to avoid system saturation; it can be raised in
combat). In automatic mode, the computers receive full control authority not only of the
ship's own sensor and weapon systems, but also of any other nearby ship whose systems
have been subordinated to Aegis control (provided that the other ship hosts a suitable
NTDS or compatible system). The system structure is compatible with previously existing
64
NTDS protocols and can exchange data with NTDS-equipped ships through Link-11 and
Link-16 (JTIDS) datalink networks. The SPY-1 radar itself is credited with a 175nm range
for air search and 45nm for horizon search.
The main difference of the next version (SPY-1B) was the addition of a high-elevation
mode so that the beam can be steered up to the zenith of the scan limits, in order to
successfully track anti-ship missiles that cruise at high altitude before diving on their
targets near vertically (missiles such as the Russian AS-4 and AS-6 regularly use this
profile). Furtermore, the use of lighter and more compact phase shifters reduced the volume
and weight of the radar system (down from 5.440kg to 3.580kg). This also had the effect of
enabling the reduction of the number of the array element subgroups, the result being the
forming of a more narrow beam. Improvements extended on the Aegis system as well:
more advanced UYK-43/44 mainframes were fitted, offering significantly greater
processing output. Even with the reductions in power requirements made possible by the
more efficient digital systems though, the power consumption is such that the Ticonderoga
class loses almost 2000miles of endurance when the SPY-1 is continuously transmitting.
The new A. Burke Aegis destroyers, having a significantly reduced displacement than the
Ticos, received the SPY-1D, a significantly modified version. (This was also installed on
the last 9 Ticonderoga cruisers). The installation of all four antennas on a single mast
enabled drastic reductions in cabling, volume and weight (down to 1.910 kg for each
antenna). It also enabled all four antennas to be powered by a common shared TWT9. Apart
from the US warships, the SPY-1D is also being installed on the Japanase DDG-173 Kongo
class of AAW destroyers (a heavily modified version of the A.Burke design) and the new
Spanish F-100 (Alvaro de Bazan class) AAW-frigates currently under construction.
The more recent SPY-1F and SPY-1K versions are considerably lighter (including antennas
of reduced area and thus fewer transmitter elements; see the accompanying table) and are
mainly targeting the export market. The SPY-1F version has been selected for the
Norwegian F-310 (Fridtjof Nansen) class and is also offered for other European naval
construction plans currently in consideration. SPY-1K is an even more compact version
targeting the emerging market for new patrol frigates and corvettes, which will be needed
in the next 10-15 years to replace a large number of outdated corvettes and FACs in
numerous coastal-patrol navies around the world.
It should be noted here that the size shrink in the most recent versions does carry its own
penalties: By virtue of its size, SPY-1D is a more powerful radar and, consequently, has
increased range, but both the SPY-1D and the SPY1-F/K have air defense and ship self-
defense capabilities. The SPY-1F/K, on the other hand, has not been designed to provide
TBMD capability (as an example) through software and hardware modifications.
9
On the Ticos, three of the antennas are on the forward superstructure and the aft-facing antenna is on the
back-end. This also means that the aft antenna has to be powered by an independent power tube.
65
WAYPOINT
Mars-Passat (Sky Watch)
The presence of the Mars-Passat radar was first identified from satellite photographs of the
fourth Kiev-class carrier (then called Baku), under construction in the early 80s in the
Nikolayev 444 shipyard in the Ukraine. The ship was launched in 1982. The radar was
assigned the NATO designation “Sky Watch” and was observed with considerable interest
by western analysts.
Its timeframe of introduction for service with the Soviet Navy fitted well with the
concurrent phase-in of PARs in the Soviet air defence forces (with both the Zaslon radar on
the MiG-31 interceptor and the Flap Lid radar on the SA-10 SAM system proving
considerable successes). The Soviets had previously introduced a number of 3D air-search
radars with vertical electronic scan (rough equivalents of the SPS-48 series in
technological principle, if not in capability) and had demonstrated, with the Zaslon, the
ability to package the relevant electronics within reasonable volume and weight
Two of the four antennas of the Sky Watch system are evident in this shot of
Admiral Gorshkov
restrictions. The Kirov and Slava classes were also coming online, both with significant
multi-target engagement capability thanks to the TVM guidance provided by the Top
Dome radar. So overall, it was not unreasonable to expect the Soviets to pull off a
technological feat of this magnitude successfully – particularly as throughout the 70’s and
early 80’s a successive series of publicised spy cases had demonstrated their ability to
boost their R&D efforts by successfully adopting various western concepts.
The Sky Watch was installed on Baku, as mentioned, and also on the lead vessel of the new
class of full-deck aircraft carriers, which went through several name changes during
construction before entering service as Admiral Kusnetsov. From what is known, it was
planned as a highly-sophisticated integrated air-battle management system, in many
66
respects resembling the SCANFAR principle rather than the contemporary Aegis. It was
clearly not meant to provide weapons control in the manner that Aegis/SPY-1 controls SM-
2 missiles in flight.
That the system ran into technical difficulties was evident by the fact that Baku
commissioned a full five years after its launch (1987). The Kusnetsov took even longer
than that, but this had more to do with the economic & social implosion of the USSR in the
late-80s/early-90s rather than problems with the vessel itself. What was unexpected,
however, was that closer inspection of the system in both ships showed that major sub-
components had in fact not been installed. Extreme close-ups of the antenna arrays
revealed that no actual antenna elements were in place; instead, cement slabs had been
fixed in place in order to give the appearance of a planar array.
It has not yet been possible to determine exactly what went wrong with the development of
the system. What is known is that severe problems were encountered with the system
software rather than the actual hardware. This is in itself a bit surprising, since similar
software challenges were met successfully (though unconventionally from a western POV)
on the A-50 AWACS project. Whatever the exact difficulties were, they proved to be
insurmountable and the system as a whole was abandoned: Varyag, the almost-completed
sister ship to the Kusnetsov, had her superstructure design changed and conventional
mechanical-scan sets replaced the planar arrays of Sky Watch.
EMPAR
The European Multifunction Phased Array Radar (EMPAR) system was designed to be the
primary air defence sensor for the Horizon common new-generation frigate, originally
slated to be employed by the French, Italian and British naval forces (the RN eventually
withdrew from the Horizon project and went their own way). Under the Horizon specs,
EMPAR is just one sensor subdued to, and totally controlled by the overall Principal Anti-
Air Missile System (PAAMS), essentially the ship’s main combat system. Apart from
EMPAR, PAAMS also includes in terms of hardware:
-The Aster 15 & 30 SAMs, launched from SYLVER A-50
vertical launchers.
-A supplementary S1850M long-range air surveillance radar
The operational concept is that the S1850M radar is to

provide the initial long-range detection of targets, then
handing them off to EMPAR when they approach and
supposedly constitute a higher threat. EMPAR itself is a
frequency-agile set operating in the C-band (4-8GHz) with a
primary operating mode at 5.6GHz. Power is provided by a
software-controlled travelling-wave tube (TWT) with a
120KW peak output, and uses digital pulse compression for
the signal, as well as a 2-stage super heterodyne receiver
coupled to multiple TI C40-series DSP processors.
67
WAYPOINT
A potentially significant limitation of the system is the form of the antenna: contrary to the
SPY-1 and other comparable 360-deg-coverage systems, EMPAR employs a single,
rotating water-cooled passive electronic-scan antenna, typically inclined at 30 degrees.
While this was obviously a cost-based decision, it does mean that the system has a reduced
capability to deal with saturation attacks converging from radically different directions
(similar to the limitations of the Top Dome on the Kirov/Slava classes), although in this
case this is offset to some extend by the fact that the
ASTER missile requires only intermittent mid-course
updates and has a terminal active-radar seeker, thus not
tying-down the radar for the entire duration of the
engagement.
The antenna is formed by 2160 transmitting elements, and

produces a beam of typical width of 2.6 degrees, steerable
on a 45deg arc horizontally and 60deg vertically. The
system can perform concurrent monopulse tracking on 69
high-priority targets and additionally 231 low-priority ones,
the desired data-rate being adjustable for each target.
According to manufacturer’s claims, 50 of the high-priority
targets can be tracked with sufficient precision and data-
rate to be immediately engaged (though not all of them
concurrently). Some sources estimate the radar as capable
of controlling up to 24 missiles in flight at the same time.
Performance goals include a 180km detection range against One of the control consoles
targets with a 10m2 RCS, 120km against 2m2, and 50km for the EMPAR system
against a typical 0.1m2 RCS anti-ship missile.
SAMPSON
When the Royal Navy withdrew from the collaborative Horizon program, in order to freely
customize its requirements and specifications for
the new AAW destroyer class (Type 45), this did
not mean abandoning all the benefits of the
common R&D effort already undertaken under
Horizon. The heart of the Daring-class
destroyers is also going to be PAAMS,
employing the same subcomponents as the
original Horizon specs, but with an important
difference: the EMPAR radar is replaced by the
SAMPSON active phased-array system.
It can reasonably be argued that the RN’s

dissatisfaction with the performance goals for
the EMPAR was one of the principal reasons for
the eventual withdrawal from Horizon. It is
An early artist’s impression of the understood that the RN has much higher
SAMPSON mount
68
performance requirements with regards to the system’s ability to continuously provide a

360deg coverage. Thus it is not surprising that SAMPSON employs two back-to-back
AESA antennas mounted on a common rotating stand. A typical 30-rpm rotation thus
provides a much higher data rate than EMPAR, since the two-antenna design translates that
to an effective 60-rpm equivalent. The adoption of AESA arrays rather than EMPAR’s
passive ones also allows the employment of multiple independent beams, which further
enhances the system’s multi-tracking
potential and also brings other benefits
such as long-range detection against
low-RCS targets, a lower false-alarm
rate and an overall higher tracking
accuracy. Official specs also mention the
capability of the beam software-
management to provide such abilities as
precise raid-assessment mode,
estimation of a target’s actual physical
size and non-cooperative target
recognition (NCTR), but this has not
been independently confirmed.
A CGI illustration of a Type 45 destroyer. The
SAMPSON figures prominently on the front mast.
Notice also the supplementary air-surveillanceEach of the two antennas comprises 640
radar on the third mast TRM modules, each linked to four
antenna elements, thus forming an array
of 2.560 elements and emitting at a peak power of only 25KW, operating at the S-band.
The TRMs themselves are software-controlled and receive their input from fiber-optic
cables through the main rotating antenna mount. The main beam can be steered to a 60deg
arc in azimuth and has no practical elevation limit. The low power consumption allows for
simple air-cooling of the two antennas, the heat exchangers being located separately from
the antenna mount.
Official performance specifications have not been

publiscised. Unofficial sources claim that the system
is effective to provide tracking out to 400km, track
between 500 and 1000(!) targets and engage 12 of
them concurrently with ASTER missiles10. These
performance figures have led the system integrator
(BAe Systems) to claim that the supplementary
S1850M radar is not really needed on ships fitted with
SAMPSON, since the radar’s long-range performance
(mainly a result of the S-band being used) is sufficient
for the early-warning role, thus making the A refined artist’s impression of the
SAMPSON radar. The antenna shape
supplementary radar redundant. BAe argues against
has been compacted in order to fit in a
the more “traditional” fixed 4-antenna solution spherical radome
employed by SPY-1 and APAR, claiming that such an
10
The PAAMS architecture (EMPAR & SAMPSON) does not require terminal target illumination, since the
ASTER missiles have their own active seeker. The SPY-1 system relies on separate SPG-62 illuminators for
the endgame, while APAR handles the terminal illumination itself.
69
WAYPOINT
installation is more expensive and top-heavy, forcing its fitting on a lower mast position
and thus limiting its radar horizon.
APAR
APAR is the main radar of choice for the AAW system of the Tripartite Frigate
Cooperation (TFC-AAW). The system equipment, apart from APAR also comprises of the
SMART-L long-range surveillance radar and Mk41 VLS for SM-2 area-defence SAMs and
Evolved Sea-Sparrow (ESSM) point-defence missiles. The
TFC-AAW package is fitted (or in the process of being
installed) on the German F-124 Sachsen-class frigates and
the Dutch LCF frigates, and is also slated for the
modernisation of the Canadian Halifax-class frigates. The
entire combat system has been developed by a wide-
ranging industrial consortium comprised of Thales
Nederland (ex-Signaal), Northern Telecom, EADS,
Euroatlas, Comdev, Stork Canada and various subsidiaries
of Lockheed Martin and Thales.
One of the 4 main antennas of
the APAR radar
The American influence may seem
obvious at first sight of the system: the
general configuration of four fixed
phased-array antennas practically
screams “Aegis”. There are, however,
important differences under the hood.
For once, APAR employs AESAs rather
than passive arrays, with all the
performance benefits (and cost
penalties) this entails. Furthermore,
whereas Aegis & SPY-1 still need
separate SARH illuminators for terminal
missile guidance, APAR guides the
missiles completely on its own, from
launch to impact. Naturally, this calls for
a high operating frequency in order to
provide the extremely precise target
tracking on the endgame: APAR indeed
operates on the X-band (8-12GHz). This
reduces the system’s nominal range but
should provide increased tracking
precision.
Each of the antennas is formed by 3.424

elements, controlled in quads by 856 A CAD overview of the APAR installation. Clearly
TRM units. Each of the antennas visible are 4 main antennas, the missile uplinks and
the SPUs, DPUs and TMUs on the lower decks
70
provides a 60deg scan azimuth, so there is a certain degree of overlap at the extreme
angles. Each of the 4 antennas is tied to its own signal-processing unit (SPU), its own data-
processing unit (DPU) and two shared tracking & management units (TMUs). Presumably
the SPUs & DPUs are not hardwired exclusively to their own assigned antennas, but can
also be cross-linked to provide redundancy against battle damage. The TMUs are the radar
system’s main interface to the ship’s overall combat system.
Publicised performance figures include a 75km range on horizon search (sea-skimming

targets), a 150km range for the monopulse tracking of at least 250 targets and 32km for
surface search. Up to 16 targets can be concurrently engaged with 32 SM-2MR
BlockIIIA/B, SM-2ER Block IVA or ESSM missiles in the air at any time. For the
endgame illumination the radar employs intermittent continuous-wave illumination (ICWI)
with which the mentioned weapons are compatible. As an indication of the benefits of
active array employment, the system is reportedly able to form over 1.000 independent
beams in order to perform multiple different functions at the same time.
71
WAYPOINT
PLATFORM AUDIT: THE SUPERSONIC TUPOLEV BOMBERS IN
SERVICE TODAY
By Craig Paffhausen
With dwindling funds, the Russian Air and Naval Air forces have had to retire aircraft en-
masse to the scrap heap. Of all the heavy combat aircraft only the Tu-22M2/3, the Tu-160
and the Tu-95MS16 remain operational today. This article will focus on the Tu-22M2/M3
variants as well as the Tu-160 and what future they hold in the RuAF. As standard,
anything in Brackets “[…]” denotes the NATO or USAF designation and follows the
Soviet/Russian designation.
The Tu-22M [Backfire], commonly (and probably rightly so) called the Tu-26 Backfire by
Western militaries for the past 20 years, was the plane that forced the USAF to re-equip the
Air Defense Command with F-15s
and F-16ADFs in the mid-to-late
1980s. This plane was supposedly
“evolved” from the Tu-22 Blinder. In
fact, the evolution claim is even
further from the truth than Boeing’s
claims that picture the F/A-18E as
“just a stretched F/A-18C”. The
only parts that were interchangeable
between the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M
were the ejection seats and the tires!
The Tu-22M was developed as an
intermediate-range theater bomber with an optional strategic role (with the Kh-22MA [AS-
4 Nuclear Kitchen]). In this role, the Tu-22M would carry 2 Kh-22MA for nuclear strikes
against European ground targets, or ships in the waters off the land controlled by the then
Soviet forces. If enemy defenses were thought not to be prepared for an attack, or the
target was at a greater distance away, the Tu-22M would carry only the Kh-22MA on the
centerline.
As an intermediate bomber, the

Tu-22M would be called to
provide support to ground forces
in a conventional role only, as per
Soviet and now Russian strategic
doctrine. Thus the Tu-22M was
not designed to carry any free-fall
nuclear weapons. All
conventional weapons, other than
500kg or smaller bombs, are
carried externally on the two
underwing pylons and the two
multiple ejector racks (MERs)
located under the inlets. 16 500kg
A Kh-22PSI is carried semi-recessed on the fuselage bombs or 32 250kg bombs can
of a Tu-22M2
72
also be carried in the internal weapons bay (according to another source, up to 69 FAB-250
bombs can be carried: 36 externally and 33 internally). It is possible for the internal
weapons bay to carry 2 T-type or TN-type tactical nuclear weapons but the aircraft has
none of the specialized positive-control equipment (similar to the US/NATO PAL)
installed.
As far as missiles go, the Tu-22M2 was designed to carry the second generation of the Kh-
22 [AS-4 Kitchen] family: The Kh-22M and the Kh-22MA. The second generation
versions differ from the earlier models (Kh-22PSI) mostly in launch modes: they can now
be launched at low altitude, at a reduced range. For nuclear attack the Tu-22M2 would still
carry the older Kh-22PSI, limiting launch altitude to the high altitude band.
The fire-control system installed on the Tu-22M2 can control up to two of these weapons.
However, there are three carry spots on the aircraft. This is because carrying one Kh-22
under the wing would cause balance problems at full take-off weight. Yes, the Tu-22M2
A pair of Tu-22M3s demonstrate a typical operational medium/long-range load of two Kh-22s each.
Notice the different radomes on the missiles: The upper pair is probably an inertial land-attack
version (the very slim downwards-facing opening is the window for the altimeter radar). The lower
pair is the anti-ship version.
can carry three at once but the range penalty means that the third missile will not initialize
and be able to be fired until the bomber is back over its home base on final approach. This
is because the fire-control computer system has to cold-start the weapon, warm up the
electronics and then warm up the guidance section. It is estimated that this takes about one
hour to complete. It is possible that the attack computer could be replaced with a new
system on the Tu-22M2, but funding is such that adding such equipment on such an old
aircraft would not be cost effective.
Other missiles were integrated during the design phase of the Tu-22M2. A noteworthy one
is the short-ranged portion of the Kh-2000 program. This missile became operational in or
73
WAYPOINT
around 1988 (sources vary wildly) as the Kh-15 [AS-16 Kickback]. The Kh-15 was
developed in 3 versions: conventional anti ship, nuclear short-range land (equivalent to the
US AGM-69 SRAM) and passive radar homing anti-radar missile. However, only the
nuclear version entered service. The passive-ARM version completed testing in the late-
80s but was not purchased by any part of the Soviet/Russian military. It is possible that the
Anti radar version will be sold abroad to countries like India in the future. In the case of the
Tu-22M2 however, again the fire control system makes it impractical to integrate this
missile operationally. The more modern fire-control system of the Tu-22M3 however is
fully compatible with both the 3-missile Kh-22 loadout AND the Kh-15 loadout.
The Tu-22M3 is now the mainstay of the Russian strategic air arm. It is an intermediate
range operational/strategic bomber along the lines of the old US B-47 Stratojet in role. In
times of war, it would defend the Russian coast against incursion from enemy ships,
perform limited attacks against convoys (though nothing to the scale portrayed in Red
Storm Rising and other technothrillers) and execute land-attacks against theater strategic
targets (e.g. targets at less than 2000nm range that are “hard” strategic targets). As with the
Tu-22M2 before it, the Tu-22M3 was fitted with new upgraded versions of the Kh-22
missile family, the Kh-22N and Kh-22NA. Another Kh-22 version, the Kh-22MP passive
radar homing missile, was canceled in 1978 before production began. The Kh-22N is a
conventional anti-shipping missile with a secondary land-attack role against prominent
radar reflectors (i.e. bridges, large buildings etc). The Kh-22NA has an internal guidance
system coupled to a TERCOM system (similar to the early AGM-86 ALCM) and a nuclear
warhead. The fire control system on the Tu-22M3, unlike that of the Tu-22M2, does allow
for the carriage and firing of three Kh-22 missiles in salvo. This is a major improvement
over the fire- control systems of the Tu-22M2 and the original Tu-22K [Blinder], where
only one missile could be fired at a time, and only two could be kept in an operational
readiness.
Other missiles that have been tested on the Tu-22M3 but were not carried operationally
include the Kh-31 [AS-17 Krypton] family of anti-radar and anti-ship missiles. Up to 4 can
be carried on the external pylons. The Kh-55/RKV-500 [AS-15 Kent] cruise missile has
been launched from the same four pylons on test aircraft as well. The previously mentioned
Kh-15 [AS-16 Kickback]
aeroballistic missile has
been operational on the
Tu-22M3s assigned to
attack strategic targets in
Europe and Asia since
1988. Mounting the six-
round internal rotary
launcher for the Kh-15
precludes carrying the
third fuselage-recessed
Kh-22, but the two wing-
mounted Kh-22s can still
be carried. Alternatively,
A Tu-160 releases a Kh-55 cruise missile during trials a total of 10 Kh-15s can
74
be carried if the four external pylons are used in conjunction with the rotary launcher. If
the Tu-22M family is put back into production, these new missile systems will undoubtedly
be featured on the new production aircraft. Since India really, REALLY wants the Tu-22M
for its own use, it is highly possible that the Kazan factory will be re-opened to Tu-22M
production in the near future.
The other Tupolev supersonic bomber

used by the RuAF is the Tu-160
[Blackjack]. This strategic bomber is
bigger than the USAF’s B-1B, has a
higher speed but is less all-round
survivable (although surprisingly it has
a lower frontal RCS). The Tu-160 was
designed origi nally to carry the long-
range component of the Kh-2000
missile program, the Kh-45. Two
weapons bays on the Tu-160 would
each carry one Kh-45 internally, with
A Tu-160 approaches the drogue of an Il-78 for a the option of two more externally.
mid-air refuelling sequence However, while the bomber was still in
the early design phases, the Kh-45 was
canceled in favor of the Kh-55 cruise missile (which was based heavily on compromised
US Tomahawk technology). Two 6-round launchers were substituted for the two internal
Kh-45 bays, and the external pylons were deleted. Thus a total of 12 of the Kh-55SM [AS-
15B Kent] ALCMs can be carried. The Tu-160 is also fully compatible with the Kh-15
SRAM. 12 Kh-15s can be carried in lieu of 6 Kh-55SMs in each launcher, giving a total of
up to 24 Kh-15s or (in a mixed load) 6 Kh-55SMs and 12 Kh-15s. Thus the Tu-160 carries
a warload roughly equivalent to the B-52G/H (armed with 12 AGM-69A SRAMs and 8
AGM-86B ALCMs), although it still falls short of the B-1B in both nuclear and
conventional payloads. The Tu-160 however is much faster and features advanced
penetration aids (Electronic counter measures) to increase its survivability.
The Tu-160 was considered by the RuAF as

the replacement for the Tu-95 [BEAR] family
in the strategic strike role. However,
production was stopped at 35 aircraft built; not
enough for a country the size of Russia.
Construction of additional Tu-160s has now
slowly resumed. About every other year, a
new or rebuilt Tu-160 is introduced to the
Russian strategic air arm. It is unknown if
Kazan will build more aircraft, or if the
funding even exists to make them. The future
will see the introduction of the Kh-555
precision-strike missile (Kh-55 [AS-15A
Kent] missiles converted to a conventional
role), the Kh-101 advanced conventional Kh-55 missiles in the internal rotary
launcher
75
WAYPOINT
ALCM and the Kh-102, a nuclear version of the Kh-101. Of the Kh-101/102, the only
feature known with certainty is that the seeker has new advanced technology, including
image reference as well as terrain reference navigation (essentially emission-free terrain-
following). The range is rumored to vastly exceed the 2500-3000km offered by Kh-55,
reaching up to 4500-5000km. It is unknown what of the four power plant options
(Turbofan, Turbojet, Unducted fan or Turboprop) will be used. What can be deduced
however is that these missiles will be worthy successors for the Kh-55SM missiles
currently used for strategic attack.
APPENDIX: OPERATIONAL MEMBERS OF THE KH-22 (AS-4) FAMILY
Below is the latest info developed by the staffs of the Harpoon Headquaters, Harpoon2002,
and by Larry Bond on the various members of the highly interesting family of missiles
batch-classified by NATO as “AS-4 Kitchen”.
We would like to thank Larry Bond for allowing us to post this data publicly here first.
Kh-22PSI (Tu-22KD and Tu-22M2)

Guidance: Internal Autopilot (Generation 1)
Minimum range: 70 nautical miles
Maximum Range: 216 nautical miles (depends on launch altitude and speed)
Flight Trajectory: Cruise (at High altitude)
Warhead: 200KT Nuclear
This diagram depicts one of the land-attack versions of the Kh-22. Notice the radome
openings – this may well be the modern NA version.
76
Kh-22 (Tu-22KD)
Guidance: Internal Autopilot (Generation 1) + PG-type terminal active-radar homing
Warhead: 950 blast-frag (500kg explosives)
Kh-22N (Tu-22KD)
Guidance: Internal Autopilot (Generation 1) + PG-type terminal active-radar homing
Warhead: 200KT Nuclear
Kh-22M (Tu-22M2/3)
Guidance: Internal Autopilot with Terminal Active Radar Homing
Maximum Range: 81 nautical miles (flying at Low altitude)
Flight Trajectory: Cruise (at low altitude)
Warhead: 630kg HE
There is still some question on the max range of this version!
Kh-22MA (Tu-22M2/3)
Maximum Range: 216 nautical miles (flying at Low altitude)
Flight Trajectory: Cruise (at High Altitude)
Warhead: 630kg HE
Kh-22N (Tu-22M3 and Tu-95K-22) (Note: this is a different missile than the previous “N”
– the designation was apparently re-used!)
Maximum Range: 216 nautical miles (flying at High altitude)
Warhead: 630kg HE
The Kh-22N family can launch at any altitude from the 600 meters AGL to 12000 meters
AGL They can also fly at low altitude with a range penalty.
Kh-22NA (Tu-22M3 and Tu-95K-22)

Guidance: Internal Autopilot with Terrain Comparison
Maximum Range: 216 nautical miles (flying at High altitude)
Warhead: 200 KT warhead (sources vary but warhead weight is same as earlier models)
The Kh-22N family can launch at any altitude from the 600 meters AGL to 12000 meters
AGL. They can also fly at low altitude with a range penalty
77
WAYPOINT
PLATFORM PROFILE
In Harpoon’s wargaming terms, a platform is every self-contained military unit: a ship, an aircraft, a
submarine, a land unit etc. Platforms are the core of Harpoon, as their strengths and weaknesses, properly
exploited, may well determine the outcome of any given scenario. This section deals with such platforms, as
they are modelled and represented in various versions of computer Harpoon. See an error in the data? Have
a favorite platform that you want to introduce to fellow users? Think you can write-up a platform profile as
good as (or better than) the ones you see here? Send your corrections, suggestions, comments & drafts to
[email protected]
F-111 AARDVARK (& EF-111/FB-111)

General
Users: United States, Australia
Roles & Mission: The F-111 was the result of the ill-fated joint TFX program in the early
60s, a major effort whose aim was to satisfy the requirements of both the USAF (for a low-
level strike aircraft for the European theater) and the USN (for a long-range fleet-defence
interceptor). The navy version proved an outright failure as a result of excessive weight
figures, and the air force version entered service amidst a vast number of technical
problems. Most of the technical headaches revolved around the unreliability of the
extremely advanced avionics suite, problems with the variable geometry wing and its carry-
through box, severe airflow problems on the complex air intakes (the Soviets wisely went
for much simpler intakes on the Su-24 & MiG-23) and last but not least the weight of the
aircraft itself. However, the giant leap that the new aircraft brought to the table in terms of
deep, precision strike capabilities with unprecedented accuracy and survivability against
78
Warsaw Pact air defences, persuaded the

USAF that the Aardvark was worth
having around, even as a hangar queen.
Successive versions of the aircraft
improved its already awesome strike
capabilities and wide range of stores, if
not easing the maintenance problems (the
F-111D in particular was a horror story).
The UK-based F-111E/Fs formed the
backbone of USAFE’s deep strike ability
in the European theater for almost 2
decades, and together with NATO
Tornadoes would undoubtedly be among the first units to cross the border if the war that
never was did come. UK-based aircraft also participated in the famous El-Dorado Canyon
operation in 1986 against Libya, in a feat of tactical airstrike never before accomplished.
For the Desert Storm air operations in 1991, aircraft from both European bases and from
CONUS were moved into allied bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and played an active
role in the deep interdiction profile. The F-111 started being replaced by the F-15E Strike
Eagle from 1988 onwards, and was eventually retired in the mid-to-late 1990s, mainly as a
cost-saving measure.
The EF-111 was a highly

modified version with all the
attack avionics removed and
replaced by an extremely
advanced electronic warfare
suite, very similar to the one
already fitted to the US Navy’s
EA-6B Prowler. The two-man
crew was augmented by
another 2 EW operators and even the canopy was gold-plated to reduce electronic
interference from the aircraft’s own systems. The aircraft thus modified were cross-
attached as needed to normal F-111 squadrons to provide EW escort on deep-strike
packages. The retirement of the aircraft in the late 90s was a severe blow to the USAF’s
indedent escort-jamming
capabilities; indeed since then
the air force has to regularly rely
on EA-6B detachments from the
USN to cover its relevant needs.
The FB-111 was a Strategic Air

Command (SAC) modification
of the basic Aardvark. The
airframe was elongated and
structurally strengthened, larger
wings were installed and the
undercarriage was even further The FB-111 could carry six SRAMs or thermonuclear bombs;
four under the wings and, as this test flight demonstrates,
another two in the fuselage weapons bay
79
WAYPOINT
reinforced. The main purpose of the modifications was to increase the aircraft’s fuel
tankage and its maximum take-off weight (MTOW) so that it could carry six AGM-69
SRAM missiles or six free-fall strategic nuclear weapons. The aircraft was intented as a
SEAD-optimised consort to the existing B-52G/H strategic bomber fleet. The range of the
aircraft was still inadequate for true penetration of the Soviet mainland even with extensive
AAR. Instead it would be tasked with the elimination of PVO nodes (airfields, SAM sites,
EW/GCI radars, C3I centers etc.) along the periphery of the Soviet Union, thus enabling
trailing B-52s to penetrate Soviet airspace with increased survivability. Seventy-six were
built and saw service with the SAC until 1990, when they were converted to F-111Gs and
assigned to Tactical Air Command. The F-111Gs were assigned to the 27th Fighter Wing at
Cannon AFB and were used in a training role only, until their complete retirement in 1997.
18 of them were transferred to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in 1993 to augment
its F-111C fleet.
The F-111C was a special version for the needs of the RAAF. In many respects it
represented a cross between the F-111A and the FB-111. It was equipped with eight
underwing pylons mounted on an FB-111-type larger span wing (span of 70 feet when fully
extended), and fitted with the FB-111’s reinforced undercarriage. Twenty four such
airframes were delivered to the RAAF between 1968-1969, but the wing problems that had
caused a number of accidents with USAF Aardvarks forced a revision of the aircraft that
delayed their IOC until late 1973. Four of the aircraft were converted as RF-111C for the
reconnaissance role, fully retaining their strike capability. The RAAF aircraft can carry the
Pave Tack pod (as USAFE’s F-111Fs) as well as some unique weapons such as the
Harpoon AshM. All of the remaining F-111Cs have been refurbished and upgraded under
the AUP program, which should prolong their operational service until at least 2020. These
aircraft were further augmented by 18 ex-USAF F-111Gs from 1993 onwards11.
11
This is, by necessity, a summary account of the service of the F-111 with the RAAF. Those interested in
knowing about every single nut & bolt of the aircraft could do well to contact Dr. Karlo Copp, arguably the
most passionate person about the F-111 in the known universe☺
80
Strengths: The Aardvark is fast at low level. Really fast. In fact, very few aircraft (and
even fewer interceptors) can catch up with it at treetop height when in full afterburner.
With a reasonable hi-lo-hi profile and with tanker support, it has also an exceptional range
for a non-strategic aircraft, courtesy of its efficient (if unreliable and stall-prone) TF30
turbofans and huge fuel fraction. To this, one should add a very wide range of offensive
munitions & stores (including tactical and even strategic nuclear weapons), advanced
offensive avionics, extensive PGM capability (particularly the Pave Tack-fitted F-111Fs at
Lakenheath), a full terrain-hugging ability, and a comprehensive self-protection suite (in
addition to the regular escort presence of dedicated jammers like the EF-111 or EA-6B)
and what emerges is an asset that the Soviet representatives, realizing its potential, insisted
that it (the FB-111 version) should be included on the negotiating table in the late-70s
SALT II talks, classifying it as a global-strategic rather then theater/operational weapon.
Weaknesses: Extracting this awesome performance out of what was essentially an early-
60s design had to take its toll somehow. In the case of the F-111, maintainability was the
primary head that rolled. The Aardvark is one of the classic cases to come to mind when
one refers to “hangar queens”. This was particularly the case with the F-111D and its ultra-
complex offensive avionics suite. When it worked, this was the finest Aardvark ever – but
it rarely did (small wonder then, that this version was permanently based on Cannon AFB
rather than forward-deployed in Europe). Downtime became such a headache with the early
variants that the USAF decided to procure successive versions with much simpler avionics
(F-111E/F) in the meantime. Even the most mature E & F versions did not solve these
problems completely12. Furthermore, like the vast majority of dedicated strike aircraft, the
12
The effect of downtime as a result of maintenance has not been simulated well in any version of Harpoon
until now. However, with the advent of realistic ready-times in H3 v3.5.9 with the DB2000 v6.4 database,
such factors will become of primary concern when planning & executing air ops. You’ve been warned☺
81
WAYPOINT
F-111 has only basic self-defense armament and should be protected either by close escorts
or by distant fighter screens.
Another drawback is the runway & basing requirements of the aircraft. Despite the
presence of the swing-wings (which were devised mainly to make it possible for such a
heavy aircraft and its payload to get airborne at all, rather than shorten the take-off run) and
the powerful turbofans, the Aardvark is still “delicate” and demanding when it comes to
runway length & condition (particularly when contrasted to the mudstrip capabilities of its
Eastern sibling, the Su-24). This means that only a relatively limited number of bases
(except its permanent ones) would be able to practically host it as alternate deployment
sites in wartime. Put from another perspective, the Warsaw Pact counter-air planners would
have to wreck only a limited number of bases to ensure that the F-111 threat drastically
diminishes.
Deployment & Scenario Use: The F-111s are prime actors for any 70s/80s “WW3 Central
Front” type scenario, as their importance in executing NATO’s planned interdiction plan
against a WP onslaught would have been vital. The two permanent bases in Europe were
both in the UK: RAF Lakenheath (3 F-111F squadrons) and RAF Upper Heyford (3 F-
111E squadrons, 1 EF-111 squadron). The primary tasking for these aircraft would be the
logistical & second-echelon interdiction of the Warsaw Pact forces, with targets including
bridges, ammunition & fuel depots, divisional & army headquarters, supply truck convoys
etc. Precision strikes would be best handled by the –F model because of their capability to
carry the Pave Tack pod
(comprising a FLIR and a
laser designator). For the
same reason, the Upper
Heyford F-111Es would
be more likely to have a
number of their inventory
held back as a nuclear
reserve (the -F would be
too valuable as a PGM-
hauler to have it sitting on
the ground with a nuke). Typical mission profiles would probably dictate using UK basing
(with AAR over Germany on the way in and possibly on the way out as well) continuously
throughout the conflict, as diverting to continental European strips would entail the risks of
succumbing to the WP counter-air operations. The Lakenheath birds are of course also the
stars of any recreation of El-Dorado Canyon (in fact such a scenario is already available at
the HHQ).
Bases in the CONUS were hosting priority TAC reinforcements for Europe and included
Cannon AFB (3 F-111D squadrons) and Mountain Home AFB (3 F-111A squadrons, 1 EF-
111 squadron).
In Australian service, the Aardvarks exploit their vast range to form the long arm of the
RAAF against a wide range of targets in the western Pacific, as well as the first line of
defence against a potential seaborne threat (using both Harpoon AShMs as well as PGMs
and free-fall munitions).
82
Game Stats:
Max Speed: 900kts

Length: 23 Meters
Span: 19.2 meters
Weight: 21540 kg
Crew: 2
Climb Rate: 60 m/s at SL
Equipment: F-111D Aardvark (USAF 1980) – DB2000 v6.4

Radars:
Name Max Range Abilities Notes
AN/APQ-130 60nm Surface Search Main attack radar
Air Intercept
Range Information
Bearing Information
IFF Information
AN/APQ-128 TFR 2nm Surface Search Terrain-following radar
Range Information
Bearing Information
Electronic Warfare
AN/ALQ-94 DECM N/A Active jammer
Surface Search
AN/ALR-41 150nm Air Search Passive RWR/ESM/ELINT
Bearing Information
Stores:
M-61 Vulcan 20mm cannon (fitted on internal weapons bay)
Mk82 500lb LDGP/Snakeye
Mk84 2000lb LDGP/Ballute
B-61 nuclear bomb
600 USG Drop Tank
Versions (H3-DB2000 v6.4)

F-111C Aardvark (Australia 1980): Offensive avionics & EW suite as F-111D.
Weapons only Mk82 & Mk84 LDGP.
F-111C Aardvark (Australia 1986): Based on F-111C (RAAF 1980), with

significant improvements:
o New attack radar (APQ-165) and RWR (ALR-62).
83
WAYPOINT
o AAR-44 IR warning sensor added.
o Pave Tack targeting pod now available (PGM capability).
o Additional stores:
AGM-84D Harpoon IC
GBU-10 Paveway II LGB [Mk84]
F-111C Aardvark AUP (Australia 1996): New attack radar (APQ-169) and TFR
(APQ-171).
F-111C Aardvark AUP (Australia 2003): New stores:

o El-8222 ECM Pod
o AGM-142A Raptor (Have Nap)
F-111G Aardvark (Australia 1993): As FB-111 with all nuclear weapons

removed. Avionics as F-111C AUP. Stores are only Mk82, Mk84, 600 USG tanks.
F-111D Aardvark (USAF 1980): As described.
F-111D Aardvark (USAF 1985): As F-111D (1980), with new store: AN/ALQ-
131 ECM Pod.
F-111E Aardvark (USAF 1980): As F-111D but with simpler avionics (much
reduced ready-times). APQ-113 attack radar with APQ-110 TFR.
F-111E Aardvark (USAF 1991): As F-111E (1980) with new store: BLU-107
Durandal.
F-111F Aardvark (USAF 1980): As F-111E, with significant improvements.

o More powerful engines (higher MTOW, increased payload, extended range).
o New avionics
Offensive: APQ-144 attack radar, APQ-146 TFR.
Defensive: ALQ-137 ECM, ALR-62 RWR/ESM, AAR-44 IR
warning sensor added.
o New stores
ALQ-131 ECM pod
AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack Pod (LGB capability!)
F-111F Aardvark (USAF 1983): New stores:

o AN/AXQ-14 Datalink Pod
o GBU-15(V)1/B CWW guided bomb
F-111F Aardvark (USAF 1986): New stores:

o GBU-15(V)2/B CWW
o GBU-24 Paveway III LGB [Mk84]
84
o GBU-24 Paveway III LGB [BLU-109] (hard-target penetration capability

for the first time)
F-111F Aardvark (USAF 1991): New store: GBU-28 “Deep Throat” LGB [BLU-
113]
F-111F Aardvark|USAF/1994: New avionics: APQ-161 attack radar, APQ-171

TFR
EF-111A Raven: No weapons. Only external store is AN/ALQ-131 ECM Pod.

APQ-160 radar, APQ-110 TFR. Radically revised EW suite :
o ALR-23 ESM/ELINT
o ALQ-99 Offensive ECM
o ALQ-137 Defensive ECM
o ALR-62 RWR/ESM
FB-111 Aardvark: Larger dimensions, higher MTOW. APQ-114 attack radar,

APQ-134 TFR. ALQ-137 ECM, ALR-62 RWR/ESM. AAR-44 from 1980’s.
Primarily nuclear tasked with specific stores:
o AGM-69 SRAM
o B-61 nuclear bomb
Current Service
Royal Australian Air Force
RAAF Amberley, Queensland
82nd Wing
o 1 squadron: F-111C, RF-111C
o 6 squadron: F-111C, F-111G
85
WAYPOINT
STURGEON-CLASS SSN
General
Users: United States
Roles & Missions: The Sturgeon-class

submarines were built primarily for anti-
submarine warfare and intelligence-
gathering missions in the late 1960s and
1970s. Using the same propulsion system
as their smaller predecessors of the SSN-
585 Skipjack and SSN-594 Permit classes,
the larger Sturgeons sacrificed speed but
gained markedly imp roved stealth, much
improved weapons & sensors, and
extensive ELINT equipment. The emphasis on intelligence-gathering and other special
operations was a particular hallmark of the Sturgeons, and a significant part of their career
was devoted to such tasking (see also the “JED Special” section on this issue). Attracting
little publicity during its heyday (as is typical with sub ops), this class was the platform of
choice for many of the covert Cold War missions for which submarines are now famous
(including the particularly daring insertions into the Barents and Okhotsk seas, tapping the
ultra-secret communications cables of the two main Soviet fleets)13.
The Sturgeons were also among the first US subs purpose-designed to operate in the polar
ice cap: the sail-mounted dive planes could rotate to a vertical position for breaking
13
For a more detailed and thorough description of just what this class covertly accomplished in the 60s, 70s
and even late 80s, the book “Blind Man’s Bluff” is a highly recommended read.
86
through the ice when surfacing in Arctic regions.
Beginning with SSN-678 Archerfish, units of this class had a 10-foot longer hull, giving
them more living and working space than previous submarines of the Sturgeon Class. This
also facilitated the temporary hosting of SpecOps teams.
A total of six Sturgeon-class boats were modified to carry the SEAL Dry Deck Shelter
[DDS], one in 1982 and five between 1988 and 1991. These boats (SSN 678-680, 682, 684,
686) were listed as "DDS Capable" - either permanently fitted with the DDS or trained with
them. In this configuration, they were primarily tasked with the covert insertion of SpecOps
troops from an attached Dry Deck Shelter (DDS). The Dry Deck Shelter is a submersible
launch hanger with a hyperbaric chamber that attaches to the ship's Weapon Shipping
Hatch. The DDS provides the
most tactically practical means of
SEAL delivery due to its size,
capabilities, and location on the
ship.
After a 5-year study was

completed on the class, the
design life was extended from 20
years to 30 years, with a possible
extension to 33 years on a case-
by-case basis. However, all boats
of this class were retired prior to
this limit during the 90s, in order
to avoid expensive reactor
refueling operations.
A Sturgeon-class boat breaks through the ice pack in an
Arctic exercise
Strengths: The Sturgeon class
was from the outset designed to
effectively perform covert operations in addition to the more “traditional”
ASW/ASuW/CVBG-escort duties. This meant optimization for stealth (very low noise
levels), habitability for prolonged operations (ample internal space both for crew and
SpecOps visitors) and electronic surveillance sensors. Together with these unique virtues
(many of which were sacrificed for the sake of speed in the succeeding Los Angeles), the
class benefited from the more general fleet-wide improvements being introduced in the 60s
and 70s: improved bow (spherical) and towed sonar arrays, improved weapons (in
particular the Mk48 torpedo and the UGM-84 Harpoon missiles) and so forth. In terms of
quieting and sensors, the Sturgeons represented the apogee of the USN’s technological
superiority over the Soviet Navy: the most modern contemporary direct adversaries
included the noisy Victor I/IIs and Alfas, and the Sturgeons were regularly able to track
and trail them even in close proximity without counter-detection (the Soviets would soon
get wiser and mass-produce the significantly improved Victor III).
Weaknesses: There aren’t a lot of negatives that can be mentioned about this class, other
than the relatively low maximum speed of 30kts. While perfectly adequate for CVBG
87
WAYPOINT
escort, this meant that sometimes an alerted Soviet sub could outrun its Sturgeon trailer
(whether it could also outrun a Mk48 fired at close range is another point altogether). It
also meant that, if by some chance detected during a “sensitive” mission, the sub might
have trouble outrunning its border-patrol chasers (this could be a troublesome situation if
the ROEs definitely prohibited the use of weapons even in self-defence; and such ROEs
might not be unlikely considering the nature of such missions).
Deployment & Scenario Use: The Sturgeons saw a rich career throughout their
operational lives, serving with all US fleets and performing all duties related to submarines
– with particular emphasis on missions that usually do not grab headlines. They are ideal
for ELINT-snooping setups (particularly the USS Narwhal with her ultra-quiet natural
circulation powerplant) at all the doorsteps of the four Soviet fleets, plus other coastal
installations of interest. SEAL team insertions are also one of the strong cards of the class,
and these make for some interesting scenario opportunities – for example, using them to
neutralize key facilities (SAM/SSM/radar/C3I installations etc.) that may otherwise greatly
hinder the operations of other friendly forces. Their greatly improved stealth over previous
classes also makes them natural boomer-trailers and gatekeepers off Kola and Kamchatka.
Finally, they are equally suited to most of the other, more “traditional” roles such as CVBG
shotgun escort, anti-shipping attacks etc.
Game stats:
Length: 92.4m
Displacement: 4460t
Crew: 107
Max Depth: 400m
Damage Points: 76
Equipment: SSN-637 Sturgeon (1980) – DB2000 v6.4
Radar

Surface Search
AN/BPS-15 35nm Range Information
Bearing Information
Electronic Warfare

Surface Search
Air Search
AN/WLQ-4 890nm Passive RWR/ESM/ELINT
Bearing Information
Classification
Sonar
88

Sub Search
AN/BQR-15 69nm Towed Array
Bearing Information
Sub Search
AN/BQS-13E 3nm Range Information Active-only sonar
Bearing Information
Sub Search
AN/BQS-14 3nm Range Information Active-only sonar
Bearing Information
Sub Search
Range Information
AN/BQQ-2 39nm Active/Passive sonar
Bearing Information
Altitude Information
Mounts
Mount ROF Capacity Weapons
1x Mk48 Mod 3 (max. 1)
(4) 533mm Mk68 TT 5 1
0x UUM-44A SUBROC (max. 1)
(2) CSA Mk1 Internal 1 2 2x ADC Mk2 Mod 0 Decoy|1980s (max. 2)
Versions (H3-DB2000 v6.4)

SSN 637 Sturgeon (1980): As described.
SSN 637 Sturgeon (1981): New weapons (fired from TTs):

o Mk48 Mod 4 torpedo
o UGM-84A Harpoon IP
o UGM-84C Harpoon IB

o UGM-109A Tomahawk TLAM-N
o UGM-109B Tomahawk TASM
SSN 637 Sturgeon (1986): UGM-84A Harpoon IP removed. New weapons (fired
from TTs):
o UGM-84D Harpoon IC
o UGM-109C Tomahawk TLAM-C Blk II
o UGM-109D Tomahawk TLAM-D Blk II
SSN 637 Sturgeon (1991):

o TLAM-N, TASM, UGM-84C Harpoon IB and SUBROC capability
removed.
o New weapon: Mk48 Mod 5 ADCAP torpedo
o New decoy: ADC Mk2 Mod 1
89
WAYPOINT
o UGM-109C Tomahawk TLAM-C Blk III
o UGM-109D Tomahawk TLAM-D Blk III
SSN 637 Sturgeon (1997): All sub-Harpoon versions removed.
SSN 671 Narwhal (All dates): Based on Sturgeon hull, but with natural-circulation
reactor (ultra-quiet at low speed). Available from 1981 onwards. Mounts, weapons
and sensors identical to standard Sturgeon. Line of upgrades/modifications also
identical.
SSN 678 Archerfish DDS (All dates): Last 10 of class were built to an extra 10-ft
length. Six of the long ones (SSN 678-680, 682, 684, 686) were modified to carry a
shelter for SEALs. Also increased ELINT/SIGINT sensors and different sonar set.
Available from 1982 onwards. Equipment as standard Sturgeon (1981) with the
following changes:
o New mount: DDS shelter (max. 48 SEALs)
o Sonar changes
BQQ-2 replaced by BQQ-5 bow spherical sonar
BQR-15 replaced by TB-23/BQ towed array
o New ELINT sensors:
WLR-4(V)
WLR-9
Line of subsequent upgrades/mods identical to standard Sturgeon.
SSN 683 Parche (All dates): Based on Archerfish sub-class, further modified with
equipment for deep-sea recovery (used for comm taps etc.). Available from 1991
onwards. Equipment as Archerfish sub-class, line of upgrades/mods identical.
Current Service
The heaviest-modified boat of the class, USS Parche, a veteran of covert operations, is the
sole remaining vessel of the class. It is due to be replaced sometime around 2004 by the
third and final Seawolf-class boat, Jimmy Carter.
90
B-1 LANCER
By Michael Mykytyn and Dimitris V. Dranidis
General
Users: United States
Roles & Mission: The B-1 was initially

conceived in the early-to-mid-70s as a
high-altitude deep-penetrator (B-1A) for
the task of breaking through the
formidable Soviet national air defences,
and delivering nuclear weapons to
various targets that were unsuitable for other means of attack (ICBMs, and SLBMs).
However, the increasing sophistication and coverage of high-altitude Soviet defences,
combined with the advent of a new class of attack weapon (nuclear-tipped cruise missiles)
and the long-term planning for the mass production of an extremely advanced stealthy
penetrator bomber led to the cancellation of the project in the late 70s. The entire program
remained in limbo and limited testing phase until the election of the Reagan administration.
Under a new DoD leadership, the entire procurement roadmap of the US Strategic Air
Command (SAC) was radically revised. Instead of relying almost exclusively on the B-52
& cruise missile combination for its strike needs until the stealth bomber came online, SAC
would instead acquire a fairly large number of highly–revised B-1Bs as interim low-
altitude penetrator bombers. (This decision was based on the estimation that the
penetration-tasked B-52Hs would be totally outclassed by Soviet defences by the mid-80s).
When the stealth bomber was available, the B-1B would then take over the cruise missile
platform role, allowing the B-52 to be
completely retired14.
The number of revisions made on the B-

1B to grant it a reasonable chance of
survival against the increasingly lethal
Soviet air defences were numerous:
stealth technology was applied throughout
the airframe (including a radical revision
of the air-inlet structure which led to a
significant decrease in maximum speed at
altitude), a very advanced terrain-
following system was installed, active
electronic countermeasures were given
much higher priority than before and the
entire structure was strengthened to allow
14
That the final versions of the B-52 are probably going to be retired much later than the B-1B is both a
testament to the design of the Stratofortress and also one of those great ironies of military procurement
planning.
91
WAYPOINT
protracted transonic flight at tree-top height.
The state-of-the-art ALQ-161 self-defence suite was probably the biggest development
hurdle, suffering from protracted delays and problems. In fact it was not until the late-80s
(long after deliveries of 100 units to SAC units had completed) that the system was
certified to be working as originally expected. This deficiency notwithstanding, the
improvements in the redesign made the B-1B a fearsome offensive platform and (in
combination with the cruise missile threat) created a real nightmare for the Soviet PVO
command and forced them to an extremely expensive upgrade. The aircraft was criticized
for not participating in the extensive air operations of the second Gulf War, but its absence
must be put in perspective: The aircraft was not yet certified for any sort of conventional
weaponry except plain iron bombs and, since many B-52G/Hs were pulled out of SAC’s
round-the-clock SIOP-readiness duty to participate in the bombing campaign, the B-1B had
to shoulder the extra slack almost entirely on its own.
Ironically, after going through a protracted and ungodly-expensive development program

with a specific nuclear-war mission in mind, the B-1B lost its nuclear capability in the
early-90s as a result of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreements. That
was the bad news. The good news was that the re-orientation towards conventional
operations meant that the aircraft could now finally be equipped with more advanced
weaponry and be integrated with TacAir elements on a more regular basis. Designed to
survive against the tougher air defences in the world, the Lancer had little trouble in
exploiting its vast range & loiter duration and its considerable payload in operations over
Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, where the threat level (particularly in the latter case) was
drastically lower. Having received a new round of upgrades in avionics and weapons in
92
2001, the aircraft retains an important role in USAF offensive conventional operations
planning.
Strengths: The combination of ultra-low level, high-speed penetration, much reduced RCS
(in comparison to the B-1A), an advanced offensive avionics suite and an appropriate array
of nuclear or (after 1990) conventional weapons makes the B-1B a strike asset to fear. Its
large fuel capacity coupled with efficient turbofan engines gives it an unprecedented
endurance at low-level, and thus a unique ability for the penetration of enemy defences
through protracted terrain masking. The high speed at low level is also a valuable defensive
asset: few interceptors can chase the B-1B down in the weeds without soon having to break
off on bingo fuel. Its strengths are maximized when used in consort with other tactical
assets that help it overcome any threats that may pose a problem to it (e.g. fighters).
Weaknesses: For all its

superlatives, the B-1B is still a
long-range heavy bomber in its
core: a high-value, low-
availability asset that must take
great care to avoid defences rather
than risk direct confrontation with
them. This means that a protective
fighter screen (either in close
proximity to the aircraft or in a
distant advance-picket) is not a
bad idea. The aircraft is also still
somewhat limited on the range of
weapons it can employ; it
certainly cannot match the variety
of stores available to tactical air
assets or even sibling bombers
like the B-52H.
Game Stats:
Max Speed: 900kts
Length: 44.8 Meters
Span: 41.7 meters
Weight: 81647 kg
Crew: 4
Climb Rate: 60 m/s at SL
Equipment: B-1B Lancer (1985) – DB2000 v6.3.2

Radars:
Type and Quantity Max Range Abilities Notes
AN/APQ-64 60 nm Surface Search, Air Intercept, Range Multifunction radar
Information, Bearing Information,
Altitude Information, IFF Information
93
WAYPOINT
Electronic Warfare:
ESM 600 nm Surface Search, Air Search, Bearing ESM Array
Information, Classification
AN-ALQ-161 0 nm Defensive ECM Suite
Stores:
AGM-69A Nuclear SRAM
Mk-82 500lb LDGP
Mk-84 2000lb LDGP
M-117 750lb GP
B-61 Tactical/Strategic Nuclear Bomb
B-83 Strategic Thermonuclear Bomb
Versions (H3-DB2000)
B-1B Lancer (1985): Baseline model, as described.
B-1B Lancer (1990): Nuclear weapons removed.
B-1B Lancer Block C (1997): New stores:
o CBU-87 CEM
o CBU-89 Gator
o CBU-97 SFW)
B-1B Lancer Block D (1998): No DB changes.
B-1B Lancer Block D (2001): Major improvements:

o New EW suite:
AN/ALQ-214 (ECM)
AN/ALR-56M (ESM, 200 nm, Surface Search, Air Search,
Bearing Information)
o New stores:
GBU-31(V)1/B JDAM [Mk84]
GBU-31(V)3/B JDAM [BLU-109]
CBU-105 WCMD [BLU-108 SFW]
B-1B Lancer Block E (2002): New store: AGM-154A JSOW [BLU-97]

stand-off dispenser.
B-1B Lancer Block E (2003): New store: AGM-158A JASSM tactical

cruise missile.
94
Current Service
United States AirForce (96 Aircraft):
Dyess AFB, Texas: 7th Bomb Wing

Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota: 28th Bomb Wing
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho: 366th Expeditionary Wing
Robins AFB,
Georgia: 116th Bomb
Wing
McConnell AFB,
Kansas: 184th Bomb
Wing
Edwards AFB: 2
Test Aircraft
*All of these aircraft have

been assigned to various
Air Expeditionary Wings.
Each of these wings
generally have 6 bombers
assigned to them.
Aircraft basing information provided by the Global Security Web Site e at: http://www.globalsecurity.org
95
WAYPOINT
DELTA-CLASS SSBN
General
Users: USSR/Russia
Roles & Mission: The availability of the new

R-29 (SS-N-8) SLBM from the early 70s
onwards signalled a major shift on the
operational deployment of the Soviet Navy’s
SSBNs. Until that time, the navy’s most capable
SSBNs (the Yankees), being limited by the short
range of their missiles, had to transit the GIUK
Gap and cross most of the Atlantic (or alternatively the Pacific) before reaching their firing
positions close to the US coast. This was a limitation that had been fully exploited by
NATO: SOSUS arrays (both around the US coasts and in other strategic choke points),
ASW aircraft and a series of ASW-oriented submarines had been combined into a force
that made the SSBN patrols a particularly hazardous duty if war did break out. The R-29
and the Project 667B (Delta-class) submarines, specifically designed to carry the new
missile, changed this scene radically.
The development of the Pr. 667B Delta I submarine was authorized in 1965, with the
Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering was in charge of the program. The
first Delta I submarine "K-279" was build at the Northern machine-building enterprise in
Severodvinsk and was incorporated into the Northern fleet on 22 December 1972. Between
1972 and 1977 18 Delta I submarines were launched, 10 in Severodvinsk and 8 in
Komsomol Na Amur.
96
For the first time, Soviet SSBNs did not have to approach the continental US or even pass
any of the NATO-monitored areas. They could literally fire their SLBMs while still tied to
their piers (in fact, from the mid-70s they started training to do exactly that). As the piers
themselves were a high-payoff target for nuclear attack however, a more practical
alternative for the protection of the submarines was sought. Thus the concept of the
bastion, a closely guarded sea area within which the SSBNs would patrol, was
materialized. Bastion patrols by Delta I submarines commenced in the mid-70s, and the
protection of these patrol areas gradually became the highest-priority mission of the Soviet
Navy, absorbing the bulk of the surface, sub-surface and ASW-oriented air assets of the
two main Fleets. A bastion area would typically be surrounded by multiple mine belts, with
attack submarines patrolling both sides of the “fence”, larger surface ships coordinating
small patrol craft (including border-guard units)15 in regular patrol sweeps and air assets
filling the gaps as required. The SSBNs themselves should be expected to have additional
subs as close escorts.
While having caused such a drastic shift in Soviet naval thinking (and, needless to mention,
new tremendous headaches for NATO ASW planners), the Delta I class in itself was
technically unimpressive. An evolution of the Project 667 (Yankee-class) submarines, the
Delta had a greater displacement and larger external dimensions. The pressure hull of
consisted of ten compartments. The 667B submarines were equipped with the D-9 launch
systems and 12 R-29 missiles.
The Delta-class submarines regularly deployed on alert patrols in the marginal ice seas of
the Soviet arctic littoral, including the Norwegian and Barents seas. The submerged firing
of the missiles could be conducted in a single salvo while the submarine was moving at a
speed of 5 knots. A high degree of automation allowed a significant reduction in the time
required for pre-launch preparations in comparison with the Yankee class. To improve the
accuracy of the missiles, the Delta I submarines were equipped with the "Tobol-B"
navigation system and the
"Cyclone-B" satellite
navigation system. In 1991
nine Delta I submarines
still served in the Northern
and Pacific Fleet. They
were all retired and
scrapped or put in
prolonged reserve during
the 1990s.
The Delta-II (Project

667BD) was an improved version of the Delta I, primarily developed to increase the
15
An indication of the importance that the Soviet Navy placed on the bastion-support duty is the operational
role of its impressive capital units in the 70s & 80s, the Kiev-class carriers and the Kirov-class battlecruisers.
Originally these vessels were thought to be the centerpieces of SAGs/CVBGs that would try to break out of
the “traditional” confines of the Soviet Navy in both the Atlantic and Pacific and engage NATO forces in
open waters. We now know however, that both these classes were primarily intended to function as the
command & coordination “afloat HQs” for the bastion-patrol forces.
97
WAYPOINT
number of available SLBMs to sixteen. The pressure hull was lengthened by 16 meters in
the area of the fourth and fifth compartments, where four additional missile tubes were
plugged-in. The displacement increased in 1,500 tons, and the full speed decreased by 1
knot. A modified D-9D launch system was installed, with 16 R-29DD missiles. During
development, several measures were applied to decrease the noise levels of the submarine.
The steam turbines were connected to a two-spool system of shock-absorbers, the pipelines
and other hydraulic equipment were isolated from the hull, and a new sound-absorbing
coating was applied.
The Delta III (Project 667BDR) was a further improvement of the Delta design, and was
important in several respects. It was the first submarine that could fire any number of
missiles in a single salvo (instead of firing one missile at a time). Furthermore, its missile,
the R-29R (SS-N-18 Stingray) was the first Soviet MIRVed SLBM. This class was
equipped with the integrated "Almaz-BDR" combat system, which reportedly allowed the
firing of torpedoes in deep water. It was also fitted with the "Bumblebee" hydroacoustic
navigational system to determinate its position through hydroacoustic buoys.
The Delta IV class (Project 667BDRM) represents the final evolution of the Delta family,
and was constructed in parallel to the Typhoon class. While it was widely believed that the
Delta IV served as a backup project to the much more radical (and expensive) Typhoon, it
now appears that the class was in fact developed on its own merit and would have gone
ahead even if the Typhoons had proven an extraordinary success (which they didn’t). The
first submarine of the class was launched in January 1985 and was commissioned on
December 1985 with the Northern fleet.
In comparison with the Delta III, the diameter of the pressure hull was increased and the
bow was lengthened. As a result the displacement of the submarine was increased by 1,200
tons and it was 12 meters longer. To increase the reliability of the pressure hull, the tip and
inner cut-off bulkheads were made of specially processed steel.
The Delta IV carries 16 R-29RM (SS-N-23 Skiff) liquid-fueled missiles which carry four
multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. Unlike previous mods, this class is able
to fire missiles in any direction from a constant course in a circular sector (which would be
typical in a bastion patrol). The underwater firing of the ballistic missiles can be conducted
at a depth of 55 meters while cruising at a speed of 6-7 knots. All the missiles can be fired
in a single salvo.
The Delta IV class is also fitted with the "Omnibus-BDRM" combat system controls. The
"Shlyuz" navigation system is capable of providing stellar navigation data when at
periscope depth. The same system also employs two floating antenna buoys to receive
radio-messages, target destination data and satellite navigation signals at great depth. The
submarine is also equipped with the "Skat-BDRM" (Shark Gill) sonar suite, which includes
a towed array.
Additional silencing measures where taken to increase the survivability of the class. The
reduction gears and equipment are located on a common raft isolated from the pressure
hull, and the power compartments are similarly isolated. A new anechoic coating was
98
installed on both the inner and outer hull, and a new five-bladed propeller of reduced noise
was fitted.
Strengths: The main positive aspect of this class was its relative simplicity. This enabled
relatively rapid construction and allowed the Soviet Navy to quickly build up a sizable
long-range SLBM force. The basic design also proved itself adaptable to a wide range of
modifications (witness the numerous variations of the Yankee-class, on which the Delta
was firmly based). The Delta-IV also has drastically reduced noise levels and sports
respectable sensors and some interesting self-defence weapons. A Delta can also normally
be expected to have a very strong protective escort, although that is a result of the bastion
principle rather than an inherent strength of the design.
Weaknesses: The Delta inherited

most of the drawbacks of the
Yankee-class design. Noise levels
were too high, the sensors were
ancient and further degraded by self-
noise, the weapons (other than the
SLBMs) were nothing to boast
about, and the speed was inadequate
to outrun a trailer or a weapon. The
successive versions (particularly the
Delta IV) improved upon these
weaknesses but could only
compensate so much for a
fundamentally outdated design. A
Delta-I, II or III skipper would have
a very hard time surviving against a
contemporary NATO boomer-
hunter, and would primarily count on
outside help rather than his own
boat’s capabilities.
Deployment & Scenario Use:
All versions: The Delta is primarily a bastion-dweller and is rarely encountered outside
one (and then probably on transit to or from it). Main patrol areas would include the
Barents Sea, the White Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. An illustration in the 1985 edition of
DoD’s “Soviet Military Power” depicts a Delta-IV surfacing through the Artic ice to fire its
missiles, however this under–ice capability does not seem to be part of the design (in
contrast to the Typhoon class) and has not been confirmed from other sources.
Delta I: In 1973 the Delta Is were incorporated into a division of strategic submarines of
the Northern fleet based at Yagyelnaya bay. The formation of the 41st division of strategic
submarines consisting of Delta I submarines was completed the same year. In 1974 the
division was incorporated into the 11th flotilla of submarines.
99
WAYPOINT
The Delta I submarines which belonged to the Pacific fleet formed the 25th division of
strategic submarines and were based on Kamchatka (Petropavlovsk). In the early 1990s the
submarines were transferred to the Pavlovsk base in Primorye.
The zones of patrol of the Northern fleet submarines were located in the area around
Greenland and the Barents Sea, two or three days away from the submarine bases. The
Delta I submarines that served in the Pacific fleet began patrols in 1976.
Delta II: The first Delta-II entered service on 30 September 1975. Between 1973 and 1975
four submarines of this project were constructed at the Northern machine-building
enterprise in Severodvinsk. The 667BD submarines formed part of the 3rd flotilla of
submarines of the Northern fleet based in the Yagyelnaya bay. In 1996 one submarine was
removed from operational status.
Delta III: The first Delta III SSBN entered service in 1976, and by 1982 a total of fourteen
submarines were commissioned. All of them were build at Severodvinsk. The operational
lifetime of these submarines is estimated to be 20-25 years. The Delta III submarines which
served in the Northern fleet formed a division and were based in the port of Sayda in the
Yagyelnaya bay and in the Olenya port. In the early 90s the ballistic missile submarines
were transferred to Yagyelnaya. The Delta III that served in the Pacific Fleet formed a
division of SSBNs which was (is?) based on Kamchatka.
When the START treaty was signed in 1991, five Delta IIIs still served in the Northern (3 -
in Yagyelnaya, 2 - in Olenya) and nine in the Pacific Fleet. One Delta III submarine of the
Northern fleet was decommissioned in 1994.
Delta IV: Between 1985 and 1990 seven Delta-IVs were constructed. Initially all were
based with the Northern Fleet at Olenya. All the submarines of this class serve in the 3rd
flotilla of strategic submarines of the Northern fleet, which has recently relocated to
Yagyelnaya.
The four-year repair works on the first Delta-IV (K-51) submarine were completed in
November 1999. The submarine was expected to operate from its home base in Gadzhievo
at the Kola Peninsula for 5-7 more years.
Game stats:
Max Speed: 24kts
Length: 140m
Displacement: 8700t
Crew: 120
Max Depth: 300m
Damage Points: 125
100
Equipment – PLARB-667B Delta I (1980s) - DB2000 v6.3.2
Radar

Surface Search
Snoop Tray (MRP-25) 20nm Range Information
Bearing Information
Electronic Warfare

Surface Search
Park Lamp 500nm Air Search Passive RWR/ESM/ELINT
Bearing Information
Surface Search
Air Search
Brick Pulp 55nm Passive RWR/ESM/ELINT
Bearing Information
Classification
Sonar

Sub Search
Shark Teeth (MGK-100
15nm Range Information Active/Passive sonar
Kerch)
Bearing Information
Sub Search
Mouse Roar (MG-519
3nm Range Information Active-only sonar
Arfa)
Bearing Information
Mounts
Mount ROF Capacity Weapons
1x SET-65M (max. 1)
(4) 533mm TT 5 1
0x USET-80 (max. 1)
1x White Noise Decoy (max. 1)
(2)Signal Ejector 1 2
1x Ensonification Bubbler (max. 1)
SS-N-8 SLBM VLS 15 12 12x SS-N-8 (2) Sawfly (max. 12)
PLARB-667B Delta I (1980s): As described.
PLARB-667BD Delta II (1980s): Elongated, four extra SS-N-8 VLS tubes added.
Equipment as Delta I.
101
WAYPOINT
PLARB-667BDR Delta III (1980s): Reduced noise levels, plus significant
modifications:
o New VLS for 16 SS-N-18 SLBMs
o Two 400mm TTs added, each 1x MG-44 torpedo decoy
o New weapons & decoys (fired from 533mm TTs):
VA-111 Shkval
SS-N-15 Starfish
SS-N-15 Nuclear Starfish
MG-74 Korund Torpedo Decoy
o Additional sonar equipment:
Palamida towed array
Shark Hide flank array
PLARB-667BDR Delta III|1991: SET-65 and nuclear-tipped SS-N-15 removed.
PLARB-667BDR Delta III|2000s: No changes in equipment.
PLARB-667BDRM Delta IV|1980s: Significant noise reduction, plus:

o New VLS for 16 SS-N-23 SLBMs
o Mounts, weapons, radar & EW sets as Delta III
o Sonar set as Delta III plus Shark Gill (bow-mounted)
PLARB-667BDRM Delta IV|1991: SET-65 and nuclear-tipped SS-N-15

removed.
PLARB-667BDRM Delta IV|2000s: No changes in equipment.
Current service
All Delta I/II boats have been retired during the 1990s. Most have been scrapped, while
other have been put on “permanent storage” (typically a waiting queue for the scrap yards).
The same fate awaits most of the Delta IIIs; however, 4-5 boats of this class (K-496, K-
506, K-211, K-180 and probably K-129) are still operational and likely to be modernized
and maintained for future service.
With the reduction of the Typhoon class to only 3 operational vessels, the Delta IV remains
the backbone of the Russian SSBN force. All but one of the 7 constructed submarines
remain operational (K-51, K-84, K-64, K-117, K-18, K-407) and are certain to be upgraded
for further operational service until replaced by either the Borei class or (more probably) a
new SSBN design.
102
MOSKVA-CLASS CVHG
By Dimitris Dranidis
Users: USSR/Russia, Ukraine
Roles & Missions: The

deployment of the Regulus
cruise missile by US Navy
submarines in the mid-50s
created new headaches for
Soviet naval planners. The
hitherto available naval
forces, tailored to
preemptively strike NATO
aircraft carriers, were wholly
unsuited to deal with this new
nuclear threat to the Soviet
landmass. The result of this,
combined with the
subsequent commencement
of US Polaris-equipped
SSBN patrols, forced the Soviet Navy into a crash ASW program. Among the first fruits of
this shift of priorities was the Moskva class.
The design concept of the first Soviet helicopter-carrying antisubmarine cruiser first
received governmental support in 1958, and the Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau
was instructed to implement the aforementioned concept into the Project 1123 ship. The
class was designed to carry 14 of the new Ka-25 antisubmarine warfare helicopters,
themselves just entering service at the time.
When the Moskvas first appeared in the late 1960s, they were the largest warships
completed for the Soviet Navy since the Bolshevik revolution. Although a large production
run was originally envisaged, eventually only two units were completed (Moskva and
Leningrad). The appearance of the Polaris SLBM was one of the primary reasons for this:
by virtue of its much larger
range, it increased the area that
had to be scrutinized by Soviet
ASW forces by several orders
of magnitude – thus rendering
the Moskvas obsolete. The two
ships spent their entire
operational career as flagships
in the Black Sea. Leningrad
was used as a trials ship for the
Yak-36 Freehand and Yak-38
Forger VSTOL fighters.
Strengths: The Moskvas were among the first Soviet ships with a credible ASW capability
against contemporary NATO submarines, courtesy of a powerful low-frequency bow-
103
WAYPOINT
mounted sonar plus a VDS, plentiful armament (including nuclear-tipped ASW rockets)
and lots of helicopters. They also sported capable AAW equipment and comprehensive EW
systems. Their large displacement afforded them the fuel (and stores) endurance needed for
extended patrols (by Soviet standards), and turned them into natural flagships for the naval
forces of the Black Sea fleet.
Weaknesses: While a significant ASW improvement over previous classes, the Moskvas
still lagged on the ASW game compared to their western counterparts and in particular
against their intended preys, NATO SSGs & SSBNs. Their sonar sensors were degraded by
the lack of any self-silencing measures, and their non-existent point-defences (highly
unusual for any Soviet ship, much less a capital unit), left them vulnerable against a massed
air/missile strike. Compared with their very limited ASuW weaponry (2 twin-barreled
57mm guns), this meant that they heavily relied on other escort units for effective all-round
protection. The bow-mounted sonar also caused the entire ship to trim low forward,
reducing its seakeeping ability. This is fact was one of the reasons that the two ships rarely
ventured out of the relatively calm waters of the Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean.
Scenario Employment: Both Moskva and Leningrad were permanently stationed in the
Black Sea, acting as fleet flagships when a Kiev-class carrier was not present. They would
normally lead the Black Sea Fleet forces as well as any detachments from the Northern
Fleet, using their copious helicopters to mass-sanitize an area. Although it would be
possible for them to be used in their original anti-SSGN/SSBN role (as depicted, for
example, in the recent scenario “Polaris Hunters”), it is more likely that they would offer
their ASW and AAW capabilities to other high-value units (flagships, tenders, amphibs
etc.) that would need them.
104
Game Stats:
Maximum Speed: 31 knts.
Displacement: 14000 Tons
Damage Points: 310 DP
Length: 189 meters
Crew: 840
Aviation: Typically 14x Ka-25
helicopters. Yak-38 fighters can
also be embarked.
Equipment – PK Moskva
(1980s) - DB2000 v6.3.2
Radars
Type & Quantity Max Range Abilities Notes

Don series (2) 25nm Surface Search, Range Information, Navigational radar
Bearing Information
Head Net C 70nm Surface Search, Air Search, Range Secondary
Information, Bearing Information, surveillance radar
Top Sail 300nm Surface Search, Air Search, Range Primary
Information, Bearing Information, surveillance radar
Head Light A (2) 25nm Surface Search, Air Search, Range Illuminator for SA-
Information, Bearing Information, N-3 SAM
Altitude Information
Muff Cobb (2) 15nm Surface Search, Range Information, Fire-control for
Bearing Information, IFF Information 57mm guns
Electronic Warfare
Bell Clout (2) 550nm Surface Search, Air Search, Bearing ESM system
Bell Slam (2) 550nm Surface Search, Air Search, Bearing ESM system
Bell Tap (4) 550nm Surface Search, Air Search, Bearing ESM system
Side Globe ESM (8) 220nm Surface Search, Air Search, Bearing ESM system
Side Globe ECM (8) N/A Defensive Jammer
IR/EO Sensors:
Tee Plinth (2) 10 nm Surface Search, Air Search, Bearing EO device
Information, IFF Information,
Classification
Sonars
Moose Jaw (Orion) 10nm Sub Search, Range Information, Bow-mounted sonar.
105
WAYPOINT
Bearing Information Active-passive.
Mare Tail (MG-325 Vega) 5nm Sub Search, Bearing Information, Variable-depth
Range Information sonar. Active-only
Mounts
Type & Quantity ROF Capacity Weapon (Service Date)
SA-N-3A (2) 15 24 SA-N-3A Goblet (1967?)
RBU-6000 (2) 1 1 (salvo) RBU-6000 ASW/Anti-torpedo rocket
SUW-N-1 30 18 FRAS-1B rocket-propelled DC
FRAS-1A Nuclear DC
AK-725 57mm/80 Twin (2) 1 75 (burst) AK-725 57mm/80 Twin DP
Chaff/Flare launcher 1 8 Chaff, Flare
PK Moskva (1980s): As described.
Current service
Both Moskva (1996) and Leningrad (1991) have been retired and scrapped.
106
THE FAQs
For every computer program there are certain questions that are being asked again and again, and a
complex simulation like the Harpoon series is no exception. Here we keep the most often asked questions
about all computer versions along with the best answers we have for them at the moment. It is a good idea to
check for updates in this sections as our collective knowledge increases. Have an oft-quoted question that
you don’t see being answered here? Ask us ([email protected]), and we’ll post it as soon as we
have an answer for it. Still can’t find an answer? Ask us online, at the Yahoo H3 group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Harpoon3/), or alternatively at the Harpoon’s Point group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harpoint/).
Harpoon 2 / Harpoon 3
FAQ prepared by Ragnar Emsoy & Dimitris V. Dranidis
General
Where can I obtain a copy of Harpoon 3?
To purchase the full version of Harpoon 3 go to this page:

http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon2/purchase_h3.htm
Which version of the simulator should I get? Harpoon II or Harpoon 3? What does
Harpoon 3 offer except from Windows-compatibility?
Harpoon 3 is the latest, most realistic, accurate and detailed version in the Harpoon series
of air/naval warfare simulators. Detailed information and screen shots on the various
versions of computer Harpoon can be found on the “What is Harpoon” page
(http://www.harpoonhq.com/whatis.htm)
Harpoon 3 offers much more than simply full Windows compatibility. Performance
increases of up to 500%-1000% have been recorded. Scenarios that would either crawl
(too much stuff happening on screen) or crash altogether (memory limits) now run like a
breeze. In addition, a mile-long list of bugs have been fixed and more are fixed with each
successive exe release. New versions have also added new features such as a detailed after-
action log, fully-working nuclear weapons, true thermal layer (which the AI subs use
deviously), fully-working terrain-following, custom GIS overlays and many others.
Harpoon 3 is a continuous work in progress and we would not be surprised to see features
in it that we’ve not dared imagine until now.
Is there a demo for Harpoon 3?
The Harpoon 3 demo for both Windows (Windows 95 / 98 / ME, NT 4.0, Windows 2000,
Windows XP) and Mac (OS and OSX) can be downloaded here:
http://www.harpoon3.com/harpooon3_demo.html
107
WAYPOINT
Okay, I ordered the direct-download version. Now what?
If you are using the Windows version, check this page:

http://www.harpoon3.com/thankyouwin.html. It has detailed instructions on what you
should do to ensure a smooth installation and registration. Mac users should have a look
here: http://www.harpoon3.com/thankyou.html
I ordered the CD version. Anything I can do while waiting for the CD?
The instructions on the page linked above apply to you too. The huge zip file included on
the CD (which should have the name “Install Harpoon 3” or similar) is identical to the
direct-download file. Follow the same instructions and you should be fine.
What’s the deal with this weird lok-kee system?
It’s actually quite simple, if you follow some simple steps carefully. Take a look at this
page for a detailed explanation of the procedure and how to do it right:
http://www.harpoon3.com/lok_and_kee.html
What are the system requirements for Harpoon 3?
The simulator will work on Windows 95/98/ME, NT 4.0, Windows 2000 and Windows
XP. Minimum requirements:
- 486DX2, 50 MHz processor.
- 190 MB hard drive space.
- Minimum RAM is whatever your version of Windows requires.
- DirectX version 3.
- Video card capable of running Windows at 800 x 600 x 256 colors.
Is there a Mac version?
Yes. The simulator will run on any PowerMac running System 7.1 or later, including
iMacs, G3s, G4s, and also older PowerMacs and PowerPC clones. Minimum
requirements:
- 16 MB of Physical RAM
- QuickTime (requires 3.0 or later)
- 100MB of hard drive space
What is the performance like?
108
The faster your computer is, the better. For PC we recommend any Intel or AMD
processor running at 300MHz or faster, and 64MB of RAM. Playing larger and more
complicated scenarios Harpoon 3 will require a faster CPU and more memory to keep up.
Most scenarios play very well on a 1GHz Thunderbird, and run like a breeze on AMD
XP1600+. If you want to run at higher resolutions up to 1200x1024 it will require a better
video card. For Mac, Harpoon 3 will run fairly well on a PPC 601, runs great on a G3, and
screams on a G4.
Are there any known incompatibilities?
None in Windows. Harpoon3 and Mac PowerWindows don't work together. "G3/G4
Profiler" doesn't get along with Harpoon3 either, and should be disabled before playing.
I am running a scenario from the CD, together with the DB-2000, and there are
problems/crashes. Why?
IMPORTANT!!! The DB2000 will work ONLY with scenarios downloaded from the
HarpoonHQ. It will NOT work with any scenarios not written for the DB2000. The
changes and additions in the new database will cause conflicts and crashes if you try to use
it with scenarios found on the CD or elsewhere on the web (Harpooner Scenario
Warehouse, Dr. Who’s Harpoon page etc). Also, every time we release a major database
revision we regularly update the scenarios to reflect the new information. So when you
download a new scenario please take the time to download the most recent DB version as
well.
Is there a printed manual for Harpoon 3 included with the CD?
No. But the manuals can be downloaded in printer-friendly Acrobat Reader and MS-Word
formats on the HarpoonHQ, in the Utilities section.
Is there a scenario editor manual for Harpoon 3?
Yes, see above.
Which battlesets are included on the Harpoon 3 CD?
The following battlesets are included:

- Tutorial
- Global Conflicts 1
- WestPac
109
WAYPOINT
- ColdWar
- Regional Conflicts 1
- Regional Conflicts 2
DB2000-related
So, what is this DB2000 I’ve been hearing about?
Quite simply, the DB2000 is the most accurate, detailed and realistic dataset available for
any version of computer Harpoon at the moment. In short, it rocks ☺. Describing the
features of the dataset would easily eat up the entire space of this magazine. A summary of
the database mechanics and features is available here:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon2/db2000/features.html
Where do I find scenarios for this database? The original CD database may not be
hyper-accurate, but gives me plenty of scenarios to play with!
All the H2/3 scenarios available for download at the HHQ are DB2000-certified. Your
choice of DB2000-certified scenarios is as great and varied as of those on the CD: we have
updated about 50 of the original (CD) scenarios to work with the DB2000 (and also fixed
the AI and corrected the OOB), and also created over 100 normal-sized ones from scratch.
Then throw-in Klaus’ 30+ monster-sized scenarios (guaranteed to give you a migraine☺)
and you begin to see that the DB2000 is well-stocked with the scenarios to boot.
Furthermore, the stock CD scenarios are finite and numbered (nobody is developing
scenarios for the original H2AE database anymore – and good riddance!), while the
DB2000-compatible scenarios keep on coming ☺. You can download them from the H2/3
pages: http://www.harpoonhq.com/db2000.html
How can I use the DB2000 database and scenarios in Harpoon 3?
Details on how to set up the database and load new scenarios can be found here:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon2/instructions.html
What about DB2000 database & scenario inconsistencies?
All scenarios posted on the H2/3 pages (http://www.harpoonhq.com/db2000.html) at any

given time are 100% certified for the latest version of the DB2000 database. The HHQ
webmasters keep track of all database changes and update the scenarios when needed. So
you do not have to worry about database-scenario inconsistencies as long as you always
make sure to use the LATEST database and scenario from the web. The DB2000 database
and scenarios are constantly updated and improved, and for example the latest database
may not necessarily work with a scenario downloaded two months ago, and vice versa.
110
When are you guys going to finish converting the rest of the older scenarios from the
Harpoon3 CD to DB2000? Is it not just a matter of re-loading them into the new
database?
Not all scenarios are being converted; typically the first converted are the “classic" ones
from each of the original battlesets. There are many scenarios that one just revisits "one
more time" again and again for some reason or another (the Cold War-themed Atlantic-
convoy rounds or CVBG-vs-Kola slugfests being a good example), and these naturally
have priority in being made DB2000-compatible.
Rebuilding a scenario that was made with a different database is not all that simple. First
of all, we have to check for unit-reference inconsistencies. For example an US Navy Aegis
cruiser in the old database may be a Russian Sovremenny destroyer in the DB2000, and
the F/A-18 Hornets may end up being armed with a simple MiG-23 ground-attack loadout
instead of the intended AMRAAM air-to-air loadout. Next, we have to make sure that
every single ship, sub and land facility has its magazine rebuilt, we have to make sure the
weapon/sensor changes have been "understood" by the scenario, etc.etc.etc. And that's just
the "technical integrity" part. After that, we have to make sure that the changes haven't
unbalanced the scenario. If we have given side Blue a new super-weapon, for instance, we
somehow have to beef-up Red side and/or rewrite the scenario orders to compensate. And
of course we have to keep a "realism check" at hand (don't want to stuff 200 fighters in a
CVN accidentally...). So yeah, it's a long and unthankful process.
But our long-term goal is to rebuild the majority of the 110 scenarios with the DB2000.
We have converted 50 so far, you can download them on the H2/3 pages:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/db2000.html
Harpoon 3 won't work with the latest DB2000 version. What is wrong?
IMPORTANT!!! The DB2000 will work ONLY with scenarios downloaded from the
HarpoonHQ. It will NOT work with any scenarios not written for the DB2000. The
changes and additions in the new database will cause conflicts and crashes if you try to use
it with scenarios found on the CD or elsewhere on the web (Harpooner Scenario
Warehouse, Dr. Who’s Harpoon page etc). Also, every time we release a major database
revision we regularly update the scenarios to reflect the new information. So when you
download a new scenario please take the time to download the most recent DB version as
well.
There is an error in the database or in a scenario. What should I do?
Please e-mail us right away. On a normal day the problem will be fixed within 24 hours.
Please do not make the correction yourself and send the updated scenario to us. The
DB2000 database and scenarios are constantly updated, and the new files you send to us
will most likely be outdated by the time they arrive in our mailbox. Thanks.
111
WAYPOINT
A platform is missing from the database. How can I add it?
There are two ways.

1. Send us all the info you got on the platform and we will add it as quickly as
possible
2. You make the platform yourself in Jon Reimer's Harpoon 3 Database Builder,
export it to a HCF (Harpoon Component File) and e-mail it to us. We'd appreciate if you
mail us in advance about any platforms you are planning to make, as they may already
exist in the database under a different name. To keep the database as small as possible, we
only add platforms that you are planning to use in a new scenario.
Why does the database appear to have multiple entries for the same platform?
The DB2000 has multiple database entries for the same platform to represent all operators,
main versions, subversions and weapon configurations over time. If you access the dataset
through the scenario editor or one of the DB editors, you will see that most units have a '|'
letter at the end of their name followed by a comment or note which describes each entry.
The comment holds information about the service entry year, operator/country, weapon
upgrades, and so on. Harpoon 3 has been programmed to ignore everything written after
the '|' letter, and this extra information will only be displayed in the database editor and
scenario editor (for the benefit of the scenario/database designers), and not during actual
gameplay. For example, the unit named "F-14D Tomcat|1998/LANTIRN" will only appear
as "F-14D Tomcat" during gameplay. The "CG 52 Bunker Hill|2000/SM-2IIIB" will
appear as "CG 52 Bunker Hill". The “invisible” comment suggests this is the year 2000
version of the cruiser and uses the SM-2 Block IIIB missile as it's primary weapon.
Why are some variables like waypoints and terminal trajectory in the database never
set?
The released version of Harpoon II (which is Harpoon 3's predecessor) is not even a
shadow of what it was originally planned to be. The simulator was supposed to have an
even more advanced ECM/ESM + radar simulation, waypoints and terminal trajectory for
weapons etc etc etc. But the original Harpoon II developers ran out of time and money and
all these features were eventually left out. And since neither Harpoon II nor Harpoon 3
currently supports these fields, we have never bothered to fill them in. However, Jesse's
Harpoon 3 project is aimed at implementing most if not all of these features eventually,
and in that case the database will definitely support them.
Why no TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) after 1991?
The nuclear (TLAM-N) and anti-ship (TASM) variants of the Tomahawk were withdrawn
in the early 1990s as the Cold War came to an end. TASM was withdrawn because there
112
was no longer any chance of blue-water engagements against a navy with large, high-value
targets like the Soviets, and many of the missiles have been converted to land attack. The
TLAM-N was withdrawn as per a 1991 agreement with Russia to not deploy nuclear
weapons at sea (other than strategic ballistic missiles).
Why are later S-3 Viking variants not carrying ASW weapons?
The Viking's ASW role was removed in 1999. US aircraft carriers now deploy with four to
six S-3 Vikings; some for the tanker role, and two aircraft dedicated to ASuW armed with
iron bombs, Harpoons and Mavericks. The ASW mission is undertaken by Seahawks and
Orions.
How does Stealth work with F-117A, B-2A etc?
Stealth and low-observable aircraft and ships in the database have smaller radar, visual and
IR signatures than other units. The F-117 is not all that difficult to detect with AEGIS and
other high-end air-search radar systems, and detection ranges approaching 40nm is not
uncommon. So you need to use active ECM if you want them to live through an attack on
a heavily defended target. The F-22 has a similar RCS (Radar Cross Section) in real life.
But in the DB2000 we've also taken into account the fact that the F-22 will use Active
Stealth (similar to Rafale’s Spectra active-cancellation system) in addition to passive
stealth, and the end result is a significantly smaller signature than that of the F-117.
Finally, there is the B-2 bomber which, thanks to its “cost-not-a-factor” stealth treatment,
is extremely difficult to detect even with the use of advanced sensors.
What is the best way to employ the ITALD, TALD loadouts?
The TALD and ITALD are just extra targets for SAM and radar sites, so just fire them
along with other ASMs or ahead of your strike aircraft. The hotkey to fire air-launched
decoys is Ctrl + F1 (the same key is also used for BOL-attacks). The AI cannot use
decoys.
How can I deploy SEALs from SSNs?
All SpecOps submarines in the DB2000 carry SEAL teams. The SEALs work the same
way bombs do, and are deployed using the Attack menu. A limitation with this
implementation is that they cannot be retrieved afterwards.
Why do many guns have such a low PoK against aerial targets?
Anti-ship cruise missiles are extremely difficult to shoot down. And even if destroyed in
mid-air, the missile may still cause serious damage if the warhead detonates at ranges
113
WAYPOINT
closer than 500m from the target, or if the ship is hit by debris from a disabled missile. In
the Falklands War, only one of six Exocet missiles fired at British ships was shot down,
and this kill is not even 100% certain. PoK (Probability of Kill) in Harpoon 3 is calculated
for a burst of fire - this can be either just one round (for larger guns) or up to several
hundred (for Mk15, AK-630 etc) - and the chances of hitting a target within a given
amount of time. We are also taking into account limitations in the Harpoon 3 game engine.
There is no separate range figure against aerial targets and we're forced to use the max
anti-surface range. This gives the defender a 1/3 to 1/2 longer range than in real life, and
we have reduced the PoK to compensate for this.
Why do certain aircraft only have two speed settings?
The reason is that when an aircraft like the F-22, Tu-22M, MiG-25 and MiG-31 has
varying cruise speed (i.e. a high-Mach cruise speed that increases with altitude), the AI has
difficulties determining bingo fuel levels, and will run the aircraft out of fuel if using full
and reheat throttle settings. Therefore, you can not use other speed settings than cruise and
loiter.
Sonar range circles are very small compared with the original database, in some
cases they are only 1nm in diameter. Why?
The DB2000 database has a completely redesigned sonar model, details can be found here:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon2/db2000/features.html. In addition, Harpoon 3 uses a
pretty weird formula for calculating the sonar range circles. So the circles in the simulator
are not actual sonar ranges, and it therefore recommended to play with sonar range circles
OFF.
How do I kill the fast MiG-25 and MiG-31 interceptors?
When you decide to go after a group of MiG-25 or MiG-31 interceptors, it is important

that your fighters fly as high and as fast as possible. Due to the way Harpoon 3 calculates
firing parameters and no-escape zones, the AIM-54A Phoenix has for example a launch
range of only about 40nm against these speeding targets. If your own fighters are traveling
at Mach 1.5, the enemy air-to-air missiles will have a reduced effective range too, about
25nm for the AA-6 and 40nm for the AA-9. If your fighters are flying at lower speeds you
give the enemy a big advantage as he can launch his missiles at longer ranges, in most
cases before you can.
How can I take a closer look at the DB2000 database?
To view the database you should use Jon Reimer's Harpoon2/3 Database Builder, which
can be downloaded here: http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon2/dbedit.htm. This is a fast
and easy-to-use database editor that has lots of really great built-in aids and features. You
114
need MS Access to open the editor. Access is a program included in the Microsoft Office
Suite (which includes Word, Excel, Access, Outlook, PowerPoint, Publisher, and
FrontPage).The database editor that comes with Harpoon 3 is based on that for Harpoon II
Admirals Edition, and is FULL of serious bugs, errors and shortcomings, and we do not
recommend you to use this tool.
Playing tips & misc. support
For a mile-long list of hints & tips to get the most out of Harpoon 2 and Harpoon 3, visit
this page: http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon2/db2000/faq.html.
The Yahoo-based Harpoon 3 group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Harpoon3/) is the
single best place for answering any questions you might have on playing H2/3. The
Waypoint staff as well as the rest of the HarpoonHQ webmasters, along with a community
of myriads, are ready to answer any sort of question and provide all the support you may
need. “No question is stupid, no call for help is lame” is our motto.
Harpoon Classic 97 & 2002

FAQ prepared by Bruce Fenster, HC2002 Lead Tester & Assistant HULL
moderator
What is Harpoon Classic 2002?
Harpoon Classic 2002 is the result of a 15 month (and counting ☺), all volunteer effort by
members of the Harpoon Community to improve the playability of the very popular
Harpoon Classic 97 Naval Simulation Game.
To refine HC97 and make it “the game we always wanted”, an open solicitation went out
to the Harpoon Community in August 2001. Dozens of suggestions and feature requests by
players the world over soon trickled in.
Next came the job of prioritizing the player feedback and delving deep into the source
code to determine what could be accomplished in a reasonable period of time. A game
plan soon emerged with three major goals:
1) Improving the AI, particularly in the areas of submarine and aerial warfare. We’ve had
nice feedback from numerous Harpoon players regarding HC2002’s aggressive new AI.
2) Resolving as many player-reported bugs as possible. The list was long, and while we
didn’t get them all, most are now history and the rest are in the cross hairs. More on bugs
in the upcoming issue as well.
115
WAYPOINT
3) Updating and correcting platform values, i.e., overhauling the database. This was never
anticipated when Harpoon Classic first appeared. The fact that it’s happening now speaks
volumes to the dedication of the lead members in the HC2002 Development team.
By November 2001, the programming of HC2002 was well underway. The challenge, of
course, was not to break anything while revamping the AI and squashing HC97’s bugs.
The game engine executable file (Winharp32.exe) was revised and tested countless times
to achieve goals 1 and 2 above. Finally, in September 2002, the development team made
the first public release of HC2002, 13 months after work had first begun on the project.
To date, there have been over 3,000 downloads of the two free Demo versions! Hundreds
more have purchased the HC97 Game Engine Upgrade, and many others have signaled
their intention to wait for the stand-alone HC2002 CD-ROM.
As of this writing, CD-ROM release is just around the corner. When ready, it will include
a new Platform Database (currently in Beta testing), and, for the first time ever in the
Harpoon Classic series, a Platform Editor. This feature will enable players to modify
existing platforms and to create new ones as well. The Scenario Editor has also been
revised to accommodate the new Platform Editor, and the HC2002 Game Engine will
likewise reside on the CD-ROM, eliminating the need for players to have a working
version of HC97 in order to enjoy HC2002.
http://www.advancedgaming.biz/newweb/Products/hc2002.htm is a good place to start for

additional information on HC2002. There you’ll find some background information as
well as links for purchasing HC2002, installing it, and an HC2002 FAQ page.
http://www.foto.infi.net/~edladner/ and http://www.harpoonhq.com/ are also great
Harpoon sites in general and good places to find scenarios specifically created for HC2002
that take advantage of the AI and game engine improvements.
Also, the Harpoon Users League List at http://www.teuton.org/mailman/listinfo/hull is a

moderated discussion list for players of all versions of Harpoon and an excellent source of
information on HC2002’s continued development. And finally, there is #Harpoon on IRC,
a moderated chat that usually has someone in it available to discuss the latest Harpoon
developments.
116
Slick’s slick Harpoon 4 Mega-FAQ

by John McElhannon (aka Slick91)
The descriptions outlined below are a compilation of summaries and quotes of public
comments by some of the people involved with the development of Harpoon4, as well as
information taken from UbiSoft’s Harpoon4 website and forum. It is NOT an all-
encompassing list of features that will be included in the game’s release. This is merely
available to people as an answer to many of the repetitive questions asked to the
developers about Harpoon 4. As more details become known, they will be added to this
list.
Please report any errors, additions, or corrections to [email protected]
Contents as of 19-Feb-2003
1. Multiplayer 16. Neutral and Civilian Activity

2. Database 17. 3D Effect and Displays
3. Amphibious Assaults and Ground 18. Nuclear Weapons
Combat 19. Larry Bond’s Involvement
4. Scenario Editor 20. Confirmed Platforms and Weapons
5. Creating User MOD’s 21. Platforms not to be included
6. Communications and Data Links 22. Ground Facilities
7. Combat Systems 23. Radar & Sonar Models
8. Game Recorder and Playback 24. Ship Damage & Replenishment
9. Playable Demo 25. Formation Editor
10. Campaign and Scenarios 26. Weather, Ice & Sunlight Effects
11. System Requirements 27. Strike/Patrol/Mission Planner
12. Satellites and Space Warfare 28. Submarines
13. Aircraft 29. Game Documentation
14. Missiles 30. Development History and Delays
15. Mine Warfare
1. Multiplayer
LAN and Internet multiplayer is for two players only (Blue vs. Red). The eight player
figure is from and old design specification. DirectPlay is being used for network transport
in the game rather than RTime (as was included in Ultimation’s other naval sims Silent
Hunter II and Destroyer Command.). There is no “hot seat” mode. Three or more players
may be included in a possible sequel or expansion pack. However, this has yet to be
determined. There is time compression in multiplayer, but it's significantly more limited
than in single player.
2. Database
The "official" dates for the database are 1984 through 2000 covering North Atlantic units
only. 'Open format database' is a code-phrase for 'FoxPro'. All the platform data is stored
in DBF files, which are presumably manipulated by any database program. The database
117
WAYPOINT
editor Ultimation is using in development is a separate Windows application. It's not
integrated into the game. There is no database chooser, but there is nothing stopping
someone from replacing the database wholesale. Multiplayer users will need to have
matching databases.
New units and countries can be created in the database and hooked up to existing 3D
models or textures. Alternate textures can be swapped in on existing models using the
database. It's used a little bit on existing units (e.g. E-2C Hawkeyes for the US Navy vs.
Hawkeyes for everyone else). The ability to add new models will be very difficult to do
and probably will not be available. First, you'd need a program to modify OpenFlight files
(MultiGen Creator, which few people have). Then, you'd need the FLT to JRF converter
(not included, proprietary to Ultimation). Then you'd need to figure out how to make
models work in Harpoon4 without having an aneurysm.
Database format is the same as the print annexes in many places, but uses different stuff in
others. For instance, radars have a "Base Performance Value" which is a number on a
logarithmic scale, and that's brand-new. But aircraft still have ATA values, which are the
same. Ground forces are *basically* just GCS values, except the tree is stored, so
subsidiary units are automatically attached to larger groups. On the small scale it's infantry
squads and individual vehicles, on the high end it's a division. Lift weights are also tracked
so everyone can get parcelled up correctly onto landing craft.
Contrary to rumors, "Lock-On: Modern Air Combat" and "Harpoon 4" WILL NOT share
databases. Some of the countries that are represented are: The United States, Soviet
Union, United Kingdom, Canada, France Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden,
Belgium, Spain, Finland, Denmark and Poland.
Ultimation is trying to use the better data that is now available for Soviet and Russian
equipment. It's still tricky, since now conflicts can crop up between sources based both on
the date and on "who's side" the author was on when it was written. Sometimes some
really interesting results crop up. For instance, the Soviet Union introduced the P-1000
Vulkan missile onto a few ships in the submarine fleet in the 1980's. No western sources
ever knew about this missile system at all, due to its similarity to the P-500 Bazalt. There
are a couple different variants of the Moskit ("Sunburn") missile in the database. The
250km range on FAS's web site is presumably for the Kh-41 air-launched variant. This air-
launched version seems to be a "paper weapon" that never entered production.
3. Amphibious Assaults and Ground Combat

Larry Bond and Chris Carlson have written a very robust ground combat system. H4's
ground combat model is a tweaked-out version of the model used in Larry and Chris's
WWII game, Command at Sea, with some extra modern concepts thrown in. Ground
combat works on an attrition model. Units that might influence ships or aircraft (shore
batteries, SAM sites) are treated as normal units on the ground. All other ground units,
down to the vehicle/platoon level, are invisibly scattered about the zone where the landing
is going to take place. All units have a ground combat strength (GCS) rating, which is
summed to come up with the total GCS value for that side in the zone.
118
The game also keeps track of how much space troops and vehicles occupy. So, if an LPD
is carrying its allotment of troops, it's not going to carry more than its total capacity. When
it comes time to start the landing, the vehicles and troops are parceled out to the smaller
landing craft, and they begin making runs to the beach, returning to the LPD, reloading,
etc. For reference, the new paper rules add multiple zones to the model, and forces can be
ordered between them, and interdicted. There are also rules also allow each commander to
set their forces' posture (assault, hasty defence, etc.).
As troops arrive the attacking side builds up its GCS value in the zone, and the forces start
to fight. GCS strength can be modified by air strikes and naval gunfire support. The "dice"
are rolled every thirty minutes. The relative GCS strengths are compared to a big table, and
both sides take losses, and the battle tends to move towards a breakout (victory) or a
stalled invasion (defeat). However, even a stalled invasion can be re-started by
transporting in more troops or by increasing fire support. As far as the groundside of
amphibious operations are concerned, the player only controls the amount of troops put
ashore. The amphibious operations are not particularly detailed as compared to the naval
or air combat models in the game, and are strictly boat-based (no airborne assaults).
4. Scenario Editor
A Scenario Editor will be included and integrated into the game. It's the same scenario
editor Ultimation is using to develop the game. Maps for virtually the whole world are
available for use in the scenario editor. Technically, it's a series of fairly large maps.
Collectively, they cover most of the world but parts of central Asia may be missing.
Creating scenarios are confined to one map.
Ships begin a scenario (campaign or single) with their weapons loadouts as scripted by the
scenario writer. Ammo allotments at the beginning of the scenario are determined by the
scenario scriptor. He/she can reduce ammo allotments to below default levels, or
sometimes switch between alternate armaments (different versions of missiles, etc.). You
can set randomised start location for platforms, but the chance of existence is always
100%. Also, Rules of Engagement (ROE) and EMCON can be set within the scenario
editor.
Scenarios (and campaign descriptors) are saved as text files, while “saved games” are
binary files. You will be able to manage the date of a scenario so that you can only use the
platforms available in that same date. Crew skill plays a modest factor in several areas,
but crew skill is just randomised upon scenario start-up.
5. Creating User MOD’s

Harpoon4 will be about as user “mod-able” as the prior versions of Harpoon (also see
Database), although having a scenario editor in the initial release will probably make that
aspect more accessible. However, the ability to create user made 3D models will be very
difficult as the pre-requisites are steep. If you want to make brand-new geometry for
Harpoon4, you would need:
1) A copy of Multigen Creator (expensive)
119
WAYPOINT
2) The experience with it to do those things to the models that our artists did to make
them work (not easy)
3) The JRF conversion tool (from Ultimation).
If there is anybody out there that has the first two things handled, then they can talk to
Ultimation about getting the converter. However, based on experience with Silent Hunter
II and Destroyer Command, there have been only two known people so far who meet those
requirements.
6. Communications and Data Links

Harpoon4 is radically simple in regards to handling Comms and data links. Everybody on
the same side shares the same plot. Communication is always possible with (friendly)
submarines. In the case of multiple bearing-only contacts (passive sonar, ESM) the units
will triangulate their contacts to narrow the uncertainty region on the plot.
7. Combat Systems
There is no explicit modelling of combat systems. There is, however, a reaction time value
that is incorporated into each weapon mount, which results in differentiation between
designs (e.g. cruisers with manually-finned SM2ER missiles vs. VLS ships). Also see
Amphibious Assaults and Ground Combat.
8. Game Recorder and Playback

That would be a great feature but unfortunately it is not going to make it into the game and
there is no time left to shoehorn one in. There will be an After Action log at the end of a
scenario that lists the games results and platforms destroyed.
9. Playable Demo
No playable demo is planned for release.
10. High Tide Campaign and Single Player Scenarios

The “High Tide” campaign is set in the late Cold War period and single scenarios cover a
date range of 1984-2000. The campaign deals with a fictional NATO vs. Warsaw Pact
confrontation that focuses on the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap. Only the NATO
side can be played. The campaign is linear meaning that each scenario must be completed
successfully in order to progress to the next scenario. Dead units are eliminated from the
campaign, and replaced by something else in later scenarios.
Larry Bond himself laid out the general structure of the campaign (mission order, location,
forces etc.). Also, he's graciously volunteered to edit the campaign scenarios' briefings.
"High Tide" would probably have more name-recognition if it were one of Mr. Bond’s
novels, although a supplement for the board game may be in the works. No character role-
playing or medal rewards are simulated.
The request for scenarios that are more contemporary is understandable, but if you look at
the major conflicts of the past ten years, most of it has been strikes using aircraft and
cruise missiles.
120
When we decided upon the High Tide concept with Larry Bond we knew that the days of
the big carrier battles and surface action groups were over and that going back to the late
1980s gave us the best possible set of scenarios for Harpoon.
The idea of doing a fictional re-birth of the old Soviet Union was considered, but the state
of the Russian fleet is really bad nowadays. Even if they had the ability to maintain their
naval assets, the battles would be very similar to what is going to happen in High Tide.
The main reason for pursuing this course of action in a future Battle-Set is to introduce
new platforms from the U.S. and other countries.
11. System Requirements

Windows Only (98/ME/2000/XP)
Pentium® III 600 MHz (Pentium® III 1000 MHz or faster recommended).*
128 MB RAM (256 MB recommended).
32 MB Video Card (DirectX 9 compatible – max game resolution is 1024x768)**.
Sound Card (DirectX 9 compatible).
DirectX 9 or higher (included on disc).***
700 MB of hard drive space.
56K modem or faster for Internet play
* A 600mhz machine is pretty slow to get any significant time compression out of. So it
will run, but not particularly well.
** Voodoo5 should work, but only in 16-bit color. A Voodoo4 would presumably also
work (but slower)
*** The real requirement is for DirectX 8.1 compatibility. DirectX 9 will be included on
the CD, since there's not much point in including an old DX version on a new product.
And to be compatible with a version if DirectX is very different from taking advantage of
any new features offered in that version. A TNT 2 or Matrox G400, for instance, will run
Harpoon. H4 will not take advantage of any major DX 8.1 features (like vertex or pixel
shaders). However, it will be necessary for the card to pass a DX 8.1 compatibility (not
compliance) check.
12. Satellites and Limited Space Warfare

Two targeting satellites are available, one Radar and one ESM. They are both Russian. The
scenario creator can place them into a scenario. If they get a contact, the information
obtained is sent to the player as soon as the satellite passes over a relay station. No
satellite/space (ASAT) warfare is modelled.
13. Aircraft
Aircraft have... ATA values! Just like the board game. These ATA (air-to-air) values are
then fudged to produce roll, pitch, and turn rates. If enemy aircraft get in close to each
other (about 5nm), they will begin "dog fighting", in which they try to gain shooting
position on each other. The odds of this happening come from the board game as well.
Sometimes planes will turn left...other times planes will turn right. There is no
manoeuvring in the vertical. Aircraft have different speeds and fuel consumptions at
121
WAYPOINT
different altitudes. This depends on both the values specified in the database and the
propulsion type (turbojet, turbofan, turboprop, etc.). Altitude changes are only in response
to orders, or if the aircraft is set to "avoid radar", in which case they'll drop to low altitude
if they get an ESM hit.
You cannot invent your own weapons loadouts for aircraft in the game, nor can you
change weapons *in flight*. But there is a very large variety of loadouts available for each
plane. Airplanes have zero damage points.
Air-to-Air refuelling is available, however underway ship replenishment is not.
14. Missiles
Missiles have range vs. surface targets, range vs. air targets, and the range may be
modified depending on launch altitude and trajectory type. There are a few different
trajectories to pick from. Missiles also have an acceleration figure, and a top speed (which
is maintained until the missile hits the target). You could set the ROE, EMCON, and
supposedly even order manual attacks of a friendly SAM battery. Semi-active (SARH)
missile will keep its director tied up for the entire duration of the flight, preventing it from
being used to engage other targets.
15. Mine Warfare

The scenario creator can place mines into a scenario. They define the zone, type of mine,
density, and whether or not the zone is visible to the other side. If the other side drives
ships into it, they may be hit. There is no mine hunting or minesweeping in the game.
16. Neutral & Civilian Activity

Neutral ships are allowed; they can be military or civilian.
17. 3D Effects and Displays

Ultimation is using a “home-grown” graphics engine in Harpoon4. The 3D models are not
considered to be “state-of-the-art” as you would see in today’s flight simulations (e.g.
moving flaps, etc.). They are nicely detailed and represent more of an overall aspect to
what is happening in the battle. The entire game (even the map view) is rendered with a
3D engine, so you can't turn off the 3D images. If you have the main window in 3D mode,
it will throttle the time compression to 1:1, to keep everything from going crazy.
“Unknown” units are still drawn as-is in the 3D view. Convergence Zones are modelled
and displayed. The game’s max resolution is 1024x768. Mouse wheel zoom in both 3D
and CIC displays is supported.
There are no special effects for chaff/flares, although their effects are factored into missile-
hit probability. Weapons are not drawn on aircraft in the game. Units do not cast
shadows. There are no graphical database displays of sensors detection ranges, or weapon
firing arches. There is no support for dual monitor displays.
EMBM = Environment-Mapped Bump Mapping (the "shiny water" effect in Harpoon4) is

supported by virtually all-new cards now, with the exception of Geforce4MX's.
18. Nuclear Weapons
122
It's very much up to the scenario creator how nukes play out. Nuclear release can be set to
"no", "yes", "yes after a certain time", "yes if losing by x amount", and "retaliatory". Some
of those factors can overlap. If the AI *can* use nuclear weapons, it *will* use nuclear
weapons. Also, the scenario creator can adjust the weapons loadouts of units, from no
nukes to all nukes. If nuclear release has not been granted, then nuclear weapons cannot
be fired. There is no hotkey to grant nuclear release. The "blue-out" effect is not simulated
for surface / subsurface explosions.
19. Larry Bond’s Involvement

Larry Bond and Chris Carlson have had a close association with the project's development
from the beginning. Mr. Bond’s primary creative role was to write the High Tide
Campaign. He will also be a contributor to the game's website and will be a special guest
in chats about the game in the post-launch period.
Mr. Bond is currently working on two book titles. "Crash Dive" and "Strategy Contract"
have appeared on the web site of Barnes and Noble. No other information is currently
available.
20. Confirmed Platforms & Weapons

(This is not an all-encompassing list; many remaining platforms are not listed)
Hugin-class PTG Rubis AGM-65 MAVERICK

JAS 39 Gripen Améthyste AGM-84 HARPOON
Type 42 DDG Akula I & II AGM-84 SLAM
A-7E Corsair II Charlie I & II AGM-88 HARM
EA-3B Skywarrior Echo I & II AGM-114 HELLFIRE
F-14 Tomcat Foxtrot AGM-122 SIDEARM
F-18 Superhornet Golf II AGM-123A SKIPPER
Shackleton AEW.2 Juliett AGM-142 HAVE NAP
USS Teddy Roosevelt (CVN Tango AGM-154 JSOW
71) Mike GBU-3? JDAM
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN Papa Kh-22/AS-4 Kitchen
75) Kirov class CGN AIM-54 PHOENIX
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN Oscar II class SSGN AIM-120 AMRAAM (old)
76) Kuznetsoc class CV
Ticonderoga Class CG Trafalgar (w/ Tomahawks)
Arleigh Burke Class DDG Iowa class BB
O.H. Perry class FFG Walrus SS
Bremen class FF pr.670 Charlie I & II
Clemenceau class CV SSN 688I (with VLS
Groshkov class CVH capability)
Sovremeny class DDG WHEC/WMEC (Coast
Kidd class DDG Guard)
AIM-7 SPARROW
AIM-9 SIDEWINDER
123
WAYPOINT
21. Platforms Not To Be Included

(The database to be released with the game only covers North Atlantic countries from
1984-2000)
USS Virginia class submarines (2004 delivery)
CVN 77 George Herbert Walker Bush (post 2000 - specifications are still being
developed)
SSK Yuushio (Japan)
Belgrano (Argentine)
22. Ground Facilities

Structures are modeled with abstract damage points. One example of a structure is an
airfield; it has runways and a certain aircraft capacity (like a carrier, but on the ground).
Another example is a same battery. In this case, the entire battery is one "structure", with
one or two radars, and several "mounts" (like on a ship) each of which is a separate launch
vehicle.
23. Radar & Sonar Models

Chris Carlson (who co-authored Harpoon with Larry Bond) helped to write the computer
calculations of the radar and sonar model that will be included in Harpoon4. The PC game
is based on the board game/paper rules. In the board game, you have to manually calculate
detection levels, etc. Instead of using the same paper rules, Chris Carlson wrote a much
more detailed spreadsheet/code that replaces the paper rules. However, the sonar and radar
models are an exception. Overall, the computer version is supposed to stay true to the
board game/paper rules. They’ve just tweaked the calculations to take better advantage of
the computer’s processing power.
Director allocation is handled automatically by the game, and a missile with inertial
guidance like a SM-2 is going to allow more missiles in flight than one without (like an
SM-1). Terrain will block radar, sonar, etc, and land tends to clutter up radar more than
the sea, as well.
24. Ship Damage & Underway Replenishment

H4 follows the paper rules pretty closely on armor. Various weapons can "penetrate"
different levels of armor. If they do not penetrate, they do less damage, and cannot cause a
critical hit to an armoured component. Armor can be applied to the ship as a whole, to
engineering, to the bridge/CIC, and to each sensor and weapon mount. There are five
different armor categories:
1. None - self-explanatory
2. Light - this includes Kevlar or light aluminium armor over critical areas (radars, bridge,
engineering), and also light steel splinter protection armor on some gun mounts or their
magazines. It can also apply to just extra-sturdy or shock-hardened construction.
3. Medium - This is equivalent to a WWII light cruiser's belt and turret armor. This level is
generally associated with the Sverdlov-class ships.
124
4. Heavy - This is equivalent to WWII-construction heavy cruisers. This level is associated

with the Des Moines-class cruisers, and parts of the Midway-class carriers.
5. Special - Battleship armour. (Iowa class).
Armour doesn't actually change the amount of damage points a ship has, it just changes
how they're deducted. Also, there are damage point modifiers, which can affect a ship,
depending on material (steel, wood, aluminium, titanium), usage (amphibious) and
workmanship (Soviet, civilian, etc). No ship can have less than one damage point. Once
damaged, ships cannot repair themselves. Airplanes have zero damage points. Underway
Ship Replenishment is NOT included, but Air-to-Air refuelling IS included.
25. Formation Editor

An “easy to use” formation editor is included.
26. Weather, Ice & Sunlight Effects

Weather that varies from ambient is set to rectangular zones, which can move. Weather
includes cloud type and altitude, rain, snow that looks like rain, and a variable sea state.
There is no ice. Day and night cycles depend on latitude and date, and there's an overlay
on the main map, which can show day/night as well. The Northern Summer of twenty-
four hour daylight is modelled.
27. Strike/Patrol/Mission Planner

Harpoon4 has "missions", they are zones to which units may be assigned, and their
behaviour in those zones specified. Missions are in, and fairly important for the AI side
when scripting scenarios. There WAS a feature to be included called the "strike planner".
The concept was that the player could say, "Please kill this unit", assign some resources
into the AI's shake-n-bake bag, and after a while the good guys would win. This did not
work, and it will not be in the game.
28. Submarines
Max diving depths for submarines are modelled in depth bands according to H4 board
game rules (Periscope, Shallow, Intermediate I-V, Deep 1-5, etc.). Each band is about
100m after the first few. Submarines don't go below their max depth.
The map has ocean depth (and land altitude) stored for every data point on the map.
Submarines try not to hit the bottom. Also, shallow water will adversely affect sonar
systems and most torpedoes.
The one exception to the map data and ocean depth is that depths below a certain fairly
deep level, are just treated as "infinite" depth.
29. Game Documentation

There will be a printed “quick start” guide in the game that covers all the "basic" elements
that gamers will need to get started and play through the game. In addition, a more robust
and in-depth manual will be included as a PDF file on the disk that can either be
referenced electronically or printed out at home. This information will be detailed and is
125
WAYPOINT
targeted to appeal to the more hardcore Harpoon fan and naval enthusiast that wants to
read about all the finer details of the game.
30. Development History and Delays

(On January 30, 2003, former Ubi Soft Executive Producer Carl “Stormin” Normin
commented on the development history and frustrating delays of Harpoon4)
Every software product has a release date that is scheduled from the very first day it is
contracted. Of course these dates constantly change if there are changes to the
development schedule. I do not believe that any publisher agrees to a project without a
scheduled release date.
SSI was the first company to contract with Larry Bond for the rights to develop Harpoon
4. SSI is now a label owned by Ubi Soft Entertainment.
The first developer for Harpoon 4 was Crusader Studios. They failed to make any
substantial progress beyond the design phase and early prototype. SSI terminated the
contract with them. At that point Harpoon 4 looked like it would never happen.
Fortunately, I was given permission and a new budget to obtain a new developer to finish
the project. We basically started from scratch when we signed with Ultimation to develop
Harpoon 4.
Dates were established in the schedule and development commenced. Then there were a
series of corporate acquisitions and delays. The dates changed and the fact that
Ultimation was also working on Silent Hunter II and Destroyer Command began to create
problems with Harpoon 4. It was decided (when SSI was a part of Mattel Interactive) to
delay work on Harpoon 4 until Silent Hunter II and Destroyer Command were completed.
Then there was the whole Learning Company/Mattel corporate fiasco that resulted in
massive layoffs and delays to all projects. The Ultimation projects were also affected.
During this time no work was done on Harpoon 4 (almost an entire year of it being an idle
project).
When Gores Technology bought the assets of Mattel Interactive, all projects went through
a review. Harpoon 4 was spared, but it also remained on hold. Work on Silent Hunter II
and Destroyer Command continued with problems arising for number of reasons, to
include difficulties with the RTime multiplayer engine. Gores sold the entertainment
studio assets to Ubi Soft in March 2001. One of the first decisions that Ubi Soft made was
to cancel Harpoon 4. I announced the cancellation and thought that was it. Several weeks
later, Ubi Soft reversed their decision and the project was saved, but it remained on hold
until the other two naval games were complete. Once SH2 and DC were finished IN early
2002, work on H4 started again. That happened about a year ago.
In 2002, Harpoon 4 was considered for cancellation several more times. There were
plenty of times it looked grim for the continued future of the project. In my opinion, it is a
miracle that the project is still alive. (Contrary to rumors) nobody had officially
announced the project went Beta until it actually did in November 2002.
126
Harpoon 4 has been one of the most difficult and disappointing development experiences I
have ever been involved in during my career. The biggest disappointment is that the game
has such great potential and has gone through so many turbulent events. The delays and
difficulties have made trying to get it to reach its' potential a very difficult undertaking. I
seriously believe that Harpoon 4 is a project that has never been taken seriously by any of
the publishers, with the exception of the original SSI, that have been associated with it.
There is plenty of blame to go around. There were bad decisions made by me, by my
seniors, and by Ultimation. Despite all of the turmoil, I believe that Harpoon 4 will be a
good game. I just know that it will require lots of after market support because, with any
version of Harpoon, there are just too many variables and complications to guarantee a
totally bug free and balanced product. Every version of Harpoon ever released has
required after market support and in most cases has received it from the publisher. I
certainly hope that is the case here. We'll all just have to wait and see.
I understand and share (everyone’s) frustration in wanting to see this game finished.
Nobody wants it completed more than those that have been working on it, trust me.
127
WAYPOINT
Q&A
24 hours a day, 7 days a week and around the globe, the Harpoon community exchanges questions, answers,
clarifications, suggestions and other material for discussion. Out of this ocean of inter-community talk we
pick out the most useful, most original and most informative questions and answers and reprint them here for
the benefit of all readers. Think we have left out something important/interesting/beneficial? Tell us
([email protected]) and we’ll gladly include it.
(From a Usenet discussion regarding the MAD-defeating effectiveness of the titanium hull in the Alfa, Papa,
Sierra & Mike submarine classes)
-“Do you suppose the galley, bulkheads, seats, pipes, tubes and toilets were made of
titanium, too?” - JCC
-“No, this is the Soviet Navy, not the US Air Force" -- Brad Meyer
OlegM:
[…] I have always wondered what exactly Soviets hoped to achieve with late 70s
rebuilding of their surface fleet, advocated by admirals like Gorshkov etc.?
I mean, when you are clearly inferior in surface naval forces - you build subs! That should
be clear as morning sun. Why waste precious little resources you have in floating
mammoths (by modern naval standards) like Kirovs, Slavas etc.?
Defense of the motherland? You can always defend with subs, land based airforce, or even
static SSM sites along the shore. You don't need Kirovs or Sovremennys or Slavas to
defend your coastline.
Break-in to Atlantic to raid convoys, Bismarck-style? Ridiculous, don't you think? In the
age of satellites they'd be discovered in a matter of hours.
"Imperialist" blue water navy, to show off around the globe? AFAIK, they never used
surface units in "imperialist" fashion, like, to form a squadron and base it in some friendly
African or Asian base etc. There was some talk of Soviet naval Indian Ocean squadron, but
I haven't been able to read much about it.
Way I see it, in case of conflict - Soviets would do EXACTLY as Germans did in WW2 -
they would use their surface forces to support conquest of Norway. They'll most probably
get Norway, or at least most of it, but losing half of their surface forces in the process, to
NATO subs and aircraft, as did Germans.
From then on - it'll be just subs and land based long range bombers form Norway bases -
which is exactly what Germans did in WW2.
On the other hand - some of their surface units surely are impressive platforms. So, in what
fashion did they plan to use their surface fleet and how realistic their plans were?
128
Byron Audler:
Why waste precious little resources you have in floating mammoths (by modern naval
standards) like Kirovs, Slavas etc.?
Well, for starters, the Soviets have always invested a serious percentage of their naval
budget, going all the way back to the end of WWII. Their first means of power projection
at sea were the ballistic missile boats and the guided missile subs. The bad thing about
those subs, though, is that you can't see them. Part of the usefulness of a Navy, is to have
that large, grey, low lying silhouette, bristling with antennas and barrels, quietly sliding
through the ocean, brimming with purpose and menace. Ask Perry....Ask Teddy Roosevelt.
They knew the value of simply parading a huge warship around. It makes a statement all
it's own about a nations intent. And the point isn't always to be made to future and possible
enemies...it's also for the home folk, who have something tangible to see and hopefully
appreciated the cost in treasure they represent.
Break-in to Atlantic to raid convoys, Bismarck-style? Ridiculous, don't you think? In the
age of satellites they'd be discovered in a matter of hours.
As for this one, I suggest you ask some of the professionals about this. If you know the
empheris of the satellite, then you can quite easily avoid them. As I understand it, the
satellite does not really "see" the ship; so much as it "sees" the wake. I realize this does not
hold true for RORSATs, but then again, there not so many of these aloft.
On the other hand - some of their surface units surely are impressive platforms. So, in
what fashion did they plan to use their surface fleet and how realistic their plans were?
Just my guess, but I'd say you were near enough. A lot of the Sov warships toted whacking
big, one shot, one kill cruise missiles, whose sole target were the NATO carriers,
preferably the big ones, but an ASW CVH would do just as nicely. I suspect that their
surface assets would do as you suggest, protect the Scandinavian flank, and their Pacific
ports. They might in a pinch, sortie against a CVBG in a combined arms strike with
aviation and sub assets pitching in. Don't forget this as well: it's easier to hunt subs in a
group, and the better the group is at self-defense, the better it will stay alive long enough to
kill subs....or enough of them.
Dimitris Dranidis:
There are further points in favor of surface units in the Soviet Navy:
1) Even such a short amphib hop as from Murmansk to northern Norway is a major
undertaking of Sea Control. To ensure that the HVAs (amphibs) will reach the destination
in sufficient strength, you need to provide them protection from air and sub attacks. In
theory, this can be provided by land bases, but the distances involved make this
impractical real fast. The only practical solution is organic AAW and ASW capability, and
if you don't have a CTOL carrier around, only surface ships (possibly with SSN/SSK
support) can provide this.
129
WAYPOINT
The Soviet involvement in Third-World affairs in the 70s/80s, with the frequent
expeditions of surface and amphib groups in various countries, only intensified this need.
2) The big capital ships (Moskva, Kiev, Kirov, Slava) were built primarily to support the
SSBN bastions. The Kievs would coordinate the ASW groups, the Kirovs would lead the
anti-surface forces. As the Sovs learned during Okean-70, coordinating from land centers
all the assets that participate on bastion patrol duty is a major PITA: you have to transfer
command & control (or some degree of it, anyway) to sea. Now, the platform that will act
as one of the command nodes needs to have:
ample displacement, volume and power available for the command systems (this
problem was even more acute for the Soviets, due to their inferior state of
electronics), as well as extra facilities for the command staff.
excellent real-time communication with other air, sea and land units for effective
control & coordination.
ample ability to rapidly transfer command personnel to and from the platform, i.e.
at least rudimentary helicopter facilities.
All these abilities are the province of surface vessels.
OTOH of course there is no denying the fact that the Soviet Navy always relied on
submarines and long-range aircraft as its primary means of power projection and Sea-
Denial operations.
Ragnar Emsoy:
I can strongly recommend Milan Vego's book “Soviet Naval Tactics”. The book costs a
few $$$, but it is a big *MUST* for all serious Harpoon players (and especially if you're a
Cold-War nut and hard-core Harpoon 3 scenario designer, hehe). What I especially liked
about this book is that it uses Soviet terms, not NATO terms, which gives a special
'feeling' too it. For example ASW is known as 'struggle against submarines', and the term
'struggle on sea (oceanic) communications' is what NATO knows as both anti-SLOC and
pro-SLOC. And I think the book will explain all of your above questions in detail.
Anyway I'd like to add a few things to the previous posts:
According to Milan’s book, the Soviet large SSM-armed surface ships were intended to be
used against enemy (NATO) SSM-armed ships. According to Soviet thinking, surface
ships using mainly passive sensors (!) were the most effective platforms for accomplishing
this task. Secondary missions were in-theatre offensive actions against convoys, amphib
groups, as well as destroying enemy installations and troop concentrations on an enemy-
held coast. The large missile ships of the Soviet Navy included classes like Kildin/mod,
Slava, Kirov and Kresta I.
It appears Sovremenny DDGs were not considered to be large SSM-armed surface ship.
Nor were they placed in the same class as small missile ships (like Nanuchka and
Tarantul). These DDGs would be used to destroy enemy warships and merchants, for
scouting, patrolling, shore-bombardment, support of amphib landings, and to lay mines.
The ships thus shared quite a few roles with the ASW DDs.
130
Now, please notice that none of the above missions included strikes against NATO carrier
battle groups. This task would go to the AV-MF (naval aviation), long-range and short-
range missile submarines, and nuclear attack submarines.
For an in-theatre anti-carrier strike, Tu-95s and other long-range radar platforms as well as
reconnaissance Tu-22R Blinders would go looking for and try to identify the carrier (or
other high-value units). Once found, submarines and aircraft would attack simultaneously
or in succession, depending on the type of target/defenses and the assets at hand. The
general rule was like this: One or two SSG/SSGNs (Charlie, Papa) with short-range
missiles would attack first, attempting to sink screening AAW ships. 20-30 minutes later,
four to six SSG/SSGNs (Echo II, Juliett, Oscar) would launch their long-range missiles.
The next wave would follow after another 20-30 minutes and would consist of one to three
regiments (18-20 aircraft each) of naval bombers (Backfire, Badger) approaching over a
wide sector (180 degrees or more). If both Backfires and Badgers were to be used in the
same raid, the high-end Backfires would attack first, followed by the older Badgers a little
later, ca 20 minutes. Then, if ship-launched SSM were available (in most cases they would
not), these would now be launched. And lastly, one or two attack submarines (Victor,
Akula, Sierra, Alfa, November) would be sent in 1/2 hour after the final missile had struck
home to finish off damaged and surviving ships.
Now, Vego repeatedly questions the Soviet's ability to carry out such an attack 'by the
book', mainly due to C3I but also doctrine and force-control-related difficulties. Also, only
a few of the above assets would be in place at any given time. And a typical strike would
be limited to, say, only two short-range and six and long-range missile submarines used
together with two naval bomber regiments.
Prior to 1987/88 and the widespread introduction of the Su-27 Flanker, the naval bombers
did not have fighter escorts. Achieving surprise and attacking over a broad sector (high
dispersal) was therefor extremely important as the Backfires' only defensive measures was
their high speed, on-board ECM systems and escorting Tu-16 Jammers. It was also hoped
(or assumed) that the long-range submarine-launched SSMs fired 20-30 minutes before the
bombers would launch their own weapons would soak up the defending F-14 fighters'
Phoenix and Sparrow missiles. If not, some of the bombers would also launch their AS-4
Kitchen (Kh-22) missiles at 'less-than-effective' range. I think this means at ranges of
300nm or more. But normally Backfires and Badgers would launch their missiles at 170-
200nm, using their on-board radar to acquire the targets.
So, where did the Soviet aircraft carriers planned for the early 1990s fit in all of this?
Well, I think you can consider the Soviet carriers being an extension of the large missile
ships. Main roles would be in-theatre offensive actions against enemy surface ships,
convoys and amphibious groups, as well as support for amphibious operations. And unlike
USN carriers, the Kuznetsov offer little if any (overland) power projection capabilities.
The carrier would carry a rather limited number of Su-33s for use the air defense role, and
the carrier battle group’s main offensive weapon was anti-ship missiles on the carrier itself
(12x SS-N-19 on the Kuznetsov) and on the escorts.
131
WAYPOINT
And so, with Soviet warships used mainly for the in-theater strike and escort role, only the
submarines would be tasked with raiding the Atlantic sea-lanes. Which is exactly what the
Germans did during WWII.
We have put all of these tactics in to good use in the scenarios we have made for
Harpoon3, to give you the feeling of fighting the real 1980’s Soviet Navy.
Steve Mills:
Can anyone update me regarding the latest on the Tornado F3? This is mentioned in the
first Waypoint and suggests queries be e-mailed in. However the link appears to be broken.
In essence, the conclusion of the article is that the Tornado’s engines are geared towards
low-altitude performance and the speeds would be accordingly adjusted. Don't the
interceptor versions have different engines to the attack versions?
John Cleary:
Yes - the Tornado F.3 has a different version of the RB199 turbofan (Mk104 compared to
Mk101), which has a longer afterburner section to give higher thrust. ISTR that the
engine and associated sub-systems were optimized in light of the greater amount of time
the F.3 would spend at high altitude (this was back in the days when RAF strike aircraft
operated exclusively at low level).
It should also be noted that the F.3 has a slightly different airframe (only 80 percent
common with ground-attack versions). The airframe is longer (extra fuel tank) and
marginally more aerodynamic (more pointed radome, higher maximum wing sweep).
According to the official stats, the F.3 is marginally faster at high altitude (Mach 2.27
compared to Mach 2.2 for the GR.1).
I don't know if the Tornado would be faster if it had engines that were designed for high
altitude work from the start (like the EJ200 in the Eurofighter Typhoon), but the stats
reported in the usual guides (Jane's etc.) already take any limitation in account.
Steve Mills:
There is something clearly wrong with the changes proposed to the Tornado F3 database
changes, or alternatively the original article is worded wrong. You state that the Tornado
was never a dogfighter which is correct and I was aware of. However, you also state that
the type was optimized as a high-speed interceptor. The proposals make it the slowest
platform I can think of. The wording of the Waypoint article suggests lowering its top
speed to 792 knots maximum. Most of the family will be at around 650 or 680 knots. The
article also states that at higher levels its performance will be poorer or implies that. This
doesn't make any real sense to me. At what level of altitude does a Tornado achieve Mach
2.27 ? If not, is every single article written about the Tornado incorrect? I appreciate you
also have good authorities but it is hard to reconcile the two different speeds. I have also
spoken to people who worked on the project who stated in respect of the Tornado
(admittedly the IDS) that it was the fastest plane in the world at sea level. Basically my
question is if the speeds at low level barely exceed mach one, and at altitude the type
132
cannot exceed mach one (or barely as the article implies), why on earth do so many
sources state Mach 2-ish as its speed?
The other thing that bothers me slightly (and it’s hardly a true test I'll
admit) is that the F3 puts on a decent display at airshows. It’s no dogfighter that's clear, but
its also clearly not a slow aircraft either. I'd be interested to hear what is now thought to be
the top speed of the F3 and at what altitude it achieves this?
Steve Holland:
I used to be in the RAF on a Phantom FGR2 squadron, at the time that the Tornado F3 was
about to come into service.
What I can tell you is that nothing was faster than the Tornado at low-level with the
exception of the F-111. The Tornado F3 was designed as an Interceptor, not a dogfighter
as mentioned in other posts, which could loiter for some hours two hundred miles from the
coast without AAR.
To achieve this, some design changes were made to basic IDS model (GR1). These
included more powerful engines to aid acceleration, lengthening the fuselage to allow
more fuel to carried internally but also to increase the fineness ratio to allow a greater top
speed, this also aided it to get through the mach 0.95-1.05 region quicker. Also
semi-automatic wing-sweep was added.
The article in Waypoint #1 that kicked all this off stated that the Tornado routinely refuel
using afterburners, that I can't comment directly as I don't know whether we are talking
about the GR1/4's or the F3's or what AAR platform is being used. Why are these
important? Two reasons: Firstly the GR's are not as aerodynamically efficient and
normally carry the added drag of attack stores. Secondly, what I can tell you is that the
Phantom FGR2's used to have to have burner in to refuel - from the Hercules C1(K)
aircraft in the Falklands as the Hercules was at full throttle, at refuelling height, was only
just above the stalling speed of the FGR2 so the burner was needed to keep the FGR2
flying at that AOA and height.
The reality is that the RAF got a weapon system that had longer range, a higher top speed,
a greater intercept capability and a better dogfighting capability than the FGR2 that it
replaced. Could it out-accelerate the FGR2? That I can't answer.
Finally, if we were going to try and apply real-world operating criteria to one aircraft
platform, you would have to apply it to all. For example, we all know that the Foxbat can
do Mach3+ and that the F-15 can do M2.5, however neither come close when loaded with
full fuel, missiles and drop tanks.
May I suggest that we check whether the speeds that are quoted are IAS, as at 40000ft
480kts IAS equals 854kts GS, approx, which is M1.5, approx.
The Harpoon Classic/97/2002 system does not take into account the drag and load factors
in aircraft performance, nor does it increase the performance of aircraft that have just
delivered ordinance and are making their getaway. The system is a compromise, accepting
133
WAYPOINT
at face value the air platforms’ published maximums. You can't change one without
changing all, that would be wrong. Maybe that level of reality should be left to Harpoon
4.1/5.0 when it can be applied across the board.
After all, is any really saying that a Tu-22 has a pull away speed of 280kts at 12000 metres
(Tu-22 published top speed of 802kts)!
The bottom line is that until the game system and all the platforms are amended in the
same way then the aircraft should remain the same.
Craig Paffhausen:
The Tornado family, as the article states, has engines (the RB.199) that are optimized to
give greatest fuel economy at very low altitudes. At about 8000 meters as stated in the
article the engines performance begins a rapid drop off to subsonic speeds in the IDS
family at about ~9000 meters. The engines do not deliver enough thrust to accelerate the
Tornado to a speed much above Mach 1 at any altitude. YES, the Tornado CAN break
Mach 2...but only after a very, VERY long run in full afterburner. In game terms, that
means these planes are strictly a Mach 1.0 plane at most altitudes.
My sources for this information are several issues of World Air Power Journal, several
interviews with USAFE Pilots and Several interviews with RAF pilots of the Tornado. It
takes the F-15 about 1 minute to go from subsonic to Mach 2.5 Fully loaded. It takes a
CLEAN Tornado several times that.
Steve Mills:
The more I think about it, the less happy I am with the proposed changes to the database
RE: the F3 Tornado. If the plane can break Mach 2, then it should do so in game. In my
view its as simple as that, sorry. The acceleration up to Mach 2 is not modelled in the
game at all. The game assumes that a speed setting selected results in an immediate
increase. Unless this is changed, I see no real reason to penalise the Tornado. I have to say,
I also have some doubts that we are comparing like with like as well. I have seen a number
of reports (oddly enough, on the Il-2 forum) that suggest that an F-15 cannot keep up with
a tanker in a climb once refuelling is completed. I hasten to add, I suspect this is another
case where we are not getting the full story. If the F3 is to be changed to represent the fact
it cannot reach Mach 2.2 in an instant, can the CVNs I am trying to torpedo please be
changed so they cannot turn on a pixel at 30 plus knots please!
Steve Mills:
While I don't want to harp on about a subject, the issue regarding the Tornado F3 seems
very clear indeed to me.
In reality the F3 can make Mach 2.2.
In reality the F-15 can make Mach 2.5
Both currently can make this speed in game by selecting flank speed. It happens instantly
and might not be altogether realistic but produces reasonable representations of air combat.
The Tornado is (I understand) going to be downgraded, and not by just a little bit either.
134
I agree most combats in "reality" would take place at or below Mach 1. I agree it actually
would take a plane some time to reach Mach 2.
However, we will have the situation where the F3 will be one of the slowest platforms in
game. It will be downgraded for reasons that all combat aircraft suffer from, and all other
combat aircraft in game will remain where they stand currently. How on earth can this
stance be defended ?
Craig Paffhausen:
The reduced speed is completely in line with H4 Mini rules. Larry Bond has designed
Airspeed acceleration into the rules by limiting the top speed of aircraft depending on how
fast they accelerate, how they maneuver at speed etc. IF you look in any H4 annex, you
will find the maximum flank speed of an aircraft does not approach anywhere near the
plane’s real-world maximum speed.
Here are some examples:
From Command at Sea (same basic rules just set in WWII):
F4U-1D Corsair. Flank speed 359 KTS Real speed 404Kts
P-51D Mustang Flank Speed 435 KTS Real speed 440kts
And now from H4.1 Mini rules:
F-4E Phantom II Flank Speed 1244 kts Real speed 1450kts
F-15C Eagle Flank speed 1358 kts Real Speed 1680kts
I have used planes of the United States as they are the ones with the most accurate
performance data available. Sources DO vary, so the F-15 and F-4's speed can vary by as
much as 10%.
Thus Aircraft ARE properly modeled in both Computer Harpoon games. Ships and their
ability to turn on one pixel or less, and perfect acceleration are still bugs in BOTH the
computer Harpoon games. Or should I say "Features?"
Steve Mills:
Bah - the penny finally dropped…
Pretty much most aircraft under the DB2000 now max out at 800 knots, so the Tornado
proposals would not be unbalanced. That'll teach me for always playing on the Russian
side................
Apologies - I though we still had the situation where F-15s hit 800kts on military thrust
alone.
135
WAYPOINT
Dimitris Dranidis:
This is one of those "paper vs. reality vs. simulation" issues. Yes, the Tornado F3 can do
Mach 2. But under what circumstances? At the tropopause, after near-emptying its fuel
tankage on afterburner and without any weapons whatsoever? And for how long can it
sustain it after reaching it? How practical is that value for the environment that the
Harpoon series simulates? (Actual combat with weapons load, various altitudes etc.)
Lets' get back to the CV example: Maximum speed ~30-31kts. How often does it reach
that speed in actual use? Very often, both when transiting and when turning against the
wind to launch heavily loaded aircraft, and can easily attain it under any other
circumstance (including very heavy sea state). How long can it sustain it? Quite long for
CVs, practically indefinitely for CVNs (the nukes also have their hull-lines optimised for
high speeds, in contrast to most warships). So it makes perfect sense that it gets the full
30kts treatment in the DB2K.
Another example: MiG-25 vs SR-71. Both can do Mach 3.2 on paper, and both have
demonstrated it in actual flight. However, the Blackbird regularly clocks this speed and
can sustain it for a significant portion of its flight. The Foxbat almost never goes above M
2.8-3, as the engines are going to be wrecked, and its endurance at this speed is relatively
small, because of its limited fuel tankage and high fuel consumption. So it makes sense
that the DB2K stats give the Blackbird a definite speed advantage.
Same with anti-air missiles and their extremely optimistic brochure figures. Same with
radars. Same with passive sonar sets. The list goes on and on.
Entering values for near damn everything in the DB2K is never as simple as grabbing a
bunch of figures from this book or the other and dumping them into the data tables. Each
and every piece of information goes through a filter of careful critical analysis: How "true"
is that data? Who is the source? Cross-references? Does is "jive" with other previously
established information? Does it make sense? Is it a "paper" ability (e.g. MiG-25 at M3.2)
or is it being used regularly? Does it "fit in" with the other components of an integrated
weapons system? (e.g. if for a 100km SARH missile you have an illuminator that reaches
out only to 50km, it means your missile is hampered to less-than-paper parameters). Rag
and the rest of us take quite a bit of time to update our data, and there is good reason for it:
this whole filtering process is time-consuming, but we deem it worthwhile.
Art Chausmer:
I think it is important to remember that there are different airspeeds and that one must note
the diffference. Much of the posting about the Tornado makes note of the IAS of 800 kts
at altitude. Indicated airspeed (IAS) is NOT the same as true airspeed since air density
decreases with altitude and IAS measures the effect of "impact" air on the static system.
The true air speed corrects for altitude and temperature. In most airplanes, at least the ones
I fly, there is a correcting ring on the air-speed indicator to give you TAS for a given
IAS, temp and altitude. Finally, there is calibrated air speed which, as you might imply,
corrects for each individual instrument. Ground-speed (GS) of course is affected by
winds and represents a track across the ground and has little to do with IAS or TAS.
136
Mach-meters compute the speed of sound for a specific altitude and temperature and give,
essentially, a true air speed with reference to the speed of sound under specific conditions,
not related to things like MPH or KPH airspeed.
Hence, to have an indicated air speed (IAS) of 800kts at altitude is very fast indeed, much
greater than 800kts TAS and certainly supersonic by a lot.
Ragnar Emsoy:
Acceleration and turn rates are planned for aircraft in Harpoon3. Both will be based on the
H4 rules, using the ATA values to determine performance. Is that cool or what? ☺
Craig Paffhausen:
As stated previously, the Tornado has a severe performance penalty at high altitudes. It
has become apparent to me that people are now assuming that the DB2K staff are blanket-
adjusting the speeds of all aircraft downward. In truth, only the Tornado family is affected
by this.
In the clearest way possible I want to lay to rest this discussion.
1) The Tornado F.3 CAN fly at Mach 2.2 at about 6000 meters altitude. This is a lot lower
than most aircraft can fly that speed at. That is because the engines were designed to give
Mach 1.1+ performance at sea level. However, in designing the engines to give Mach 1.1+
performance at sea level, the high-altitude performance was sacrificed. To put it bluntly,
the Tornado engine test-bed for the EJ.200 program literally flew rings around the stock
Tornado F.3.
2) The commonly held figures for the Tornado are NOT ACCURATE! The Tornado can
NOT even refuel from a tanker without using its afterburner! Yes, the RAF's motley
collection of VC.10s, L1011s and other converted airliners CAN outrun a non-afterburning
Tornado!
3) The fact that as a platform gets older more accurate information becomes available has
been lost on many of the community. Most of the information I gathered for this article
comes from two World Air Power Journal issues as well as interviews with prominent
RAF test pilots of high regard and caliber arranged through an equally prestigious but
privately-held (at their request) source.
This all being said, I have found out that the calculator I used to calculate True Air Speed
from a Mach number was not properly factoring in air pressure. Nor did I at the time
factor in weapon loads. The numbers that were in the Waypoint article are about 10-15%
lower than they should be. No, the Tornado IS NOT capable of doing Mach 2.2 routinely.
I will be including an updated table in Waypoint #3 to correct this. I have one new source
that I am waiting to pan out before I call these numbers hard (if it pans out completely, I
will have confirmed from three un-related sources the vastly overblown performance data
137
WAYPOINT
on the Tornado F.3). Here are some good numbers that I can throw out now, to give you an
idea of how poor the RB.199 engine really is for the F.3.
One bit of data that I have a relatively hard lock on is the max speed of the Tornado Test
bed vs. a standard Tornado F.3. The EJ.200 Tornado sustained a Mach 2.0 speed with a
peak of Mach 2.23 at 11000 meters. The best I have found thus far (again waiting on one
new source) for the F.3 clean with RB.199s is sustained Mach 1.72 @ 7300 meters. This
is in a CLEAN condition!
There is a BIG difference between Peak speed and Sustained speed. The only modern
combat plane that could sustain it's peek speed that I am aware of is the B-70 Valkyrie
whose CRUISE speed was Mach 3.02 at just below 80,000 feet. That was due to a very
interesting design concept called Compression lift.
I hope the above helps to clear the issue at hand up. The DB2K staff is NOT artificially
limiting any platform(s) to make things “fair”, or the game “more playable” etc. We ARE
adjusting as new information becomes available and when we can we use SUSTAINED
Max speed for our calculations.
Ragnar Emsoy:
Does anyone know if more than one command-guided AS-7 and AGM-12 missile can be
fired (i.e. guided) simultaneously? Now that weapons in H3 are also limited by the
available datalink channels [from DB2000 v6.3 onwards], I'd be very interested in getting
this number right.
And what about Walleye, Hobos and GBU-15? How many weapons can be kept in the air
at once? And AS-13/18?
If I have 6x A-7Es each armed with 2x Walleye bombs, how many weapons can be fired at
once? I have one source that says the pod could operate on two channels, so that two
aircraft could each fire one bomb. The six A-7Es would then have to attack in succession,
with only two bombs in the air at any time. If this is the case, the Walleye is almost useless
as an anti-ship weapon and can not be used as the Ultimate ship-killing weapon as it is
today.
Craig Paffhausen:
In a nutshell, you can have one bomb in the air per pod. The ERDL pod of the Walleye is 2
channels: 1 from the missile and 1 to the missile.
Ragnar Emsoy:
I found this on the web: http://www.ordnance.org/walleye.htm
"Tactically, the two-aircraft operation dominates because of the limited number of

available pods. For example, a one-pod configured aircraft monitors the weapon control
functions for several individual weapon launchings during one mission (not
simultaneously).
The three frequency channels (A, C, and E) are used to control the individual weapons
launchings. The three channels prevent the control section of the weapon from responding
138
to override (steering) commands from a pod that is not set to that weapon's specific
frequency channel. Therefore, more than one weapon/pod operation can be conducted in
the same area."
Does this mean up to three bombs can be guided at once, one each from three different
aircraft?
Peter Grining:
Sounds like 3. Also note the AWW-9/13 weight is given as 270 kg, this corrects the
current Annex G2 'Walleye II ERDL Data Link', which currently has a an estimated
weight of 100 kg.
TheRivash:
I heard F-14 are going to be phased out of US navy, as a result of their aging status. I was
just wondering if that means the demise of a superb Air Intercept Platform, it being the
only fighter to be able to launch the Phoenix. Does this have to do with the new strategic
situation, assuming that there is no longer a need of a long-range interceptor in the Navy?
Or is it going to be substituted by a newer incarnation? Are there any other fighters
capable of using the Phoenix? It struck as strange that these planes are being taken away, i
had always thought of them, and my Harpoon experience had told me, that along with an
AWACS, these things were a mainstay for my fleet...
Dimitris Dranidis:
The F-14 was designed for a very specific mission profile: engaging large numbers of AV-
MF bombers at long-range, plus any AShMs that these bombers may launch before being
shot down. Today this threat has diminished, both politically and physically.
The modern threat profile is a hypothetical swarming attack by multiple low-RCS

short/medium range AShMs (or alternatively scores of tactical aircraft), possibly coming
from multiple directions so as to overwhelm the CVBG's defences. Against such a threat
you want as many fighters in the air as possible, armed with lots of reliable and relatively
inexpensive missiles. They don't necessarily need to be very long-ranged, as the potential
threats do not possess the formidable stand-off armament of the AV-MF, and instead have
to approach the CVBG fairly close before using their weapons.
Against such a threat profile, the F-18/AIM-120 pair is more effective than the F-14/AIM-
54 combo. Here's why:
More available firepower in the air: The F-14 is maintenance-intensive and thus has a
lower sortie rate than the more modern F-18. What this means is that you're likely to
have more F-18s in the air than F-14s, and numbers count when you have to deal with
a mass attack. Also the practical Phoenix load of the F-14 is 4 missiles (you can load it
with 6, but then if the enemy doesn't show up, it has to jettison two of them in order to
land - not good!), where as the F-18 can carry up to 10 (6 is IIRC the normal load). So
overall you have more fighters and more missiles in the air at once. Additionally, each
139
WAYPOINT
carrier can carry only about 120 Phoenix missiles (the thing is HUGE!), instead you
can stuff it with much more many AMRAAMs.
The AMRAAM is more effective against the modern threat than the Phoenix. The
latter was designed to engage the large AV-MF bombers plus the occasional Soviet-
style (=large!) cruise missile. It has much reduced capability against Harpoon-class
weapons and tactical aircraft. The AIM-120 was designed from the outset to engage
such targets. Also AFAIK the AIM-120 can be ripple-fired in a more rapid succession
than the Phoenix, which is again important when you have a bazillion small anti-ship
missiles incoming.
Soviet naval bombers had no fighter escort until the late-80s. The current threat may
easily include fighters, as CVBG operations move closer to the coasts. The F-14, after
expending its Phoenix missiles is virtually naked against modern fighters. Sure it has
the gas to run home, but that's about it.
The F-18, after shooting its AMRAAMs, is still a very dangerous dogfighter and can
hold its own as long as the other guy hasn't held back any BVR bullets.
The F-14 does hold the range & endurance advantage, but these are more useful for strike
operations rather than CVBG defence, and are largely offset by the presence of AAR
assets. Plus, the USN is increasing its reliance on cruise missiles for deep strike, so the
Tomcat's longer reach is becoming less relevant even for offensive operations.
Franck:
I find it very hard to figure out what Strike ammo works best for each type of facility.
Also in the recent scenarios, towards the end of the strike, some facilities remain on the
map and no weapon will attack them... Also with the AGM 65 Maverick, it seems they
sometimes get launched directly at take off of the plane (Hornet) seem to fall on the target
almost instantly and provoke no damage... Does anybody know why? Or what am I doing
wrong?
Ragnar Emsoy:
Bunkers have armor. Lots of armor. And your AGM-65F Mavericks won't kick it.
Harpoon 3 operates with several different levels of armor, and which weapons are capable
against which types of armor. Like, for instance, 12.7mm MGs will do no damage
whatsoever against protected areas a battleship, etc. Even mounts and sensors can be
protected/armored.
So instead of Mavericks, I suggest using GBU-10/24 bombs with BLU-109 penetrator

warheads, or the GBU-24B/D with BLU-116 advanced penetrator warheads. There are
also versions of the JDAM with BLU-109 warhead.
The reason why you suddenly cannot attack a target that has been bombed repeatedly is
that the unit may have been destroyed, but none of your units witnessed its destruction. If
you drop the contact ('3'-key on the numeric keypad) and it doesn't re-appear, it has
probably been destroyed.
140
Ragnar Emsoy:
I’m very curious about the APR-3 and APSET-95 torpedoes, which are said to have
entered Russian Navy service after 1991. Did they actually enter service, or are these
claims just a bluff to help sell these torps abroad (as apparently is the case for the UGST)?
Also, have these weapons actually been exported? Tnx.
Chris Carlson:
Both of these weapons did enter into Soviet/Russian service, and probably India as well as
that country operates Russian IL-38 MAY and Tu-142 BEAR-F MPA. Now, the name
"APSET-95" is a bit of hype as this torpedo is the UMGT-1 or E40-79, which has been
around for quite awhile.
The UGST on the other hand, apparently has not entered into service with the Russian
Navy. The last Military Parade article I have says that it could enter in 2000-2001, but
there has been nothing from the manufacturer announcing any sales. An improved version,
the UGST-M, is said to be in development and should be ready by 2004-05. Now, if you
have a modification this close after the initial weapon becomes available, this tells me that
maybe the first one isn't what the Russian Navy wants. I believe they will eventually go
the monopropellant, thermal torpedo route as it is cheaper than silver-zinc batteries.
Steven Lohr:
I have some photos that might be useful for some of the ships that don't have them in the
Database. Let me know if you are interested, and I'll send them to you. Also, if you have
a list of ships that don't have write-ups or photos, I'll gradually try to work my way
through the list and get them for you.
Ragnar Emsoy:
Thanks for your offer, but there are several good reasons why there are no new photos in
the database:
- The original photos are copyright protected and we'd have to sign papers to be allowed to
edit them. Bummer. And all rights would still belong to AGSI.
- The files grow extremely large. I 'pirate-edited' one of the resource files in my early
Pooning days, and the file size soon made it impossible to distribute it over the internet.
- The simulator (especially Harpoon II) does not handle bad resource links well, and
crashes if it does not have the very latest version of the file.
So, Pooners will have to access other sources to look at their platforms. We are currently
working on a very large web-based encyclopedia and this will be available soon, in the
meantime Jane's and various web resources will have to do ☺
Philip Sanderson:
I have a suggestion to make.
Have you ever thought of releasing the changes to the [DB2000] database not as often as
you do? Say do a release every quarter, I think the work you've done on the database is
141
WAYPOINT
great but I get a little downhearted when I've downloaded all the scenarios and see a
couple of weeks later another version of the database has been released with the scenarios
updated (or is it me I've waited too long to download them). Which means I'll have to
download them again.
This in turn will mean you've more time to develop the great scenarios you do and other
scenario designers will be able to do the same. Instead of you having to re-build the
scenarios as you presently do????
Ragnar Emsoy:
The database is being continuously updated to reflect player requests (and we have tons of
those!), newly discovered data, and the real-world situation in general. The DB is in fact
updated several times a week, but in most cases these changes does not affect the scenarios
in any way and are not announced. We also carry out quite a few unannounced scenario
fixes and improvements: Last week we re-visited the Islands and Scud scenarios, this week
the first Falklands scenario, etc.
So instead of downloading all the scenarios every time, we only recommend you to
download the scens you intend to play during the next couple of weeks. And when you're
done, come back and download the latest database and another small set of scenarios.
Doing things this way will save you a lot of work and at the same time ensure you always
have the latest and hottests scens and database☺
Steve Mills:
I could do with a second opinion on something I have had happen in that “Polaris Hunters”
scenario and only this scenario.
I tested it out again just, not sure what’s going on or what it means, if anything.
Basically, if playing the Red side you run out of missiles pretty quick so its time to send in
the subs.
I have run this scenario a number of times and each time get the same thing. If you attack
the Italian group with subs, all seems to be pretty normal. You usually get some decent
torpedo shots in and get found sooner or later depending how noisy your sub is.
However, on several encounters I have tried attacking the other group mostly of Elli class
Greek ships (I think they are Greek anyway). I normally “cheat” for this and have a Helix
up as spotter just so I can be sure what happens. As I close with an Elli, nothing much
happens until I open fire. AT that point (and usually without fail) the Vittorio Veneto or
Garibaldi launches some 9 or so helicopters which head in line for my sub. When I say in
line, they literally form up and head on the exact bearing to intercept.
When I was testing out the miss/hit percentage just for the missiles I tried it again and
watched what happened. At 9 NM away from an Elli and with no other contacts about, I
fired a torp from a Victor III. Again 8 helicopters took off, formed a pretty line and came
towards the Victor III. They dropped one torpedo which headed straight in, no deviation
whatsoever and sank me.
142
This was a pretty long-range attack, so I would have expected the Elli to only get a fairly
weak contact if that. Is it possible for a torpedo launch to give such an accurate fix?
Similar attacks against, say, a Spruance don't seem to cause such a problem.
I'm going to do a bit more testing on it , see if I can work out what’s up. However wouldn't
mind you playing that one from the red side and seeing if you get the same thing?
Ragnar Emsoy:
Hi Steve, what happened was that the enemy detected the torpedo launch. There are a
number of helos attached to sub-strike missions, and once a sub is detected, they will take
off and try to sink it.
Torpedoes and torpedo firings are extremely noisy and can be picked up my most sonar
systems at pretty long ranges. The fact that the helos managed to sink you with the first
torp was probably pure luck, normally they need some time to pinpoint your location.
So, what you need to do is get closer to the enemy ships (3-5nm) and launch your torps.
Since the range is shorter, you'll be able to kill the surface ships and escape quicker.
Phil:
I ordered a copy of the game through e-sellerate, filled out my lok file and e-mailed it to
the correct place. I then went to the website and tried to download the latest version of the
game. I then unzipped it and I got an error.
First, the harpoon3_358.exe file size is only 2.33 megs? I think I'm missing something else
but I can’t find out what.
The error I get is: “The dynamic link library alleg40.dll could not be found in the specified
path”. Then it gives a path which is really long.
Ragnar Emsoy:
The OpenPlay and other DLL files are available for download on the Harpoon3 site:
http://www.harpoon3.com/harpoon3.html
Scroll down until you get to the ”Latest Version” section and download the OpenPlay
Libraries (the link is in quite small letters and perhaps not too easy to spot outright).
Put the TCPIP.dll file in the following directory on your computer: “\Harpoon3\OpenPlay
Modules”.
Is it working better now?
Antonio:
I don't know if it's just me, but I'm very confused with so many flavours of Harpoon. I
have Harpoon 2 and Harpoon'97. Harpoon 2 was upgraded to Harpoon 3. Harpoon'97 is
being upgraded to Harpoon'2002. Harpoon 4 is coming. I don't have money to buy them
all .
143
WAYPOINT
Where can I find a good comparison between Harpoon 3, Harpoon 2002 and Harpoon 4?
About graphics I have no [interest]. I'm more interested on realism comparison: platform
modelling, sonar, AI, map, database extension (e.g. Portugal is modelled in H'97/02, but
not in H3 and H4), etc.
Ragnar Emsoy:
The complete Portuguese OoB is of course included in the DB2K database for Harpoon3:
http://www.harpoonhq.com/db2000.html
The main feature of this Harpoon 3 database is that it does not only include the 'basic'
version of all military units since 1980, but also all sub-versions and upgrades. For
example, the Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruiser has no less than 69 database entries covering
all blocks, mods and main weapon configurations from 1983 to 2009. The F-16 has even
more entries, 117 in all if one also counts in the 2001 and 2003 versions of the Japanese F-
2 fighter.
The DB2K covers the complete OoB of more than 60 countries, and should contain most
all of the platforms you'll need for your scenarios. And if something is not there already, it
can be added as long as we have good info on it.
Sonar has by far the most complex sensor model in H3, and is a 1:1 implementation of the
real world. For example, detection range for passive hull-mounted sonar depends not only
on sonar sensitivity. The other main contributors are self-noise, self-speed, sea state,
background noise, layer, cavitation, plus the speed and noise level of the enemy submarine
or ship. The detection ranges for passive towed array, VDS, sonobuoys and dipping sonar
are all calculated differently from hull-mounted sonar, as the above factors influence them
in different ways. Lastly, there is active sonar, which is an entirely different matter
indeed☺
And as a last small note on sonar. H2/3 was designed primarily with the big slugfests
between the 80's Soviet Navy and the US Navy in mind, and it was assumed that nuclear-
powered submarines would be used almost exclusively in these scenarios. Since SSNs
have to constantly keep their reactor cooling pumps running, the developers decided to
have a constant noise level below 5kt. So it doesn't matter if you do 0kt, 2kt or 5kt. It's all
treated the same. Cavitation is also added for both submarines and ships doing full and
flank speed, which may easily result in counter-detection two, three and even four
convergence zones away.
More details on the db can be found here:

http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon2/db2000/features.html
Steve:
I seem to have run into some problems on trying to write a scenario for H3 and would
appreciate help and or therapy!
144
Is there a work round for the restriction on date change at all? IE say you have a date set
to 2006, you can change the date to 2000 and save it, but woe betide you if instead you try
for 1999.........
I have pretty much tried every combination I can think of and no luck.
Ragnar Emsoy:
Okay, there is a 'year 2k bug' in H3 ScenEdit ☺. So you cannot change century after you
have created the scenario.
There are two ways to overcome this problem: 1) make a new map and enter the correct
date, 2) use the Harpoon II Admiral's Edition ScenEdit. I have H2 installed as well, so if
you send the scen to me I'll fix it for you, no problem.
The other is an odd one, and I can't for the life of me think where I went wrong.
I have two sides so far. They are set to be hostile to each other. I have saved the scenario
several times as I went through and like good opponents they still hated each other.
This is an easy one; Since Harpoon3 allows you to create as many sides as you could
possibly want, it requires you to set the side postures outright when you create new sides.
After that, the postures are “locked down” and cannot be modified. But I guess that's what
you get with a sim offering this level of depth and realism, huh? ☺
But there are ways to come around this one:
1) Add a facility on each side, start the sim and let it run for 5 seconds. Then select the
enemy side's facility in the map and press 'H' (hostile). Switch side, highlight the
enemy facility and press 'H' again.
2) Make a strike mission targeting an enemy facility.
Now, all of a sudden they decided they'd be neutral. I can go back into the postures screen
as often as I want and reset it to hostile, but it simply defaults back to neutral each and
every time without fail.
So, did I miss any clues ?
P.S remind me never ever to do this again, and a very big thank you to all those who have
designed scenarios before, I honestly never realised how painful it could be.
Ah, these two issues were minor indeed, and very easy to fix. I don't think you should give
up on scenario editing just because of it. I bet that once you've added all the units and are
starting to get things up and running, you will find it quite rewarding ☺
Frans Koenz:
Is it possible to move ground units in a future [version]?
Ragnar Emsoy:
145
WAYPOINT
It is not currently possible to move ground units, but this is a planned feature in future
versions of Harpoon 3. This feature will be especially useful to simulate mobile SAM
sites.
(from a discussion on cluster-warhead weapons to simulate kamikaze units such as terrorist suicide boats)
Dale Hillier:
However, I have discovered another problem. The warhead I am using was developed
from the old DB2K nukes, from before the release of H3. They are based on “stages”,
where each weapon releases more warheads. A single “stage” weapon would release 8
warheads that would convert to missiles with sensors along a specific arc to cover the
major compass points. A second “stage” would release another 8 warheads per compass
point. And so on and so fourth. A single stage weapon would have 8 warheads while a
second stage weapon would have 72 warheads (one warhead for each cardinal and half-
cardinal point plus another 8 warheads for each point....8 x 9 is 72).
Finally, a third stage warhead could have as many as 576 warheads (72 x 8 = 576). Or
something like that....
Ragnar Emsoy:
According to the tests we made, the sub-warheads aquire targets randomly, and a large
number is needed to make 100% certain that all targets are destroyed (for nuclear
weapons).
Since the 'suicide boat' will only have to attack two targets, destroying one and damaging
the other, many fewer missiles will be needed. If you have three layers of 1, 4 and 4
missiles, chances are good you'll achieve what you want.
I may be a bit off with the Math (too damn lazy) but you can understand my problem is
two-fold.
First, there are too many warheads and second, the processing time could be a little too
high. In the case of a second-stage weapon where each warhead is equivalent to 600 lbs of
C4 (55 DP or so) that relates to a total DP of 3960. This will wipe out most platforms in
the DB. A little impractical for a bomb that's just supposed to damage a ship. Not create a
hole in the water ☺
Dale, if you use 1x4x4, a total of 21 weapons are generated. Assuming that all of then
carry warheads and 1/2 of them hit the target ship, giving each of the weapons a 5dp-
warhead should produce the desired result.
I tried reducing the number of warheads by creating a single-stage weapon

only. However, I discovered that most of the warheads still home-in on the target ship and
only one hit is required. More than one would be unrealistic.
Moreover, I also discovered that lowering the number of weapons also decreases the
chances of the suicide boat from being destroyed as well. This is a must, so I jacked-up
the PK% to it's highest allowable in the editor 255%.
146
However, with most of the warheads are still hitting the target I may have to reduce the
total DP of the weapon to be based on the number warheads and not the explosive
composition. In other words, instead of having 8 warheads each with 55 DP, I may have 8
warheads worth a total of 55 DP. This would mean reducing the DP of each warhead to 7
each. That way, most of the explosive power of the warhead is expended on the ship, the
Zodiac is destroyed and the target is damaged but not sunk.
No weapon in Harpoon3 will have a PoK higher than 95%. So there is always a 5% chance
that the terrorist bomb will not go off.
Steve Mills:
OK, I almost have the workings of a scenario and I think I'll probably do more work on it
before e mailing it over to change the date if that's ok.
There are quite a few bits that don't seem to be quite right though..............
Basically, I have two convoys heading in to around the English channel. One bound for
Rotterdam, one Liverpool. Each has around 8 varied NATO escorts and around ten
merchants.
Ragnar Emsoy:
8 escorts for 10 merchants? Sounds like an overkill ☺. It should perhaps be 2-4 escorts for
10 merchants, 10-12 escorts for 30-50 merchants.
I can’t for the life of me work out whether that's balanced or not.
Balance... what is balance?☺

A scenario should reflect real life, ditto for the victory conditions. So, both the battle and
the minimum victory conditions should be set to they produce the outcome they would in
reality.
At present, each ship is pretty good, they all have accurate names as far as I can tell, the
merchants look to be properly named also. However, the names for the convoys are an
uninspiring “convoy north” and “convoy south”, any better suggestions?
For convoy scens I think you can use 'CN #', like 'CN1'. Or “TG ##.#”, like TG 12.2.
OPFOR are a few AGIs, some PCMs all of which are largely to be sunk. They don't offer
much other than something for NATO to keep busy with. The main threat is some diesel
subs. these are all Russian, I am going to have to think of why they are at war in 1993
PCMs in the English Channel?

The subs are gonna eat the merchants for lunch. Losses will probably approach 30-50% if
the sub threat is high.
147
WAYPOINT
I was going to have an Echo, but can’t seem to get it to surface to fire? Regardless, I need
to drop the Russkie subs so that'll go I think as the convoys just got pulverized on the first
playtest run.
Echo subs are usually no good for this kind of attack, the missile's minimum range is too
short. Ditto for Juliett. Charlie subs are the best missile strikers in an scen without OTH
targeting.
The biggest problem I have though, is that for no apparent reason the subs seem to surface
now and then.
Uhm yeah I've seen this too... In most cases the water is too shallow.
I checked their patrol zones and all are at a decent depth. All subs are set to zones with
“patrol anti-surface” as it stands. Any clues why they surface in deepish water?
The water has to be -50m or deeper to prevent them from surfacing. In the English
Channel you'll be lucky to find water this deep.
And is there any way to make them open fire with torps at closer range? The AI
usually goes for a max range shot.
The AI will shoot when he gets a good firing solution ☺. Merchants are extremely noisy
and thus the AI will be able to fire at longer ranges. Shallow water helps, ditto for using
older subs (Tango instead of Kilo, etc).
Forgot the other one..... is there a way to get the merchants into nice lines or formations ?
The escorts are fine but the merchants I can’t get into a realistic convoy as it stands.
Yes: when you group a bunch of ships, their ASW patrol zone will be headed straight
north. Do not plot any courses or assign them to a mission at this time, just enter the
formation editor. Then set up the ships. See my “Atlantic Ocean” part 1 and part 2
scenarios for details☺
Well, we now have some whales and fishing vessels etc., however false contacts rather
bizarrely surface.
Wonder whether its related to the same problem as the subs?
All submarines without any orders will surface. When you add the False Contacts, they
will be unassigned and thus surface.
The easiest way to overcome this problem is to plot them a course. The false contacts
cannot move, and will never reach the end of the path. And thus stay “Plotted” for the
duration of the scenario.
Denny Taphorn:
148
Just finished re-reading "Red Storm Rising" and dusted off my HC97 CD, re-installed and
updated to HC2002. I started with the original Harpoon, was disappointed with glitchy
Harpoon 2 and enjoyed HC97 for some time.
Can anyone recommend the HC2002 scenarios that would come closest to re-creating the
battles of "Red Storm Rising" (for me, the best of Clancy's works).
Daniel Hayes:
Apparently Mr Clancy is a bit touchy about people "stealing" his ideas. However if you
like the work of Larry Bond (the creator of Harpoon), then Mike Mykytyn has built some
scenarios based on his book Cauldron. "Fight or Flight" is available at the HarpoonHQ
(http://www.harpoonhq.com/db2000.html) and deals with a US or Russia force attempting
to break out of the Kattegat. Of course if you want to write some RSR scens feel free, just
don't mention RSR in the scen I guess ☺.
Byron Audler:
What might you be looking for in the Harpoon2002 database? And as far as Clancy goes, I
wouldn't worry too much about him. If you look at the original battlesets of Harpoon
Classics, you'll note the fairly parallel those of Red Storm Rising. If you really want to
reenact a part of a Clancy book, simply include in the description of the scenario, an
acknowledgement of the author and the book which you took the idea from. After all, he'd
look pretty damn foolish trying to sue Joe Six Pack over a game scenario that doesn't make
anyone a dime.
149

Waypoint Issue 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waypoint Issue 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waypoint Issue 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the magazine about?

What is the magazine about?

Who are the main editors and contributors mentioned?

Who are the main editors and contributors mentioned?

WAYPOINT

THE MAGAZINE OF THE COMPUTER HARPOON COMMUNITY

LEGAL NOTICES, DISCLAIMER & COPYRIGHTS

FROM THE HQ ....................................................................................... 5

In the long run

o Microprose’s Gunship!, (what should normally be called Gunship III), is still

There is every indication that H4 is going to be a superb product, crafted by a dedicated

The February 2003 issue of the Journal of Electronic Defence

Tackling the problems of communications between

An unmissable resource for the serious student/professional of military technology, the

LOCATION: SOUTHEAST ASIA

Orders for Commander U.S. operations:

At your discretion. But, in order to be more specific:

FLAG: Paya Lebar

John Stennis CVBG

Harpoon Classic 97/2002

Kola III (EC2000 Norwegian Sea Battleset)

Good luck and good hunting.

Victory conditions are now as follows:

Blue Minimum Victory -- Destroy 3 Bases

Red Minimum Victory -- Destroy either carrier or 6 escorts

Doolitle II (A scenario for the EC2000 Norwegian Sea battleset)

Send comments to [email protected]

THE VET’S PEN

TACOPS — HARPOON ON LAND

By far, Harpoon 3 is the best tactical/operational-level naval simulation in my experience.

On the most basic level,

“Entries are added, updated or deleted as new information becomes available or

Browsing the database

Another similarity between the

Again, the player has a

This behaviour control provides the ability

CONFIGURING HARPOON 3 OPTIONS: .INI, .OPT AND

Part I: The Harpoon3.ini File

Section of Ini file Further Explanation

;==================================== The next section of the ini covers aircraft logistics,

; ==================================== Next, we’ve got a section designed for scenario

ClassRestrictionByCountry OFF *IMPORTANT: The DB2000 does not support

;==================================== The next section is allows you to change the default

;==================================== The next set of options really should be left alone

include a detailed file explaining how to change

;==================================== This next section deals with displaying latitude and

“Instant side ID” gives you the ability to know the

“Instant unit ID” gives you the ability to know a

“Instant Detect” enables you to see everything on

;==================================== The next setting is the Executive Officer Popup Box

;==================================== The next option is the executive officer assistance

; ==================================== The final selection is the mouse speed selection. To

Part II: Option Files

Option File Description

THE QUICK & EASY GUIDE TO DERIVATIVE PLATFORMS IN H3

Why Create Derivative Platforms?

Changes from original

Platform: Sverdlov II-class cruiser

Changes from original

Platform: Ohio-class SSGN