Waypoint Issue 2

WAYPOINT
THE MAGAZINE OF THE COMPUTER HARPOON COMMUNITY
Issue 2
January 2003
WAYPOINT
Front cover: A Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft cruises low over the Baltic Sea.
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 waypoint@harpoonhq.com. 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 (Sunburn_GR@hotmail.com) - Lead Editor & Publisher, H2/3 material
Ragnar Emsoy (Emsoy@yahoo.com) – Edito, H2/3 material
Michael Mykytyn (myky9735@yahoo.com) – Editor, H2/3 material
Kip Allen (kipallen@earthlink.net) – Wargaming veteran, “The Vet’s Pen” column
ISSUE CONTRIBUTORS:
Steve Mills (stephen.mills3@Btinternet.com)
Michael Putré (MP@Jedonline.com)
Harold Hutchinson (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)
Brad Leyte (bkleyte@nf.sympatico.ca)
Dale Hillier (daleh@nf.sympatico.ca)
Carlo Kopp
LEGAL NOTICES & DISCLAIMER

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.
3
WAYPOINT
CONTENTS
FROM THE HQ............................................................................................. 5

What is happening with Harpoon 4?
NOTICEBOARD ........................................................................................... 6
THE DOCKS................................................................................................ 13
Invasion of Norway (HC2002)
Coming Storm (H2/3)
Fight or Flight (H2/3)
Joint Exercise '02 (H2/3)
IN DETAIL................................................................................................... 20
BOOM! (H3)
BOOM! - An interview with the designer
BOOM! - After Action Reports
TECHNICAL ............................................................................................... 30
The infamous H2/3 Mission Editor - Part II
Harpoon on Video-replay
JED SPECIAL.............................................................................................. 55
I will be your escort
Support-jamming and force structures
THE ART OF WAR .................................................................................... 65
Playing the Red Side
After Action Report - Invasion of Norway (HC2002)
Tactical problem: Denying the Gulf
PLATFORM PROFILE .............................................................................. 82
JAS-39 Gripen
Halifax-class FFG
Collins-class SSK
Su-24 Fencer
THE FAQs .................................................................................................... 98
Q & A .......................................................................................................... 110
4
FROM THE HQ
What is happening with Harpoon 4?

This is a question that is on all our minds these days and is one of the most contentious
issues on anything Harpoon these days. Given the amount of questions that we receive via
email and posts we read, we thought it appropriate to address this issue.
First and foremost, we (the HarpoonHQ crew) do not have anything directly to do with the
development of this product. All of our information is the same that you receive and
generally from the same sources. We do not mean this as a rebuttal but in the interest of
being honest with our readers. Our sources include the various simulation web sites,
gaming magazines, various retail outlets and by far the most valuable, the official Harpoon
4 Forum and site at Ubisoft’s main site. The developers of the game actively participate in
the forum and they will answer questions. This is your best source and can be found at:
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/overview.asp?name=Harpoon_GD&page=1
Now that being said, there is a lot of static noise out there. Everyone is speaking his own
mind about the game. While comments of hope and anticipation by most of the community
do anything but harm, others express unnecessary skepticism and pessimism. We hardly
consider such an attitude as positive for either the game itself or the community.
Moving beyond that, the game has taken forever to get here. Its history is troublesome by
the developers own admission, and we may (probably will) not get everything we asked
and hoped for. This bugs us as well, as we all have been very patient and have the same
expectations as every reader out there (well, almost every reader). However, the game is
still in development. If the developers didn’t care about the simulation and didn’t believe in
the product they would have dropped it long ago. But they have kept on, against
conventional market mechanics and common financial wisdom. So give them a chance,
have faith and wait until the game hits your hard drive to make a judgement. If the game is
no good, you can always take it back – and complain about it till eternity. Remember, all
flavors of the Harpoon series received some negative press at release for one or other
reason; however, we are still using and enjoying them today.
Finally, have fun with your hobby. Life is too short to worry if the developers are screwing
the next version up. We have three marvelous versions of the simulation to work with and
we fully expect the next version to be the same. Have faith, bide your time and have fun ☺
Harpoon HQ
By the Players for the Players
5
WAYPOINT
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
(waypoint@harpoonhq.com) and we’ll credit you with the piece of news reported.
The first issue of Waypoint was an overwhelming success. The HarpoonHQ site server
nearly collapsed from the load placed on it – it is quite illustrative that over 700 downloads
were performed within 36 hours after the issue was published! We would like to thank
everyone who contacted us to provide feedback, to share their opinion on the issue and
encourage us to proceed. This sort of welcome reinforces our belief for the need of such a
magazine in the computer Harpoon community and further solidifies our commitment in
providing the best news & content to our readers.
We received a couple of notifications on certain problems with the first issue. One was that
the hyperlinks were not working correctly, so in cases where the full URL was not visible
the readers could not follow the hyperlink if they wished to. This was verified and
confirmed. As of this issue, all hyperlinks are printed in their full URL form so that such
problems can be avoided.
There was an interesting exchange of information recently on the Yahoo H3 group,

regarding the operational status of the Harpoon Blk. II missile. Mo first posted the
following:
My question is regarding the removal of Harpoon Blk II in the latest [DB-2000 version]. Yes, as of right
now (and even I am not really sure of this) I don't think there is a Blk II in the fleet. But it will happen very
very shortly.
Right now if you are sending your Blk 1C for maintenance [to Boeing], you should receive a Blk 1G (re-
attack capability) because they will not make the 1C anymore. That is exactly what will happen with the 1G
for the Block II very shortly. The Danish bought the full system and we Canadians bought the AHWCS
(Advanced Harpoon Weapon Control System) that will make us able to use to it's full capability the 1C and
1G.
We will probably received the Blk II shortly (we just need a very [small] modification it seems by Boeing).
So yes the Blk II is on it's way and Harpoon is still well alive. I got a presentation on this lately and the block
II will have tremendous new improvements (littoral, [capable] against jammers, land suppression....). I
should be the first one to launch a Harpoon with this new AHWCS (integrated) next year!!
Ragnar Emsoy responded:
I've been searching the web for info on Harpoon Blk II, and the articles I've found say that the Harpoon
II missile will not be purchased by the USN and will only be available for export. No money have been put
aside in the US defence budgets for it. IIRC, Denmark, Egypt, Israel and S Korea have bought the missile so
far, and possibly also Taiwan. The US will participate actively in the development effort as a means to
bridge the gap between the current ICR (aka IG) and the Harpoon follow-on missile in 2010-2015 (that is,
if there will be any such thing as a direct Harpoon follow-on weapon...).
6
Larry Bond has provided some clarification/explanation on the –10% DP modifier for
ships of Soviet/WP construction standards. (This modifier is also being used on the
computer versions)
[The reason for the modifier] isn't that they're Communist. Russian design philosophy makes damage control
more difficult. Russians don't try to maintain their vessels at sea.
Equipment is packed in tightly, which saves space and reduces displacement, but also means you can't fix it
underway. That, in addition to the shoddy workmanship, is what earns Russian surface ships a -10% dp
modifier. Note that the subs don't get it, because sub builders put more effort into quality control. Countries
that follow Soviet/Russian design philosophy, like Yugoslavia, will also have the -10% penalty.
I would not put East-German designs on that list [of countries that have the modifier], because their stuff is
of higher quality. Poland as well. Of course, a ship built to Russian design in an East German yard will still
have the modifier.
So the list would be: Russian surface ship designs wherever built, and all warships designed by the following
countries: Albania, Bulgaria, India, PRC, Romania, Yugoslavia.
Ragnar Emsoy recently posted on the Yahoo H3 group an interesting alternative view on
Cold War Soviet naval tactics & doctrine, based on his recent research on the subject:
Tom Clancy and most other [authors] were often wrong in their asessments of the Cold War, and the battles
described in their books would never have taken place in real life mainly due to USN and Soviet doctrines
and tactics. For example, 'The Battle for the North Atlantic' would not have taken place in the North Atlantic
but rather in the Norwegian Sea (as per Reagan's 1980s Maritime Strategy). The US would be sending the
2nd Strike Fleet up to try to neutralize Soviet air power and submarine bases on the Kola Peninsula (and/or
captured bases in Norway), and the Soviets would be using their bombers and submarines to try to destroy
the US carriers. The winner of this battle would be the one controlling the Atlantic Ocean, and thus, the
winner of the war in central Europe.
We've been doing some major in-depth research on Soviet naval tactics (I can strongly recommend obtaining
a copy of Milan Vego's book “Soviet Naval Tactics”) while building the WW3-in-1985 scenarios [for
Harpoon 3], and all of our sources (not including Tom Clancy and a few others, of course) say that the
Soviets would not have sent Backfires into the Atlantic, but instead used them as in-theatre bombers against
NATO carrier battle groups in the Northern Sea threatening the homeland, and against reinforcements and
amphibious groups headed for Norway.
He also provided some insight into the effort that goes into scripting a good enemy AI for a
scenario – in this case, his latest grand creation, “Clash of the Titans”:
I used two very different methods to set up the Backfire and the Badger attacks. The methods only work in
one-sided scenarios, and if you want a similar scenario to be playable from both sides you'll need to create
two separate copies of the scen; one for each side.
For the Backfires I added them to a 'remote' air base, assigned them to a 24h DELAYED strike mission and
manually ordered them to take off. The airbase is the place they'll return to after firing their missiles, so you
might want to use an invisible 'remote' air base if you want the egress route to be in a certain direction. Also
remember to set 'AUTO DETECT' to off, to prevent the player from detecting the base. I then started the
game, and once all the Backfires were airborne I grouped them and moved them to the rear areas where the
player could not detected them (protected by a threat zone) and plotted the courses. I then programmed the
7
WAYPOINT
waypoints and set altitude, speed and EMCON state, and tested it repeatedly (again and again and again
and...) until the Backfires behaved the way I wanted them too. Fine-tuning the attack and coordinating it with
the SS-N-12 strike truly took a LOT of time :)
At this stage the scenario was getting pretty large, so I decided to start with the 80 Tu-16s on the ground. I
then tested the scen to find the optimum take-off time, and manually programmed the escorting MiG-23s and
MiG-25s. All of the fighters are airborne at game start and are set up the same way as the Backfires above.
It is extremely important that all the targeted units are destroyed by the raid, or else the AI-controlled
bombers will take off and attack the targets again. A second wave would not have been launched in real-life,
so the AI must be prevented from doing just that in the simulator. So I set up the Backfires and Badgers to go
after only a handful of targets and made sure there is a 99% chance these would be destroyed. To cover the
last 1% I also added the invisible 'Nothing' aircraft carrying big bombs that would finish off any survivors.
Some of the Nothings carried USET-80s to make it look like the ships were sunk by SSNs. Since the Backfires
are using a separate 'remote' airfield I also set up an aircraft threat zone around the base. The threat zone
will not affect aircraft returning to base, but will prevent the Backfires from going anywhere if all of the
above methods have failed and the AI still decides to launch.
Anyway, the big secret behind successfully carrying out such a strike is really to keep the fighters busy, but at
the same time sticking to real-life tactics. I first sent in recon aircraft, then the high-speed MiG-25 fighters (to
also kill a couple E-2s), then more recon aircraft escorted by MiG-23s, more MiG-23 escorts, a wave of SS-
N-12s, and Tu-16 jammers. Lastly, I sent in the [Backfire and Badger] bombers.
The January 2003 issue of the Journal of Electronic Defence treads into the waters of next-
generation warship design for the European naval forces. Both technological and
operational concerned are analysed in detail, along with a brief status report on the major
development programs currently underway. Some other quality picks from this month’s
issue include:
Soviet/Russian SEAD doctrine, tactics and

equipment – an often-overlooked segment of
Russian air power analysed and examined.
The integration of UAVs with manned

assets in future air operations.
Precision emitter location using the

Frequency difference of arrival (FDOA)
technique
Plus a wide variety of news and reports on

military & technological subjects from
around the globe.
An key resource for the serious Harpoon user, JED can be accessed online at the following
address: www.jedonline.com. The browsing of both current and past issues requires a free
registration.
8
A new major release of the DB2000 is out, v6.3. Here are the release notes by Ragnar
Emsoy:
There are quite a few new features in this version of the database.
The most important update is the complete redesign of all fire-control systems using datalinked missiles.
This includes AEGIS, Patriot, NASAMS, SA-10, SA-12, SA-N-6 and quite a few others. Earlier in
Harpoon2/3, these systems were only limited by the number of 'channels-of-fire' available. So if a certain
system could handle up to 16 missiles in flight in real life, the player and AI could easily cheat by shooting
two missiles at each target and putting 32 missiles in the air at once. In the DB2K v6.3, these systems are
now limited by BOTH their radar AND the number of datalinks available. So if your system allows you to
put 16 missiles in the air, you can choose between shooting one missile each at 16 targets, or two missiles
each at eight targets, etc. Visual command-guided weapons have also been corrected, and are now limited to
firing only one or two missiles per launcher, depending on type. Semi-active radar homing missiles will work
as they did before, ditto for fire-and-forget missiles.
The datalink channels available to the various systems in the DB2K are as follows:
- AEGIS SPY-1A/B/AB: 24 (declassified number often set to 18. But most sources say 12 targets can be
engaged simultaneously, and since the USN always shoot two missiles at each target, the number of
datalinks has to be 24.)
- AEGIS SPY-1D: 18 (guesstimated)
- AEGIS SPY-1F: 8
- NTU ships: 4-8 depending on class
- APAR & Sampson MFR: 16
- Patriot battery: 16
- NASAMS platoon: 8
- SA-10 battery: 6
- Arrow battery: 12
- Polyphem battery: 4 (one per launcher)
- Sky Bow II/IIA: 8
- THAAD: 16
++ many more
Other systems:
- SA-5: 2 per guidance radar
- SA-19: 2 per launcher
- SA-12: 2 per launcher
- Rapier: 2 per launcher
- Chaparral: 2 per launcher
- Crotale: 2 per launcher
- ADATS: 2 per launcher
- Bamse: 2 per launcher
- Barak: 2 per launcher
- Roland: 2 per launcher
- TOW: one per aircraft
- HOT 1/2/3: one per aircraft
- AS-11/12: one per aircraft
- All Russian ATGMs: one per aircraft
- Nike Hercules: one missile per missile tracking radar
++ many more
Next, we've fixed the problem with certain air-to-air missiles like AIM-54, AIM-120, Patriot PAC-3 and AA-
12 Adder sometimes going after the wrong aircraft or missiles, and then leaving a permanent 'target
designated' flag on the intended target. Complex long-range aerial engagements will now work according
to “the book”.
9
WAYPOINT
We've also added proper acoustic decoys and submarine simulators to all US, British and Russian
submarines. Database additions include:
- MOSS submarine simulator on all US SSBNs in the 1980s
- MG-74 submarine simulator on all Russians subs from Victor II onwards
- CSA Mk1 on all US subs
- CSA Mk2 Mod 0/1 on later Ohio, I688 and Virginia subs
- CSA Mk3 on Seawolf
- TAU 2000 acoustic decoys/jammers on German Type 212 subs
Other database additions:

- MQ-1B Armed Predator, the type used in Afghanistan and Yemen, armed with 2x AGM-114K.
- Many types of SpecOps helos, incl AH-6C/F/G/J/M Little Bird, MH-6B/E/H/J/M Little Bird, MH-60A/K/L,
MH-47D/E.
Database updates and bugfixes:

- A bug that prevented the Tactical Tomahawk from launching in some situations has been fixed.
- 65-76 was retired in 2002, and Russian 1990s subs are now armed with this torpedo.
- ERGM speed has been reduced, it now needs almost four minutes to reach 40nm, as in real life.
- All USN pre-AEGIS cruisers updated, verified and corrected.
- Barak bug fixed, the missile will now launch as intended.
- AH-1W have received AGM-114K from 1995 onwards instead of AGM-114B
- JAS 39A/C Gripen loadouts updated
- Corrected Collins SSK sonar systems
- B-1B FLIR removed
Larry Bond, the creator of the original Harpoon wargaming rules, has teamed-up with
several members of the HarpoonHQ crew in a major endeavour to consolidate database
research for all current and future versions of Harpoon, both for computers and
table/miniatures. The ad-hoc group responsible for this undertaking is known as the
Harpoon Database Group (HDG) and the first results have been extremely promising. The
HDG is continuously improving the datasets for all versions of Harpoon 24 hours a day
(this is not an exaggeration: the different worldwide locations of HDG members are
actually a benefit in this case, allowing a rotational shift of work and seamless exchange
of information). The work of the HDG is expected to benefit both current and future
releases, including the much-awaited computer-Harpoon 4.
An interesting article on satellite-guided munitions, written by Michael Putre of JED fame,

is featured on this month’s Scientific American. You can read it here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=00077F6F-F037-1E19-
8B3B809EC588EEDF (registration is required).
Some news and tidbits, courtesy of the HDG:
France has decided to go with the MM.40 Block III. This has a jet instead of rocket
motor, range increases to 97.2 nm with the seeker from the Block II. It probably
has a number of programmable waypoints and will be fitted with GPS for land
attack. Service entry is planned from 2006; the Block III fits the Block II tubes.
10
The Russians have released information on two previously unknown Alamo AAM
versions, both with PRH guidance. The standard range R-27P [Alamo E], and
extended range R-27EP [Alamo F]. Neither has been exported.
The Sapson targeting pod is expected to enter service with the Russian Air Force in
2004 or 2005, it has a 2nd Gen FLIR and laser designator. The rotating head has
full 270 degree arc visibility, weight is 250 kg.
The TACTOM (Tactical Tomahawk) is due to enter service in 2004. Guidance is

I/M/GPS, range increases to 1512 nm, the warhead is a 318 kg (44 DP) penetrating
type. The midcourse allows retargeting, and the missile can loiter awaiting a
mission. It will be available as a torpedo tube-launched version, as the RN does not
have VLS fitted to any of its submarines.
The Standard Block IV (RIM-156A) entered service in August 1999, the Block
IVA (designation RIM-156B) was cancelled in December 2001. SM-3 is still
planned to enter service for ATBM, designated RIM-161A.
The UGM-84 sub-launched Harpoon was removed from the USN inventory during
1996/97, to save the costs of upgrading them to the ICR/IG version.
The heavy 650mm torpedo 65-76 was retired from Russian submarines by
February 2002, after the Kursk accident investigation showed that the explosion of
such a torpedo was the likely cause of the loss of the submarine. This has left the
conventional-tipped SS-N-16 variant as the only 650mm weapon in use by Russian
boats with such tubes. Most 533mm weapons however can still be used from those
tubes, by using appropriate adaptor liners.
The Sniper XR targeting pod has been selected by the USAF for its strike-fighter
fleet. This has a 4th Gen FLIR, TCS and laser designator. It was planned to enter
service in 2002. The export version, Pantera, and has been ordered by Norway for
the F-16 MLU.
A slightly improved version (v2.1) of Paolo Moneta’s H3Launcher utility is available for
download at the Utilities section of the HarpoonHQ site (www.harpoonhq.com/utilities/).
The new version fixes some bugs and updates the documentation for the program.
As this issue was going to press, we were informed by Craig Paffhausen that he is
preparing two biggie articles for next month’s issue. The first will revolve around
Tupolev’s modern supersonic bombers and the second will deal with the family of missiles
classified by NATO as “AS-4 Kitchen”, a family that spawned a much more varied and
numerous range of weapons that NATO realised throughout the Cold War. If Craig’s past
research endeavors are anything to go by, these articles are going to be extensive in every
sense of the word. We’ll be waiting with anticipation for his work.
11
WAYPOINT
STOP THE PRESSES!!! We actually had to delay the publication of this issue
for the sake of including the following news, but we think you’ll agree it’s worth it. Jesse
Spears (developer of Harpoon 3) has posted the following, on the upcoming v.3.5.9 version
and on the long-term future of H3:
I'm currently looking at the [custom] AC Ready-Times. I hope to put it in the next update [v.3.5.9]
Regarding the other bugs: The refuelling/rearming/reloading problems are very tricky, and I may not be able
to fix them. I hope I can, but after wasting a lot of time on them in the past, I'm not sure they are something I
can fix, because I don't really know how they are supposed to work in the first place.
This may be something that just has to wait until I can release the code to the general public and allow
people to build their own DLL's. I'm not sure I've talked about that in public before, so a brief description. I
intend to build (and maintain) two versions of the game:
1. One will work just like the current version (1 Application, with OpenPlay DLLs for Mac and Windows, and
the Allegro DLL for windows).
2. The other will be composed of 1 main Application, and a separate DLL for the most of the code (or
possibly a bunch of DLLs for the various parts of the code: Arena, Navigator, Map, Math, etc.). The
OpenPlay DLLs and the allegro DLL will also still be required. I will make most of the code available for
anyone to download and work on (i.e., essentially Open Source), and as long as you have a way to build
DLLs that work with your System, you can edit the code however you want and make whatever modifications
you want.
The advantage of #2 is the same for any Open Source 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 the Open Source project.
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).
This is something that I've been considering for a while, mainly because of the involvement of the Australian
Military (they may be funding this project, or maybe not, or perhaps just partially funding it).
In any case, I intend to move forward with this over the next few months, as time permits (I've got at least two
other upcoming mods for the Aussies in the works, but this might be snuck in between the two).
We will certainly deal with these groundbreaking developments in greater detail in the
forthcoming issues of waypoint. Until then, stay tuned!
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 (waypoint@harpoonhq.com) and share it with the community.
Harpoon Classic 97/2002
Invasion of Norway
By Fred Galano
The discovery of oil deposits in Northern Norway has led to border disputes between
Russia and Norway. Recently Russia has seized territory in Northern Norway including a
Norwegian airbase. NATO is tasked with sending in SEALS to take out Russian SAM
sites and to repel the invasion.
Briefing - Orders for NATO:

• Locate SA-10 SAM sites placed by Russians near Northern Power Station and
Bradufoss AFB. Use SEAL teams to destroy above SAM sites (position SSN
Kamehameha within12 miles of SAM sites and sink same using Mk 48s, stay in
area for 2 hours)
• Important: Do not conduct airstrikes until SAM sites neutralized
• Damage Northern Power 50%
• Attack Russian Troop positions in North
Harpoon 3
Coming Storm
By Michael Mykytyn
Its 1984 and South Africa is on the verge of collapse. Soviet and NATO naval task forces
have martialed to the area to force their desired outcome. Can you swing the tide?
Designer Notes:
This is another Cold War joint based on an AAR on a paper rules battle posted at Nick
Moran's website: http://www.club.ie/exalted/harpoon4.htm
This scenario includes antisubmarine, anti-surface, and air warfare and is playable from
both sides. It has a duration of 6 days and is meant to more of a fun scenario then one that
represents reality. Good Luck and let me know how it goes.
By the way... Check the weather of this one – Thanks ☺
13
WAYPOINT
Scenario Briefing:
USSR:
Situation Report
************************************
The War of liberation in South Africa is going marvelously. Our Cuban and African
comrades have pushed the South African Army back to their cities and their collapse is
imminent. We have tasked a large naval force South to land our forces to support a final
attack on South African forces and ensure victory.
NATO has taken notice of this and is expected to intervene as they have done in the past.
We cannot allow this, and must keep NATO from further intervening in necessary events.
As such, you have been given permission to begin offensive operations in the African
theater of operations.
Orders
************************************
1) Landing force Kuznitsa centered around Ivan Rogov must land in proximity of Dhurban
South Africa (Reference Point 37). TF Molot has been tasked to provide fire support on
SA forces which must be suppressed before the landing can occur.
2) KGB forces suggest a NATO landing at Port Elizabeth, South Africa. This group must
be destroyed or significantly destroyed.
3) Nato forces in your AOR must be significantly damaged to prevent their usage in
support of land operations. Special attention must be paid to NATO capital ship units.
4) Your forces in the AOR must be protected so that they may support future operations in
the theater.
Intelligence:
************************************
Intelligence services suggest that NATO naval force is composed of American and British
units. They all suggest that that the landing group is British and an Illustrious class CVHG
is in attendance. The American battleship Iowa also appears to be in the area. Expect many
more smaller antisubmarine warfare and surface combatants. NATO submarines are also
expected in theater. Expect SSN types due to proximity from homeports.
NATO airpower appears to be relatively light. There have been no major movements of
attack aircraft south and the embarked Wing on Illustrious seems to be the only threat. Due
expect MPA aircraft to be in attendance.
South African forces have been diminished but not destroyed. They may be able to provide
NATO with some assets. These include limited airpower, diesel submarines and a small
FFL squadron.
Good Luck.
Clarification of Victory Conditions

************************************
1) Destroy Port of Durban facilities (4 SA Army companies, 1 Durban Commander)
14
2) Destroy Iowa, Illustrious and Leahy Class CG

3) Destroy 2 Merchants, LPD Fearless and 2 LSL class ships
4) Destroy 8 other ships
5) Get 1 MRCH class vessel to the Victory Condition Area (Reference Point 37) and it
must remain their for 6 hours.
NATO:
Situation Report
************************************
War in Southern Africa has raged well over a year. Soviet/Cuban backed forces pushed
south sending a unprepared South African Army into a delaying action. Given the
Communist backed forces relative successes more and more nations began to add to their
manpower. South Africa fought gallantly but their forces are falling apart and only have
control of the capital and a few coastal ports. The Soviets have taken notice and have sent
a powerful taskforce to drive a final nail in resource-rich South Africa's coffin.
Given the probability of War most of our resources are tied up in preparing for action in
Europe. We have made a reasonably large collection of resources available to you. These
include a US SAG centered around USS Iowa, a British CVHG centered around Illustrious
and a British Amphibious Group centered around Fearless. Several submarines have been
tasked to your AOR as well as some British assets on Ascension Island. The South African
government has also granted you control of the remainder of their naval forces and strike
aircraft.
Orders
************************************
1) You must land your Amphibious Force at Port Elizabeth within six days. This group has
a mechanized regiment embarked as well as much needed supplies for the South African
Army. You also must supress all enemy forces in Port Elizabeth. You can accomplish this
through airpower or naval gunfire support.
2) Soviet forces are most likely going to attempt a counter-landing at the port of Dhurban.
You must destroy or significantly damage this group.
4) Soviet Forces in your AOR must be destroyed. Capital ship units are your priority but
you must deny the Soviet Fleet the ability to influence the outcome of the land battle.
5) You must protect your in theater assets to support future ground operations. Your
capital units must be protected as well as a bulk of your fleet.
That is all. Good Luck
Intelligence
************************************
15
WAYPOINT
Significant Soviet Forces have arrived enmass to the South African theater. These forces
appear to be a mix of Northern Fleet and Mediterranean Flotilla assets. SIGINT suggest
group composition are as follows:
• One CVHG centered around Kiev and or Kirov. One to two Kynda or Kara class
cruisers appear present in this group as well as smaller ASW combatants.
• One SAG centered around the Slava CG. Numerous other surface combatants
appear present including the new Sovremenny class destroyers.
• One Landing group centered around Ivan Rogov. Expect Alligator class LST's as
well as Soviet flagged merchants with a Mechanized Brigade embarked.
• The submarine threat is unknown. The berth in all Soviet ports have been emptied
but given proximity expect SSN and SSGN class submarinees to be present.
• The air threat seems light but expect MPA have been detected operating out of
India and Soviet bases in Africa.

***********************************
1) Destroy Kiev, Kirov and Slava
2) Destroy 6 other combatants
3) Destroy 3 LST's, and 2 merchants
4) Get two Merchant Vessels to the victory area for 6 hours (Reference Point 23)
5) Destroy ground facilities in Port
Elizabeth area (4 Rebel Companies and Port Elizabeth Command Center)
Fight or Flight
By Michael Mykytyn
One of two scenarios based on Larry Bond’s Cauldron. In this one, like the book, you are
in command of a small but powerful US escort group which has found itself in the worst
possible position to be in at the beginning of a major conflict: You are in confined waters
with no support and must escape to the North Sea before you are destroyed. Can you pull
it off?
Designer Notes:
1) I recently reread this novel and really wanted to recreate the situation. So I am sorry if
it seems a bit uncreative, but I really did want to try it out to see how I'd do and thought I'd
share it. If it’s any consolation I did change the OOBs a bit.
2) I also would like to note that the theme (Euro vs. US) is not something that sits well
with me. I will leave it at that ☺
3) You will notice that the US group is ungrouped. This was intentional, as part of the
challenge is figuring out the best formation and micromanagement is encouraged (its more
fun).
4) Scenario Duration: 2 Days
16
Scenario Briefing:
Situation Report
************************************
The President’s ultimatum for Eurocorp forces to leave Poland has passed. Unfortunately,
you are stuck in the middle of the Kattegat with no hope of reaching the port of Gdansk
before hostilities commence. You are in prime position to be attacked and must escape!
Orders
************************************
You are ordered North through the Kattegat and west into the Skagerrak, into the safety of
the North Sea at best speed. You must protect a majority of your group with an emphasis
of protecting CG Leyte Gulf. Eurocorp’s intentions are not known yet but do not fire on
Eurocorp units unless fired upon. (Clarification of Victory Conditions to follow).
Intelligence
************************************
The surface threat in your AOR is confirmed. There have been numerous missile boat
sightings off the German coast as well as several Frigates. They were reported well south
of your position but well within intercept range.
The Air Threat is confirmed. Numerous MPA assets have been detected as well as German
and Frence strike aircraft operating from coastal airbases.
The sub threat is unknown but expect diesel submarine activity in your AOR.

************************************
Top Level Victory: Get 4 ships in victory area (box marked by ref points).
Normal Victory: Get 3 ships in victory area (box marked by ref points). Protect Leyte Gulf
from more than 50 percent damage.
Fight or Flight – The Russian Version

By Michael Mykytyn
This scenario is the same as FoF, except you are in command of a Russian escort group
instead of American. This scenario is based on a situation in Larry Bond's novel, Cauldron.
There is a slight modification in the order of battle. I hope you enjoy it.
Designer Notes:
1) This scenario is a borrowed idea.
2) This scenario does feature a Eurobased Opfor. They are a great fictional opfor and by
no means reflect any opinions about Europeans.
3) Scenario has a duration of 2 days.
Scenario Briefing:
17
WAYPOINT
Situation Report
************************************
Eurocorps forces have invaded Poland, and our President's ultimatum for them to
withdraw has expired. Hostilities are imminent and you must withdraw before becoming
the first target.
Orders
************************************
1)You must withdraw North through the Kattegat and West through the Skaggerak into the
North Sea (marked by ref points).
2) You must retain a majority of your command intact, with upmost importance on
Marshal Ustinov.
Intelligence
************************************
Expect heavy air, sea and subsurface opposition.

************************************
Top Level: Get 4 ships to victory area (marked by reference points 1-3)
Next Level: Get 3 ships to the victory area (marked by reference points). Prevent Marshal
Ustinov from taking more than 50 percent damage.
Joint Exercise ‘02

By Ragnar Emsoy
LOCATION : SOLOMON / BISMARK SEA

DATE/TIME: 15 DECEMBER 2002
Over the recent years Kamaria (a large hypothetical island state 400 miles to the north of
Papa New Guinea) has stepped up its claims to Northern Mainland Papua new Guinea.
These claims have been supported by a sophisticated information operations campaign
aimed at shaping the world opinion on the issue, gaining regional acceptance of Kamaria's
emerging military pre-eminence, and orchestrating a clandestine de-stabilization program
across all levels of government in Papa New Guinea.
The devastation wrought by the recent tidal wave on the north coast of Papa New Guinea
has allowed Kamaria to initiate it's campaign to annex the northern mainland under the
guise of humanitarian relief. At the request of the government of Papa New Guinea,
Australia will initiate an operation to firstly prevent further lodgment of Kamarian forces
on the mainland whilst trying to persuade Kamaria to withdraw its existing forces, and
secondly to employ military forces to expel them should they refuse. As the US is
committed elsewhere, the mission will essentially be an Australian led joint, rather than
combined, operation.
18
Designer Notes:
This is a slightly modified version of a scenario built by the HarpoonHQ team on request
from Robert Carpenter, Australian Defence Simulation Office, for use in an unclassified
exercise held in late November 2002.
Scenario Briefing:
ORDERS FOR CMDR AUSTRALIAN FORCES
INTEL:
The most likely Kamarian course of action is further lodgment and controlled escalation of
the conflict. A range of Kamarian operations may eventually force Papa New Guinea into
allowing the entire northern mainland to be annexed. Unconventional operations, designed
to trigger Australian deployments remote from Papa New Guinea is also likely.
MISSION:
Conduct operations by an Australian led force to protect Papa New Guinea. The key to
defeating any Kamarian expansion will be the speed and effectiveness with which
Australian forces can contain the initial lodgment, and curtail any subsequent force build-
up.
EXECUTION:
Isolate Kamarian forces on papa New Guinea with air and naval blockade and interdiction
operations, and launch coordinated combined strike operations by air and maritime
elements.
Bring Task Force 1 to Madang to establish a forward operating base in Papa New Guinea
in order to facilitate subsequent operations. The task force must arrive at the destination
within 48 hours. The area is marked by Ref Points 20-23.
Only 32 air-launched Harpoon missiles are available at this time.
COMMAND AND SIGNAL:

Headquarters - Brisbane
Recommeneded EMCON State: B
19
WAYPOINT
IN DETAIL
This is where a selected scenario or application gets under the microscope and is being analysed in
excruciating detail. Why it was made, how it was made, how the designer/developer did his homework (or
not), what innovations are there (if any), what past users have to say about the scenario/application, after-
action reports (if applicable), is it popular and why etc. etc. New creations as well as timeless classics may
apply. Any favourite scenario of yours that you’re willing to write an extensive review on? Write to us.
BOOM! (H3)
By Dimitris V. Dranidis
For those of us born during the 60s and 70s and coming of age in the totally funky decade
of the 1980s, “War Games” was
one of those genre-defining movies
that stood out of the crowd and
provided ample food for thought –
on different things to different
people. For computer geeks, it was
the precursor to the Internet
revolution that followed a few
years later. For the rational
layperson, it represented the deep-
rooted public fears of the late-
70s/early-80s about a coming and seemingly unavoidable nuclear war that might start from
anything – a confrontation in Central Europe, a stand-off in one of the peripheries, or even
something as “innocent” as a young hacker accidentally connecting to NORAD’s internal
computer network. It could be argued that War Games was Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe
for the 80s, capturing the essence of trip-wire paranoia as effectively as these 60’s classics.
For military buffs, it offered a new perspective on ultra-modern warfare – a war fought not
“on the beaches and on the streets” (to poorly quote Churchill) but in front of giant
computer screens, controlling vast military forces not with the aid of a thousand staff
people but with keyboards and trackballs. In short, it was a revelation that influenced pretty
much everyone who witnessed it.
When Michael Mykytyn set out to attempt to recreate this surrealistic-meets-technothriller

atmosphere with a use of a Harpoon scenario, his was certainly not an easy task. First, there
was the subject of research: nuclear forces are notoriously more difficult to find solid info
about than is the case with conventional forces – and for good reason. Then there is the
setting of the scenario. The Northern Far East, Bering Sea & Alaska region has not been
often represented in scenarios either in Harpoon or any other major public-domain military
simulation; as a result, OOBs and general information about the military forces in the area
is sparse and inconsistent. Coming up with a plausible background setting for a limited
nuclear exchange across the Bering Sea without the employment of ICBMs and/or SLBMs
was also a headache.
20
Perhaps the greatest hurdle to the creation of such a scenario, however, was the fact that
nuclear weapons were never properly enabled in Harpoon 2. The simulation designers had
allegedly implemented the relevant code but did not get around to properly finishing,
testing and activating it. As a result, although nuclear weapons were present in Harpoon 2
from the very beginning, they could not be employed (the user would always get the
“Nuclear release not granted” when trying to use them).
To face this problem, Mike turned to Ragnar Emsoy’s experimental “nukes”. Ragnar had
been trying a way to get around the
problem of the “nuke-ban” by creating
conventional-weapons that would act in a
manner similar to nuclear detonations. He
exploited a very useful feature of the H2
database structure, the ability for a
warhead to be itself a container for other
warheads or weapons, and eventually
came up with what was essentially a
“super cluster bomb” method: the original
“pseudo-nuclear” warhead contained
thousands (32768, if memory serves) of smaller lightning-fast warheads, each of which
contained an equally huge number of smaller-yield warheads etc. To simulate the effect of
the blast wave diminishing in strength with distance, each successive pack of “child”
warheads had a smaller DP value.
The effect of this implementation was that, when the mother-warhead hit the target,
literally thousands of individual HE warheads pulverised the attack target itself, while at
the same time releasing tens of thousands of warheads in every direction, simulating the
tremendous blast wave of a nuclear detonation. These warheads would, in turn, strike any
surrounding objects and destroy them (or seriously damage them if they were exceptionally
resistant) and release their own packs of sub-warheads. This would continue at an
expanding rate of warheads generated (and diminishing DP values at the same time) until
the “blast wave” would be determined to dissipate to a non-damaging value at a certain
distance calculated by the nuclear yield simulated.
While adequate for the purposes of

emulating the function and (blast-
generated) effects of a nuclear warhead,
this method had an inherent weakness: the
spawning of literally hundreds of
thousands of warhead & missile objects
(the blast wave representatives) and the
resolution of their impacts was able to
bring even the most powerful PC literally
to its knees. This meant that the impact of
a nuclear weapon would usually be
followed by a really long pause of the
21
WAYPOINT
scenario’s virtual time, as the game engine would perform all the number-crunching for the
blast calculations (due to the extreme speed of the sub-munitions, their impacts had to be
calculated at the same second of game-time). This would get much worse when a nuclear
warhead would detonate on or close to an airfield complex. Due to a pre-existing bug in
Harpoon 2 (one of the myriad of bugs fixed in H3), runways were virtually indestructible to
all but the heaviest-hitting projectiles & warheads. This would bring the simulation to a
standstill as the successive simulated “blast waves” would attack the runways again and
again, repeatedly damaging them 100% but not actually destroying them. This problem
persisted until the early versions of Harpoon 3, when the proper code for nuclear
detonations was finally implemented and activated, eliminating the speed problem.
The scenario itself starts fast and

furious, with the player having to
scramble all his available forces (both
fighters/interceptors and bombers, as
well as support units) as soon as possible
in order to avoid destruction on the
ground. The fighters have to be quickly
spread around in the optimum positions
to intercept the incoming Soviet
bombers, while the bombers are best
kept in airborne alert stations together
with their refuellers until a proper attack plan can be devised and executed. The Soviets are
going to give you a hard time, first pounding your peripheral early-warning radars (hint:
preserve them if you want to survive a nasty surprise much later) and right afterwards
directly attacking your airbases with nuclear weapons. Better make sure your interceptors
are lined-up and in depth or else you’re in for a lot of fireworks consuming your bases.
After riding out the Soviet onslaught (with whatever results; you do have at least one
surviving base to return to.....right?), it is time to start thinking about returning the favour.
Ideally you should have all your bombers and tankers up by now, in safe marshalling areas
protected by some of your fighters; now you have to figure out how to best use them. You
have your weapons, and you have your orders: destroy several peripheral strategic targets
protected behind a thick air-defence screen. Breaking through that multi-layered screen
with nothing but gravity bombs, short-range missiles and possible some fighter escort
(cheap-shot cruise missiles don’t apply) will be your test, and your mission.
“BOOM!” has stood the test of time

remarkably well since it was first released.
Even with the show-stopping “hacked”
nukes of H2 it presented a fresh, exciting
and novel canvas for experimentation of
tactics. With the fully-working nuclear
warheads of Harpoon 3, as well as the
fixing of the terrain-following bug, the last
excuses for not giving it a go have
evaporated. The players have spoken:
22
BOOM! is by far the most downloaded scenario ever for Harpoon 2/3, and possibly for the
entire computer Harpoon series. Certainly no small feat for a person who, in his own
words, simply wanted to recreate the feeling of a favourite movie of his in Harpoon.
BOOM! – An interview with the designer, Michael Mykytyn

By Dimitris V. Dranidis
First of all Mike, what was your motive for constructing such a scenario?
The idea for the scenario came primarily from the movie “War Games” which had been
running on the Turner Networks at the time. For those of you unfamiliar with the movie
(Ed. You’re kidding, right?), a US supercomputer is designed to plan and command US
nuclear forces in the next war. It does this by designing/playing through a series of war
scenarios looking for the best options. A young hacker/gamer breaks into the thing looking
for a good game of Thermonuclear War. The computer thinks it is real and immediately
brings the US and Soviet Union to the brink of war. It is only in the end when the
supercomputer “understands” that the only way to win a global nuclear war is not to play,
that war is averted. It had this image specifically, of a huge computer display of Soviet
bombers penetrating the Alaskan air defence zone, which was particularly moving (even
more so than the ICBM trajectories frequently displayed). So when I sat down in my dorm
room to write the thing, this image was still fresh in my mind – and I think the scenario
shows that pretty evidently.
I think movies of this era very powerful in that they had great influence on those of us who
were born and grew up in the post Vietnam, Cold War United States. They were products
of the 1980's experience of Perestroika, Glasnost, Reagan and Gorbachev. Some others
which truly capture this theme and influenced BOOM are: Red Dawn, By Dawn's Early
Light, Firefox, The Fourth War, Red October, Crimson Tide, The Day After and The
Fourth Protocol. (Ed. You forgot Threads and Fail-Safe ☺)
Why did you place the scenario dateline at 1984 and not some other time?
I really didn't want the scenario to be a cruise

missile toss. The ACLM was in service at the
time but didn't think it would be too fun to
launch and launch if you know what I mean. I
thought it would be fun to see if I could
penetrate a stiff defence to deliver those
weapons.
23
WAYPOINT
What difficulties did you face during both research and the scenario design itself, if any?
(game engine limitations etc.)
I had a few difficulties with the research aspect of writing the scenario. First, of all a lot of
the stuff had an aura of secrecy around it until the mid nineties, some of it up until today.
All the information is open source but is difficult to find because it really didn't start being
consolidated until recently. Another problem is conflicting data, a problem which I think all
of us scen-designers are fairly used to. Lots of open sources out there but they don't all
ways jive. Finally, while US data is difficult to find and sort, the Soviet data is not even in
the same league. I still question what was there and when but I think I came close. At least
I hope.
As far as difficulties with the game engine, the scenario was originally written with the H2
version of the product. I think we all remember the limitations, but game speed and
nuclear weapons were some of the biggies. Ragnar did a real good job with the nuclear
weapons, although due to game speed limitations they would take awhile to resolve. So if
you launched them and they actually hit something you knew you had enough time for a
bathroom-break or perhaps a sandwich. Game speed also affected my OOBs. I had to get it
just right to run at a tolerable speed. That issue still influences my OOBs today.
What were your primary research sources for the scenario? (incl. OOB)
My primary resources on the internet was FAS, but there were numerous small bits of
information on literally hundreds of sites which I had to go out and grab. The Google
Search engine helped tremendously but it’s overall a very grueling process. I was in
college at the time so money was an object. I had numerous other book sources but don't
recall as they were just some seventies and eighties era coffee table types.
Now that being said I know I got some of it wrong. There are an airbase or two missing and
maybe some differences in the Order of Battle. Some great guys have come forward to tell
me that and I really appreciate it. There's something truly wonderful about somebody
liking your work enough to actually do their own digging to find out if it’s correct. It makes
all those hours worth it, even if I was wrong ☺
The scenario is lacking some top-line platforms and weapons from both sides (F-16C,
MiG-29, MiG-31, Tu-22M-3, AGM-
86B, A-50 etc.) that were already in
service at the date you have chosen
for the scenario. Why were these not
included?
Well that goes back to what I was

discussing before and what was in the
respected theaters at the time. My
assumption is that in a war (or high
probably of one) a lot of these units
24
would be moved to where they were needed. I figured that a lot of resources would be
drained in the move to Europe or seemingly more important theaters. I also wanted to
explore some of the lesser-known combatants and incorporate the US Air National Guard.
The enemy AI in "Boom!" is quite aggressive, both in offensive and defensive

operations. How did you program the enemy AI and what limitations (if any) of the
engine did you have to work around?
This scenario is where I discovered how poor air patrol mission are and the effectiveness of
the air intercept mission. If you really want an aggressive enemy air force always assign a
bulk of your air defence fighters to intercept and a couple to patrol. I had several builds of
the scenario and this one seemed to offer the best challenge which is why I still enjoy
playing it occasionally. There are some caveats to setting up the missions and patrol zones
all of which I've put into the scenario editor article.
Why do you have all aircraft from both sides starting on the ground? Since the nuclear
escalation in the scenario is assumed to be the result of conventional conflict having
started elsewhere, shouldn't the air forces of both sides be on a high alert, with
reinforced air patrols, airborne alerts for the bombers etc.?
Habit I guess. I tend to always start my scenarios this way, which is probably due to the
nature of normal H2 scenarios. No harm done as the scenario starts with a level playing
field.
As far as airborne alerts, if you look at
the numbers, both forces have suffered
a good deal of attritio n. My sources
tell me that by the mid-early eighties
there had been a wing and a squadron
of F-15's as well as some F-16's, A-10's
etc. etc. As far as bombers on alert
station, I always believed that they
were generally arrayed for an over-the-
horizon attack. BOOM was designed from the outset as a limited nuclear strike scenario. I
really just wanted to see if I could penetrate Soviet defenses and hit with short-range
missiles and a gravity bomb. It suited that purpose ☺
Since the scenario was first created and published, were there any significant
modifications to it? (For example, as a result of updated DB2000 data as well as your
own improved experience in scenario design)
There were very few DB-related changes. However, the move to H3 had a great impact on
the scenario, which called for a couple modifications. First and foremost, nukes now work
as they should so you don't have time to go get that sandwich and second the Soviet nuke-
25
WAYPOINT
armed SAMs seem to work a bit better. So the platforms within the scenario went through
the some changes but the overall design is more or less the same.
We recently had some upadated information on various aspects relevant to BOOM, for
example various nuclear and conventional versions of the AS-4 missile and others. Are
you planning on incorporating this new data into the scenario in the future?
Hehe, loaded question. I've gotten a lot of input on it from those that have played it and my
suggestion to all those out there is to do with it what you wish. So, if somebody out there
has a BOOM II in mind go right ahead. I've always viewed scenario writing as a way to
share my ideas with somebody else, so what a better credit to the original idea than having
somebody come back at you with an improved or better design? There are some writers out
there who feel that some of their works are the Holy Grails of the Harpoon world and that’s
a very knuckleheaded way of thinking. There is always somebody out there who has an
idea that will make it better or rewrite the thing all together. That makes it fun for me, to
keep working and to explore other ideas. BOOM was a great experience but I fully expect
somebody to do better ☺. Like I mentioned earlier, the real credit you get is knowing that
somebody liked your scenario enough to look into ways to make it better.
26
BOOM! – AFTER-ACTION REPORTS
By Ragnar Emsoy
The time is 1984. The United States has gone to DEFCON-1 and your orders are to
commence a limited nuclear strike on Soviet strategic assets in Siberia. The targets are the
Anadyr air base plus SS-19 and SS-24 sites.
I started off launching eight F-4Es from Elmendorf AFB, eight F-106As from Bethel and
Galerna airfields as well as two AWACS. I set the fighters up in pairs along the Alaskan
coast to protect my assets from Soviet aircraft while I assessed the situation and planned
my attacks. I decided to use only three B-52s, all armed with 20 AGM-69A SRAMs, and
16x F-15C (in groups of four a/c) to sweep the skies ahead of the bombers, with 16x F-16s
providing close-in defense. Although risky, I also decided to use two AWACS to provide
early warning and C3 for the strike package. 15 minutes into the scenario all B-52s and
escorting fighters were airborne, and under manual control, I set course for my targets in
the Far East, 900nm away. I soon picked up several bogies headed for Alaska at high
speed, and I sent elements of my strike package as well as a number of my F-4s and F-106s
to investigate. In spite of my efforts I only managed to shoot down four Tu-22M-2
Backfire-Bs and the remaining bogies destroyed three of my early warning radar stations.
One radar was lost to an ARM fired only seconds before the launching aircraft got nailed
by an AIM-4G. Hmf!
The F-16 and F-15 fighters joined up with the bombers

south of Nome in western Alaska, still 400nm from the
main target. I now prepared the final run for the target
and set up my Eagles in a 100nm wide barrier, followed
by the B-52 and F-16s 50nm further back and with the
AWACS' another 100nm back and out on the flanks.
180nm from Anadyr, the main target, my F-15s started
engaging enemy fighters, first a large wave of MiG-25s
followed closely by MiG-23s and Su-15s. As four of my
Eagles fought their way forward I noticed a wave of SA-
5 Gammon SAMs headed directly for the group. To my
big surprise the missiles had nuclear warheads and the
first SA-5 missile killed all four fighters. *IRRRGH* But
the positive side, the blast also brought down three
enemy aircraft. Anyway, I now took up a more defensive
position and concentrated on getting the B-52s close enough to launch; 110nm. The first
SRAM was launched at 14:00 and it was targeted at one of three Soviet EW radars east of
Anadyr. This first missile was soon followed by to more, and seconds later all three sites
had been wasted. As soon as I was within range of the Soviet air base I started launching
several SRAMs, carefully spaced to prevent more than one being caught in the blast at a
time by those nuclear Gammons. And soon it was all over for the Soviets. The sixth SRAM
scored a hit, which destroyed everything within a radius of 10nm. BOOM! A handful more
missiles destroyed the SS-19 north of the city. At 14:21 I destroyed the last target, a SS-24
train to the south of the city, and my B-52s headed home.
27
WAYPOINT
Then, as had happened once before, I detected multiple fast bogies approaching Alaska
from several directions. I sent my Phantom and Delta Dart fighters to investigate and shot
down eight Backfires, however 12 more managed to penetrate and, using nuclear-armed
AS-4 Kitchen cruise missiles, destroyed the Bethel and Galerna airfields! OUCH!!! I barely
saved Eielson AFB from destruction, too, thanks to a pair of F-4Es and a HAWK battery.
Finally, as my strike package entered Alaskan airspace again, the game announced I had
won. Hurray!
US Soviet
Losses: Losses:
8x F-15C Eagle 14x Tu-22M-2 Backfire B
10x F-16A Falcon 22x MiG-25 Foxbat E
+ numerous facilities and radars, incl. two 14x MiG-23 Flogger B
air bases that were nuked. 17x Su-15 Flaggon F
6x Tu-128 Fiddler B
+ lots of facilities, including SS-19 silos and a
SS-24 train, and nine SAM sites.
Expenditures: Expenditures:
16x AIM-7F Sparrow 24x FAB-500 GPB (General-Purpose Bomb)
58x AIM-7M Sparrow 13x AA-7 Apex A
2x AIM-9J Sidewinder 16x AA-7 Apex B
34x AIM-9L Sidewinder 20x AA-6 Acrid A
21x AIM-9M Sidewinder 15x AA-6 Acrid B
10x AIM-4G Falcon 6x SA-5b Gammon (Nuke)
32x M61A1 Vulcan 20mm Burst 12x SA-5c Gammon (Conv)
15x AGM-69A SRAM 12x AA-3 Anab A
10x MIM-23B I-HAWK 11x AA-3 Anab B
9x AA-5 Ash A
8x AA-5 Ash B
26x AA-8 Aphid
1x SA-10b Grumble
3x SA-14 Gremlin
12x AS-4 Kitchen (nuke version)
Overall this is a great scenario. There is lots of action, yet it is short enough to be played in
a couple of hours. It is also the first Harpoon 3 scenario designed for the use of nuclear
weapons.
By Dimitris Dranidis (not strictly a proper AAR, but interesting & entertaining nevertheless)
I was giving Mike Mykytyn's "BOOM" scenario another go yesterday and had 2 single B-
52Gs coming towards Anadyr from two different directions, their fighter escorts having
broken-off shortly before (after a bloody clash with what must had been the entire FE
district's PVO force). Both of them were literally scraping the treetops, hugging ridge-roots
and generally doing everything possible to deny radar-LOS. The northernmost B-52 was
28
about to get exposed to a SA-5 battery (flat terrain for awhile) and had nothing but B-83s,
so I pop the other Buff into a steep rise to min launch altitude, launch two SRAMs to the
SAM site and bring it back down in the weeds (and dodge yet another AA-3 from a trailing
Su-15TM in the process). The SAM site had by now
secured a clear lock on the northern Buff and two SA-
5s were already in the air. 20 seconds to intercept, 12,
9 then BOOM!!! the SAM battery goes up in a 170KT
fireball just 5-6 seconds before the missiles would go
active on their own. The explosion also toasted two
interceptors just above the site, which created a
temporary gap through which the B-52 raced at full
throttle.
At maximum toss-range from Anadyr, I brought it up as quickly as possible in order to toss

the bombs outside the deadly terminal defenses of the airfield. Needles to say that this also
advertised its presence to anyone who was not already on its heels. 2 B-83s pickled, then a
crash-dive to the (relative) safety of terrain-hugging flight. Too late... 3 MiG-23Ps and a
Tu-128 were in pursuit and just waiting for this chance, missiles converge from
everywhere, the Buff disintegrates in mid-air.
Now that blue-on-blue was not a concern, I bring the other bomber again up to minimum
SRAM launch height and the rotary launcher comes alive, spitting out missiles like there is
no tomorrow. 12 SRAMs in the air and the bomber gets back down again. The missiles are
widespread-targeted on various facilities around Anadyr and impact almost simultaneously
with the 2 B-83s. The entire area is transformed into a living inferno as the multiple
thermonuclear detonations combine their heat and blast waves to destroy everything,
including multiple pairs of fighters having just scrambled off the runways. The southern
Buff had little time to celebrate as it was shot down shortly afterwards on the egress leg - a
pair of MiG-25s had belatedly joined the party and their deadly AA-6s caught up with it
easily. The follow-up pair, 2 B-52Gs with nothing but SRAMs on board, prudently broke-
off and headed back towards Elmendorf for the first pit stop.
29
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.
THE INFAMOUS H2/3 MISSION EDITOR – PART II

Scripting the AI behavior – The professional way
By Michael Mykytyn
On the last issue, Part I dealt with the basics of the mission editor – creating new missions, selecting the
mission type, assigning forces to each mission etc. In Part II, we’ll see all the different types of missions that
can be assigned to units in H2/3, together with hints and tips for each of them.
Lesson 3: Understanding the Missions that can be assigned in the game.
Harpoon 3 offers a bunch of specific missions that I hope to explain to you clearly here.
There are 13 mission types possible. They are: Plotted, Transit, Ferry, Air Intercept,
Ground Strike, Ship Strike, Sub Strike, Patrol AAW, Patrol ASU, Patrol ASW, Support,
Recon Ground and Recon Ship. Plotted is a mission that is assigned outside the scenario
editor using the tool bar and the rest are assigned from within the mission editor. I will
explore each mission type, their functions with each platform type and give some tips and
tricks in using each one.
FIRST, AN IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT MISSIONS AND THE PLATFORMS

ASSIGNED TO THEM:
Any unit, which can hold an aircraft, is subject to a certain nuance within the editor. When
the host platform, such as a ship, air base etc. are assigned to a mission the aircraft that it
holds are assigned to it as well. This is not beneficial in most cases. The reason being is
that mission assigned to the aircraft may not be its logical or efficient usage. In fact, you
will see that if the parent is assigned to a mission that requires it to reach a reference point
the aircraft which has been assigned as well will launch and attempt to reach this reference
point. There is some value if you wish the aircraft to scout ahead but in most cases another
mission will put better usage to said aircraft. You can avoid this by unassigning the aircraft
from the mission (using the “u” key) and then assigning it to a mission of it’s own. You
may also use the formation editor to give this aircraft another mission with it. As a rule
when I am playing, I always go into the mission editor and unassign my aircraft from the
missions assigned to the host unit before I start the scenario.
NEXT, A NOTE ON ANY PLATFORM THAT CARRIES A WEAPON:

At the start of game play any platform that carries any sort of weapons will strike the first
identified enemy unit if it is not assigned a mission. Tomahawk carriers in particular are
30
guilty of this and may salvo them off at the first land unit detected. This may be a problem,
as you may not wish to be the behavior. Assigning them a mission will prevent this
behavior from taking place.
PLOTTED MISSION:
This is perhaps the most common mission you can create. It is not done within the mission
editor but done with the tool bar on your display window. To create this mission simply
select the platform you wish to assign; assign its speed with the speed/altitude tool, assign
its course using the navigation tool and assign the EMCON using the sensor tool. The
platform you chose will then follow the course you have assigned to the letter (meaning
expect no deviations from what you ordered them to do). You will notice that as you click
on your map a line will be dropped and a small triangle will appear where you clicked.
These work like waypoints. So as you drop them, you may also change the speed and
EMCON of your plotted unit, which will change as you reach these points.
Aircraft Assigned to the Plotted Mission: Aircraft can only be assigned this mission if
they are airborne (a.k.a. you dropped them into your game using the add unit selection).
These platforms cannot be assigned this mission independently if they are landed on a ship
or at a facility. Aircraft assigned to the plotted mission will follow the course and speed
you give them provided that fuel constrictions allow. They will engage any hostile
platforms in their path but will not deviate to engage. Also keep in mind that their sensor
arcs are pointing on the course they are traveling. When aircraft reaches the ends of its
plotted mission it will it hold at loiter speed and its last assigned altitude. Assigning
aircraft to this mission is not recommended if you wish to have a repeatable mission.
Ships assigned to the Plotted Mission: Ships assigned to the plotted mission will follow
the course and speed you give them provided that environmental conditions allow.
Meaning as you do this you must make sure the navigation paths are clear of land, the
weather is agreeable and you have fuel
to make the trip. Ships will engage any
hostile along their path with any
weapon available - however, they will
not go out of their way to engage. So
if you have Harpoon missiles with a
range of 75 miles, the ship is not going
to maneuver to engage a target 80
miles away. Also keep in mind that if
a ship must activate its radar, the radar
will remain active for the duration of the scenario. When a ship reaches the end of its
plotted mission it will set itself to 0 knots and will be facing the course it was traveling on.
Subs assigned to the Plotted Mission: Subs assigned to the plotted mission will follow the
course, speed and depth you give them provided that the environmental conditions allow.
Meaning as you do this you must make sure the navigation paths are clear of land, the
weather/sea state (when surfaced) is agreeable and you have the fuel to make the trip
31
WAYPOINT
(double check those diesels). Subs will engage any hostile along their path with any
weapon in their tubes; however, they will not go out of their way to engage. If you have a
target at 25 miles and your torpedo range is 22 miles they will not go the three more miles
to attack. They will not load a tube with a harpoon to reach the target either. You must also
keep in mind that the sub will change its depth (higher) if the sea gets shallower. It will
retain this depth through the rest of the transit even if the sea gets deeper again. Once it
reaches the end of its path it will remain at 0 knots, remain at its last traveled depth and be
facing the course it was traveling prior to reaching the end of its path.
Facilities assigned to the Plotted Mission: Facilities use this mission when they are
assigned an EMCON state. Anytime you assign a sensor state using the tool bar the facility
will be marked as being in a plotted mission. It will engage targets if they come into range.
If you select the intermittent setting for any radar/sonar there is an extra step involved.
This was described above in the Basic Operation of the Mission Editor. Look for the
special section titled mission sensor intermittence.
Tips and Tricks of the Plotted Mission:

The plotted mission offers no attack/defense AI enhancements but is the best navigation
implementation in the game. It allows you to assign any course, speed, or altitude as the
platform allows. So you can have circular paths, zig zags, transit doglegged waters etc. So
always think of this mission as just a navigator in nature with no concept of attack or
defense.
You can use this mission with AC to design your own little strike groups. For example if
you attempt to create a Regimental Backfire Raid using another mission your AC are often
bunched up or streamed along in a long line of raiders. If you like, you can use the plotted
mission to make each AC independent, creating a regimental raid that is wide not narrow.
(Check out Ragnar's scenario, Clash of the Titans for this effect). Keep in mind, however
that this takes careful planning.
THE TRANSIT MISSION:
The purpose of a transit mission is to move a platform from one point to another. This is
accomplished by placing a reference point (preferably your destination); selecting it (which
will make it into a triangle); opening up the mission editor and creating the mission. You
will then have to make sure that the unit you want to transit is selected and you press okay.
Your platform is now assigned to that mission.
Ships assigned to the transit mission: Moving ships is the primary reason this mission
was designed. It is simply a means to move one of these platforms from one point to the
destination you chose. Ships will always default to their cruise speed. I suggest using one
reference point as H3 has a hard time with multiple reference points at this time. It is a
direct path mission and if you wish twists, turns or a custom path use the plotted mission
type.
32
Subs assigned to the transit mission: Moving subs is another reason this mission was
designed. It again is a way to move a submarine from a start point to a destination point.
Submarines will always default to their creep speed and go to the deepest possible depth. I
again suggest using one reference point as H3 has a hard time with multiple reference
points. It is a direct path mission if you wish twists, turns or a custom path use the plotted
mission type.
Aircraft assigned to the transit Mission: This mission will not work at all for aircraft. If
an aircraft is airborne and assigned to this mission it will simply return to base. If an
aircraft is grounded and assigned to this mission it will not launch.
Facilities assigned to the transit Mission: Facilities will not work at all for this mission.
Tips and Tricks with the Transit Mission:

To create variability in this mission always set a delay of one minute. This way the
actually path will be subject to change every time the scenario is started.
When using this mission always create and assign one reference point. It is possible to
assign more but the AI seems to have trouble finding them. It will keep to the general areas
around the points but seems to get confused with the order at which to reach them and will
often follow strange paths.
Keep in mind that once your platform/group reaches the reference point it will not stop. It
will continue trying to reach the reference point but will start a series of turns all around the
compass constantly trying to reach the reference point. It will not move a mile from it and
will appear to be twisting and turning.
This is actually beneficial as it lets you anchor units to it. Hence if you have a ship in port
or a unit which must remain still it is an excellent anchor (the only one by the way). The
ships will turn and twist but they will stay there. Units that have a zero speed (such as
SOSUS) will stay in place trying to meet a reference point they'll never get to (hence
staying in place).
THE FERRY MISSION:
The Ferry mission is specifically designed for the movement of aircraft from one air-
capable platform to another. It is accomplished by selecting the destination air capable
platform (Air base, Carrier, and Frigate), creating a Ferry mission within the mission editor
and selecting the AC to accomplish this mission.
Aircraft assigned to the Ferry Mission: Moving aircraft from one aircraft capable
platform to another is the reason this mission was designed. The aircraft will always travel
at cruise speed and at high altitude.
33
WAYPOINT
Ships, Submarines, and Facilities assigned to the Ferry Mission: The Ferry mission has
no function with these platforms and will automatically unassigned if attempted.
Tips and Tricks with the Ferry Mission:

The destination air base must be within the aircraft's fuel radius to work properly. The AI
seems to compute fuel as a typical mission. So you could only fly so far out before you
have to return to your home base in fear of running out of fuel. The AI doesn't take into
account that you are flying to another base that may have fuel. So once your aircraft hit
their maximum fuel radius they will return to their home base regardless. It does let you
launch the mission (which in other cases it will not if it knows you do not have the fuel) but
will send your AC back to base once they hit the fuel radius point. So before assigning this
mission change the range to the destination to be sure it is within your fuel radius to ensure
this mission works properly.
This is an excellent mission type for neutrals. Its most common use is for airliners and
airlift assets. You can assign replacement to be flown out to a carrier but the AI will not do
much with them unless it has AC assigned in its formation editor.
THE AIR INTERCEPT MISSION:
The purpose of an intercept mission is, as it name implies, to intercept an enemy aircraft. It
is set simply. All that you are required to do is to select the intercept mission in the
mission editor, click okay and select the platform you would like to accomplish this
mission. The only nuance with this mission is that something must detect the aircraft and
identify it as hostile. An undetected or unidentified aircraft will not trigger this mission.
Aircraft assigned to the Air Intercept Mission: The

description of the mission above pretty much covers it.
Aircraft assigned to this mission will fly at high
altitude, the fastest speed and with the EMCON to what
you set it until it reaches weapons range or must search.
This mission makes AI aircraft very aggressive.
Multiple aircraft may be assigned to the same air
intercept mission.
Ships assigned to the Air Intercept Mission: Assigning a ship to an intercept mission has
no effect. The ship will stay assigned to it, will engage enemy AC or ships in its
engagement envelope but will not move to intercept any enemy aircraft. The ship's course,
speed will remain constant, which is the default course and speed set when the unit is
placed. The ship also keeps the EMCON state assigned to it in the mission editor until and
enemy aircraft enters its surface to air missile range where it will go active to engage.
Subs assigned to the Air Intercept Mission: Assigning a submarine to an intercept

mission has no effect. In fact assigning one to this mission is detrimental, as the sub will
34
remain at periscope depth. Subs with SAM capability will engage enemy AC but only if
they enter the engagement altitude and will not maneuver to intercept.
Facilities assigned to Intercept Missions: Assigning a facility (such AAA or a SAM unit)
has no effect. The facility will stay assigned to it, will engage enemy aircraft that enter its
engagement envelope but no further benefit is granted.
Tips and Tricks for the Air Intercept Mission:

This mission is perhaps to best way to produce a very aggressive AI airforce particularly
with an enemy AI that has many detection assets available to it. Provided an enemy is
detected and identified the air units assigned to this mission will attack relentlessly. Their
sensor arcs will always point in the proper direction. As mentioned above it is not without
limitation. The enemy aircraft must me identified as a hostile before any intercept is
triggered.
THE GROUND STRIKE MISSION:
The purpose of the ground strike mission is too destroy a ground facility. There are two
types of ground strike missions you can perform. The first is setting a ground strike
mission against a known target. The second is setting ground strike missions against an
unknown target.
The ground strike mission against a known target is simple. You can see this target so to
set this mission up you just select it, create mission, select ground strike and then assign the
platforms you would like to strike it with. This mission ends with the destruction of that
target.
The ground strike mission against an unknown target is just as easy. This mission is for
targets of opportunity that pop up as your sensors begin detecting enemy facilities. All you
need to do is create a mission, select ground strike, assign your platforms and then you are
done. The AI will launch strikes as new facilities are detected and will not end until there
are no more ground targets, weapons are expended or the game has ended.
Aircraft assigned to the Ground

Strike Mission: The designers of
Harpoon 3 incorporated a very neat
feature with the ground strike mission.
It is the ability to create your own
strike packages. What this means that
as you assign attack aircraft/bombers
to this mission you also have the
ability to assign supporting assets with
it such as fighters, jammer aircraft and
SEAD. Just be aware as these
35
WAYPOINT
missions are launched they will be broken up by aircraft type and weapon type. So your
fighters will be one group, as will your attack AC and SEAD flights. They will, however,
support each other. The only limitation is aircraft speed as your fast fighters may arrive
much faster than your lumbering bombers. Careful planning and mission mixing can help
this. These missions will continue until the assigned target is destroyed or the scenario
ends.
Ships assigned to Ground Strike Missions: Ships can be assigned to ground strike
missions as well. As above you can strike known targets and targets of opportunity. These
missions are assigned as described above.
You do need to keep in mind one thing. If ships have long-ranged weapons such as
Tomahawks they may fire them at the first ground facility it sees regardless of the assigned
mission. They will then attempt to engage the assigned target with whatever weapons it has
available to it.
Subs assigned to a Ground Strike Mission: Subs can be assigned to ground strike
missions. Again the same method is used to assign them to this mission and they can
engage known and unknown targets. They will again go to periscope depth to engage their
target which makes them vulnerable. Again they may strike the first unit that they "see"
and in range of their weapons. The best strategy to overcome this is to make sure that the
first unit seen is the facility you wish to destroy.
Facilities assigned to a Ground Strike Mission: Facilities can be assigned to a ground

strike mission as long as they have a weapon that can perform that function. If they do not
they will simply sit there. These missions are assigned by the above mentioned methods.
Tips and Tricks for Ground Strike Missions:

When planning a strike mission against a base (a group of facilities grouped together) I
would suggest ungrouping them and assigning your platforms to strike specific targets.
The reason why is that the AI may not choose the wisest first targets. In fact, given that
runways are nearly indestructible it may not be a wise idea to waste munitions on them.
Your best bet is to un-group the base and specifically target the hangars, revetments, ammo
dumps and fuel dumps. This will guarantee an airbase’s destruction without wasting
munitions and aircraft.
Strike missions are generally straightforward but extra planning pays off. Simple time-on-
target calculators are available out there on various web pages to assist you. You do not
have to always assign your support aircraft/units to the same mission. You can create
separate missions within the mission editor to accomplish your tasks. Creativity is key.
If you have a strike passage that has aircraft of different types and different numbers you
have another challenge to deal with. Few aircraft launch quicker than many. So if you
have a strike package that includes 1 Prowler and 4 Intruders (with the same bomb load). .
Remember that due to the nature of the Strike Mission the Prowler will launch
independently and the Intruders will launch as a four-plane group. This means that the
36
Prowler may be well on it's way before the Intruders can begin their journey. This may not
be your desired result, as the Prowler would be extremely exposed. To overcome this
problem I suggest separate Strike Ground missions with similar number compositions and
careful calculation of the times each aircraft will reach the target.
Keep in mind that these missions do not allow you to waypoint. So your attacks will
always be on a direct line from their home base.
If your in a situation where many units are detected at once and you've got a ground strike
mission of the unknown target assigned the AI tends to strike enemy units in the order that
they were created.
Always keep in mind that ground strikes against known targets end when that target is
destroyed and that ground strikes against unknown targets are perpetual.
THE SHIP STRIKE MISSION:
The purpose of the ship strike mission is to destroy enemy ships. There are two types of
ship strike missions you can perform. The first is setting a ship strike mission against a
known target. The second is setting ship strike missions against an unknown target.
The ship strike mission against a known target is simple. To set this mission up you just
select it, create mission, select ship strike and then assign the platforms you would like to
strike it with. This mission ends with the destruction of that target.
The ship strike mission against an unknown target is just as easy. This mission is for
targets of opportunity that pop up as your sensors begin detecting enemy ships. All you
need to do is create a mission, select ship strike, assign your platforms and then you are
done. The AI will launch strikes as new facilities are detected and will not end until there
are no more ship targets, weapons are expended or the game has ended.
Aircraft assigned to the Ship Strike Mission: The designers of Harpoon 3 incorporated
the same neat strike package feature with the ship strike mission as with the ground strike
mission. You would incorporate it as
mentioned above. Always keep in mind that
your AC will take the flight characteristics
that their weapons require. You may also
use this feature to make sure your strike
packages strike the correct vessel (s).
Ships assigned to Ship Strike Missions:

Ships can be assigned the ship strike
mission as well. They can perform both
types of strikes (known and unknown).
When ships are assigned to this mission and
37
WAYPOINT
a target is detected and identified they will travel at full speed to reach their weapons
launch range. As with other strike missions they will attack the first target identified as
hostile.
Subs assigned to Ship Strike Missions: Subs can perform this mission and can engage
known and unknown targets. They will run at periscope depth and run at full speed at their
assigned EMCON to attack targets. This is very dangerous, as subs are detectable at high
speed and periscope depth. This mission is not recommended for submarines.
Facilities assigned to Ship Strike Missions: This mission works well with ground
facilities assigned to it provided they have weapons that can engage ships. Ground
facilities can perform this mission against known and unknown targets.
Tips and Tricks for Ship Strike Missions:

This mission is perfect for small combatants of the PT variety, aircraft and ground facilities
such as SSM's launchers and artillery. It does require that something see them so sensors
of some sort are required.
THE SUB STRIKE MISSION:
The purpose of the sub strike mission is to attack and destroy enemy submarines. There are
two types of sub strike missions you can perform. The first is setting a sub strike mission
against a known target. The second is setting sub strike missions against an unknown
target. The latter is most commonly used as a sub is hardly ever seen at the beginning of a
scenario. The missions are assigned similarly to the Ground and Ship strike missions that
are described above. These missions run until the assigned targets are destroyed, enemy
submarines are still visible and weapons are available.
Aircraft Assigned to the Sub Strike Mission: Aircraft are perhaps best suited for this
mission. Upon detection of a target they will launch with the intention of attacking the sub
target. If the submarine is not pinpointed, the assigned aircraft will begin a search pattern
based on the information it has to pinpoint the sub and attack it. This pattern is always
based on the detection diamond or circle and will systematically drop sonobouys until they
are expended or the contact has been lost.
Ships assigned to the Sub Strike

Mission: Ships can perform the sub strike
mission. As soon as a submarine is
detected and identified they will run at full
speed toward the target in an attempt to
engage. They will launch their weapons
when they are in range and will attempt to
"hunt" the submarine until the contact is
lost. This mission is highly recommended
for smaller sub chaser types. They will
38
behave as they do in real life and will pursue and hunt offending submarines.
Submarines assigned to the Sub Strike Mission: Submarines can perform this mission.
They will sit at periscope depth waiting for detection and then run at full speed toward the
target attempting to engage until the target is destroyed or contact lost. This mission is not
recommended for submarines, as they are extremely vulnerable at those speeds and depth.
Facilities assigned to the Sub Strike Mission: No known facilities have been built to
perform this mission.
Tips and Tricks For Sub Strike Missions:

Aircraft and small sub-hunters perform this mission well. All others can perform the
mission but the detriments outweigh the benefits.
This mission is an excellent mission to assign to embarked anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

The reason is they will act per naval doctrine. When the surface group detects the
submarine with its radar the aircraft will be launched to localize and prosecute. Another
benefit is that without missions assigned, embarked AC will be subject to the missions
assigned in the formation editor. The end result of that is a mass of ASW dropping
sonobouys inefficiently slowing game play needlessly.
PATROL AAW MISSION:
The purpose of this mission is to patrol a specified area for air contacts, identify them and
if hostile destroy them. The AAW Mission is assigned by dropping reference points,
selecting them (forming the triangles, creating a mission, selecting Patrol AAW and then
clicking okay. You will then be able to assign whatever platform you desire to this
mission.
Aircraft Assigned to the Patrol AAW Mission: Aircraft are best suited for this mission.
When this mission is assigned aircraft will launch to their designated patrol area at high
altitude, cruise speed and at their designated EMCON. If they detect any airborne contact
they will move to identify at optimum intercept altitude and speed and attempt to identify
the airborne contact. If the contact is designated as a hostile the assigned aircraft will
attack. If the contact is designated as a neutral the aircraft will return to its patrol area
(marked by reference points).
Ships Assigned to the Patrol AAW Mission: Ships assigned to this mission will patrol the
designated reference points. However, unlike aircraft they will not move to investigate an
air target. They simply patrol the reference points at cruise speed at the set EMCON. If an
air contact enters its patrol and the target is identified as hostile. The surface will go active
to engage. It will return to its original EMCON when the hostile contact is destroyed or not
other hostile contacts are detected.
39
WAYPOINT
Subs Assigned to the Patrol AAW Mission: This mission was not designed to function
with submarine units. If assigned to this mission subs will transit at their cruise speed,
shallow depth until they reach their first assigned reference points. They will then patrol
these points at shallow depth, creep speed. They do come up to periscope depth at each
point but have no AAW function. A SAM armed Russian sub was tested with no known
benefit.
Facilities Assigned to the Patrol AAW Mission: This mission has no real function with
land facilities other than to act as a placeholder.
Tips and Tricks for the AAW Mission:
Understand that this is the least aggressive anti air mission to assign aircraft. Air intercept
missions still produce the most aggressive and productive results.
When setting up an AAW patrol mission with

aircraft avoid using box patrol areas (4
reference points). The reason is that aircraft
tend to turn off axis from an expected attack
or the direction of an expected intruder. This
leaves your patrolling aircraft extremely
vulnerable (as your sensor arc may be pointing
away from the intruder) and the enemy
typically gets the first shot when a box patrol
zone is used.
Instead of using a box we’ve found the best application of this mission is to use two
reference points. The aircraft will move back and forth generally keeping an eye on the
expected avenue of attack. This is the closest you will get to a racetrack type search pattern.
A common tactic is to set up two of these patrols parallel to one another which models a
fighter patrol well.
Assigning ships to this mission is a way to create the infamous SAM trap. This is very
useful in most applications and will surprise the enemy once. Remember, the ship keeps its
EMCON until an enemy is identified as hostile. It will then illuminate and engage if the
target is in range. When the target is destroyed it will return to its original EMCON setting.
This is highly dependent on the enemy’s detection capabilities but is very useful regardless.
Again a ship assigned will not “chase” a target so a careful set up is needed.
PATROL ASU MISSION:
The purpose of this mission is to patrol a specified area for surface contacts, identify them
and if hostile destroy them. The ASU Mission is assigned by dropping reference points,
selecting them (forming the triangles, creating a mission, selecting Patrol ASU and then
40
clicking okay. You will then be able to assign whatever platform you desire to this
mission.
Ships Assigned to the Patrol ASU Mission: Ships assigned to this mission will move
toward the assigned reference points at cruise speed at the desired EMCON. If a surface
contact is detect and unidentified the ship will move at best speed to intercept in an attempt
to identify and attack if hostile. Ships will go EMCON active in this mission if they attack
or are attacked. If a target is identified is Neutral the ship will return to patrolling the
assigned reference points.
Aircraft Assigned to the Patrol ASU Mission: Aircraft assigned to this mission will
move toward the assigned reference points at cruise speed, high altitude at the desired
EMCON. If they detect ANY unknown contact they will move to identify and attack if
hostile. Aircraft will go EMCON active in this mission if they attack or are under attack. If
a target is identified as neutral or destroyed they will return to patrolling their assigned
reference points.
Subs Assigned to the Patrol ASU Mission: Submarine platforms that are assigned to this
mission will sail at cruise speed, shallow depth and at their assigned EMCON. Once they
reach the first reference point they will change their speed to creep, remain at shallow
depth and keep the same EMCON. Once, they detect an unidentified unit they will move to
identify and attack if hostile. If the target is identified as neutral or destroyed the submarine
will return continue patrolling the assigned reference points.
Facilities Assigned to the Patrol ASU Mission: This mission has no real function with
land facilities other than to act as a placeholder.
Tips and Tricks for the Patrol ASU Mission:
This is the preferred mission for all surface warfare craft. I suggest using a box like patrol
zone with four reference points.
PATROL ASW MISSION:

The purpose of this mission is to patrol a specified area for submarine contacts, identify
them and if hostile destroy them. The ASW Mission is assigned by dropping reference
points, selecting them (forming the triangles, creating a mission, selecting Patrol ASW and
then clicking okay. You will then be able to assign whatever platform you desire to this
mission. When this mission is assigned a sub threat zone will be place in an area matching
your patrol zone.
Aircraft Assigned to the Patrol ASW Mission: Aircraft assigned to this mission will
move to the place reference point at their cruise speed at high altitude. When they reach
the first reference point they will drop to low altitude and lowest speed setting. They will
then begin an ASW search routine based on the placement of your reference points. If they
are sonobouy capable they will be dropped in patterns and if they are dipping sonar capable
41
WAYPOINT
they will hover momentary to search. Aircraft will attempt to search, identify and (if
hostile) destroy the hostile contact. They will return to their original search pattern if a
contact is lost or destroyed.
Ships Assigned to the Patrol ASW Mission: Ships assigned to this mission will move to the
reference points at their cruise speed and chosen EMCON. Once they reach their patrol
zone, they will decrease speed to creep and begin search for subsurface contacts. If they
detect a submarine contact they will move at best speed to get into weapons range
regardless of postures due to the threat zone. One the contact is lost or the submarine
platform is destroyed they will revert back to creep speed and continue patrolling the
assigned reference points.
Subs Assigned to the Patrol ASW Mission: Submarines assigned to this mission must be
placed within the ASW threat zone (reference points) in order for this mission to function.
If they are outside the threat zone they will not be able to carry out this mission properly.
Once they are properly placed the submarine will patrol within the threat zone at creep
speed, intermediate depth and at their designated EMCON. Once any subsurface contact is
detected the assigned sub will move at best speed to attack regardless of posture. Once the
contact is lost or destroyed the assigned submarine will continue patrolling the assigned
zone at creep speed, intermediate depth and assigned EMCON.
Facilities Assigned to the Patrol ASW Mission: This mission has no function with land
facilities.
Tips and Tricks for the Patrol ASW Mission:
As mentioned before, this mission will create an ASW threat zone that will not allow
friendly submarines to pass through, and the submarine will be unassigned from any
mission that orders them to do so.
Be careful not to assign ASW zones too close to each other if you have subs in your order
of battle. The AI always operated under full realism. If another unit of the same side
detects one of your subs; it will be prosecuted. The best rule of thumb is to remember that
convergence zones are generally thirty miles apart.
When assigning aircraft with sonobouys to this mission, please keep game speed
considerations in mind. Too many sonobouys will slow the game down considerably. The
best way to overcome this issue is to keep your patrol area size down and carefully plan
patrols to be sure there are not hundreds of sonobouys in the water at the same time.
Careful planning, timing and the use of sub strike missions can overcome this problem and
produce a realistic game.
42
THE SUPPORT MISSION:
The support mission is simply a mission in which platforms support each other. Sounds
vague right? Well it is. This is a mission that you would assign all support ships, aircraft
and submarines. You do this by simply dropping reference points, selecting them (forming
the triangles), create mission, select support and then click okay. You then assign whatever
platforms you wish to this mission.
Aircraft Assigned to the Support

Mission: As of today this is the most
useful application for the support mission.
All aircraft assigned to this mission will
fly at cruise speed and high altitude. Once
they reach their designated point they will
remain at this speed and altitude by facing
45 degrees on the compass. If there are
multiple reference points the assigned
aircraft will loiter momentarily before
returning to cruise altitude to continue on
to the next reference point.
Ships Assigned to the Support Mission: This mission works with ship platforms but has
no applicable use other than to act as an anchor. If you assign a ship to this mission it will
travel to the reference point at cruise speed. Upon reaching this point it will stay on the
reference point and be facing 45 degrees on the compass.
Subs Assigned to the Support Mission: This mission works with sub platforms but has no
applicable use other than to act as an anchor. If you assign a sub to this mission it will
travel to the reference point at the shallow depth and at creep speed.
When it reaches the reference point it will stay in place but be facing 45 degrees on the
compass.
Facilities Assigned to the Support Mission: There appears to be no value in using the
support mission with a ground facility.
Tips and Tricks For the Support Mission:
Support aircraft are best assigned to this mission. AEW and tankers are preferred as the
reference points anchor them down preventing them from wandering into enemy AAW
range or wandering aimlessly around the map.
Rumor: It’s been said that the original intent of this mission was for refueling and
replenishment. I have yet to actually confirm this so for now it’s just a rumor.
43
WAYPOINT
THE RECON GROUND MISSION:
The purpose of the ground recon mission is to identify any facilities along a path marked
by reference points. To assign a unit to the recon ground mission you simply create a
reference point (points), select them (forming the triangles), create mission, select the recon
ground in the menu, click okay and then assign the aircraft you wish to assign this mission
to in the next menu.
Aircraft Assigned to the Recon Ground Mission: These are the units this mission was
designed for and therefore should be the only platform types assigned. When you assign an
aircraft to this mission it will fly to the reference points in the way they were assigned
(click to triangle). If a distance is required to be flown the aircraft will take off and fly at
medium altitude and it cruise speed. When it reaches a certain distance away it will drop to
low altitude to reach the reference point. Once it reached the final reference point it will
move to return to base at high altitude and cruise speed. This mission is perpetual. The
aircraft will rearm/refuel and then is sent out on the same mission again. This continues
until the aircraft is destroyed or the game has come to an end. Only one aircraft can be
assigned to this every particular ground recon mission you assign. Anymore that are
assigned will sit awaiting a launch that will never happen.
Ships assigned to the Recon Ground Mission: Ships cannot be assigned to this mission.
Subs assigned to the Recon Ground Mission: Submarines cannot be assigned to this
mission.
Facilities assigned to the Recon Ground Mission: Facilities cannot be assigned to the
Recon Ground Mission.
THE RECON SHIP MISSION:
The purpose of the recon ship mission is to identify any ships detected as a platform travels
along a path set by reference points. To assign this mission to a unit simply drop your
reference points, select them (the reference point turns into a triangle), create mission,
select recon ship, click okay, select the platform you would like to assign to the mission
and then click okay. If you delay the mission by one minute the first destination reference
point will change each time the mission is run.
Aircraft Assigned to the Recon Ship Mission: Aircraft assigned to the recon ship mission
will fly out to the reference points. Upon detection through any means of any ship contact
they will change course to investigate, once they achieve identification they will return to
searching each reference point. The aircraft assigned will fly at high altitude and cruise
speed. Aircraft assigned to this mission will continue traveling to reference points and
identifying contacts until they run out of fuel and return home.
Ships Assigned to the Recon Ship Mission: Ships assigned to the recon ship mission will
transit out to the reference points. Upon detection through any means they will change
44
course to investigate, once they achieve

identification they will return to searching each
reference pint. The ship assigned will travel at
cruise speed. Ships will continue traveling to the
reference points and identifying contacts until
they run out of fuel and the scenario duration
ends. Ships will only act in self-defense while
assigned to this mission.
Subs Assigned to the Recon Ship Mission:

Submarine s assigned to the recon ship mission
will transit out to the reference points and upon
detection will change course/speed to investigate. When the investigation is made they will
return to transiting reference points. Subs assigned to this mission always transit at shallow
depth and travel at creep speed. If a new contact is found it will move to cruise speed to
attempt to move into range to make identification. Once this is made it will return to creep
speed and continue traveling to reference points. Subs will defend themselves
Tips and Tricks to the Recon Ship Mission:
There is a bug with this mission. Assign more than one reference point to this mission. If
only one reference point the unit will hang on the reference point at cruise speed and facing
forty five degrees.
The kind of EMCON you use is a toss up. Active and passive settings have their
advantages and disadvantages. Notably, if our active your enemy can detect and id you
quicker. If you’re passive, your platform must move closer to identify. The situation will
call for which one to use. Just remember those MPAs do not often have enough SSMs or
countermeasures to protect themselves and more often than not will get caught by a high-
end SAM.
ERRATA:
Strike Timings:
Getting the AI to conduct coordinated strikes is one of the more difficult aspects of
building a strike mission. Of particular difficulty is determining proper strike timings to
coordinate your time on target. The easiest way to get accurate timing is to build a
spreadsheet (MS Excel, etc). These are relatively easy to build however there is one gray
area which is launch timings. In researching a recently asked question I have put together a
little chart showing these times. Keep in mind these were determined by the Mk. 1 eyeball
watching the clock and the selected units at the same time. I may be a few seconds off but
this should get you close. Please let me know if there are any problems with these.
45
WAYPOINT
Launch Timings:
Plotted/Manual Strike Mission Area Mission * Recon Mission*

Launch
1 AC 2 minutes 15 1 AC 8 minutes 1 AC 2 minutes 15 1 AC 2 minutes 15
sec. 2 AC 10 Minutes sec. sec.
2 AC at 4.5 3 AC 12 Minutes 2 AC at 4.5 2 AC at 4.5
3 AC at 6.5 4 AC 14 Minutes 3 AC at 6.5 3 AC at 6.5
4 AC at 8.5 4 AC at 8.5 4 AC at 8.5
* Keep in mind that these missions will launch aircraft independently (not in groups) and
each AC (aircraft) will move toward their assigned reference points as they launch.
This manual will continue to be updated as new information becomes available. You will
always be able to find the most updated version at http://www.harpoonhq.com
Okay that’s it…All done…Get out of here…Have fun with it and build me a new scenario to
play:)
46
HARPOON ON VIDEO-REPLAY
Making replay video/animation files with v.3.5.8’s auto-screengrab feature
By Dimitris Dranidis
With the release of version 3.5.8 of Harpoon 3, Jesse Spears has included a new and
extremely useful feature: the ability to configure the simulation program to automatically
create screen dumps at user-defined intervals (aka “Moviemaker”). Why this is so useful,
you might ask? It allows the creation of successive screen-grabs of what the user is seeing.
When viewed in reasonably rapid succession afterwards, these form an excellent video-
style replay of the scenario.
The availability of such functionality enables a wide range of uses. Some conceivable
applications include:
Creating tutorials for the simulation. Often there arises a user question on some
aspect of the simulation that is quite hard to be answered verbally. Visually
demonstrating the how’s and why’s of the program can aid significantly in
understanding the mechanics of the program. This is particularly useful for new
players who might have trouble getting to grips with the simulation.
Demonstrating tactics. When discussing tactics and ideas, it is unavoidable that

one must first describe the relative positions of forces, both own and enemy (and
possibly neutral) and the general situation, or else the discussion has no meaning
and purpose. Being able to visually demonstrate this information and, even more
important, how it shifts with time, can be of huge assistance. The old adage “a
picture speaks a thousand words” comes to mind here. The others can now clearly
see what the situation was and what you did; you only have to add why you did it.
Reporting bugs/problems/simulation flaws. As voluntary tech-support staff for

Harpoon 3, we at the HarpoonHQ regularly receive reports of various bugs or flaws
in the simulation logic. Often these reports are “bogus”, i.e. they are not flaws per
se but rather perfectly reasonable outcomes of actions performed previously. In
order to be able to determine the conditions under which the problem occurred, we
need to have a good understanding of what was going on (scenario-wise) at the
time. Again, it is impractical to expect from the user reporting the potential
problem to be able to describe the virtual environment thoroughly and in detail.
Video-replay really comes to the rescue in this case. If the problem is repeating
itself under specific circumstances (in which case it is likely a specific flaw rather
than a random bug), the user can record the scenario up to the moment of
encountering it and then provide it to us along with the usual verbal description,
enabling us to have a drastically more complete picture of the circumstances of the
problem.
Describing AARs. The principles here are similar to the endeavor of describing
tactics: a large amount of information must be conveyed to others effectively,
accurately and in a short amount of time. Visualising this information (which is,
47
WAYPOINT
after all, visual to begin with) reduces substantially the amount of supplemental
verbal/textual information that needs to be provided.
I am quite certain that, in due time, others will think of additional uses for this tool, given
the flexibility it provides.
Now that we’ve seen how this feature can help us, let’s take a look at how it works, how
we can configure its output and what we have to consider in order to get the most out of it.
Basic operation
The ability to take a screenshot of the game in progress was available already from the
Admirals Edition of Harpoon 2, with a menu command. In Harpoon 3, J.Spears added the
option of taking the screenshot by pressing Alt+F1. However, until now sequential
screenshots had to be taken manually, by repetitive use of the command. This is
understandably imprecise with regards to the scenario-time intervals between dumps
(particularly when time-compression is active) and distracts the user from concentrating on
the scenario at hand. Automating the procedure is paramount if the visual output is desired
to be of consistent quality and composed of frames arranged in timely intervals.
Activating the movie-maker function requires putting the MovieMaker.opt file in the
“Options” folder of the Harpoon 3 installation (the file is on the “disabled” folder by
default). Additionally, a text file called Movietime.txt must be present on the same folder
with the program executable(s). This file must contain a single integer number; this will be
the number of game-time seconds between screen shots taken. If you set this to 0, or leave
the file blank, it will output EVERY screen update regardless of the time running; for
instance if you pause the scenario and simply move around the tactical maps, this motion
will also be represented. This can be quite useful in GUI tutorials and fast-paced
engagements, but will result in a huge amount of screenshots taken (more on the problems
of long replays below).
There is also another catch related with this number setting. J.Spears explains it best:
”Note: this time figure is a _minimum_ interval, so that if you have it set at 15, the time
between screenshots will be AT LEAST 15 game seconds (it could be longer, depending on
how often the screen is updating). If you want the game to output every 15 seconds, you
still need to run the game clock at 15 seconds (or lower) to guarantee that you'll get a
screen shot every 15 seconds.”
So essentially, the interval figure counts not the game-time second intervals, but the
“clock-tick” intervals between frames saved. If, for example, you have set an interval
number of 2 on the text file, and during gameplay you use 5-sec time compression (i.e.
each clock-tick passes 5 secs of scenario time), each frame will be 10 seconds of scenario-
time after the previous one.
48
Pre-recording decisions
Before beginning to record a scenario session, you have to make two decisions that will
have a large impact on the quality and size of the recording product:
In what resolution is the recording going to be performed?

What will be the interval between taken frames?
The resolution question is driven primarily by a related consideration: what is the display
resolution of most of the users who are going to view the product? A common consensus is
that most desktop users these days employ 17’’ CRT monitors with typically 1024x768
resolution, or alternatively 15-17’’ LCD displays with 1024x 768 or 1280x1024 settings.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we are targeting a 1024x768 screen for the
replay. Now, the recorded video is probably not going to be displayed on full-screen –
therefore, a portion of the screen is going to be occupied by GUI elements, so a 1024x768
animation or slide-show is going to have a portion of its image thrown off-screen. This
may or may not be acceptable, depending on the replay circumstances and the layout of the
H3 session (for example, if the recording user wants to demonstrate something only on one
of the tactical screens, and the message box is on the bottom of the screen and useless for
the recording purposes, the user may not mind at all if it’s left out on the replay). If we do
care about having the entire recorded screen visible, it is recommended to go down one
step on the resolution ladder, i.e. record at 800x600. (This has the added advantage of
making the resultant individual screen dumps smaller in file size – this will help later when
we’re trying to make a video out of them or package them for distribution).
If you have made a recording on too high a resolution and are thinking of batch-
downsizing the dumps through your image-app of choice, a quick word of advice -
DON’T. Better go back and repeat the recording on the correct resolution. The produced
images are in PCX format and are already well compressed; any attempt to downsize them,
even on the same format, is likely to produce images of significantly larger size (or at least
that’s what happened in my case with three different popular apps – ACDSee, Photoshop
and Ulead Photo Editor). Additionally, the image quality suffers from the downsizing: A
screenshot originally grabbed at 1024x and downsized to 800x is much worse than a screen
originally taken at 800x.
The interval between captured frames is something that depends on they type of replay you
want to record, the file size you are targeting, and your past experience with successful (or
failed) attempts to balance between motion smoothness and file size. The general rule of
thumb is: For a given resolution and length of movie time, increasing the interval number
(essentially reducing the sampling rate) will reduce the file size of the replay but will also
make the frame transition less smooth. Conversely, low intervals can make a near-perfect
replay of the scene but can increase the file size tremendously.
It is thus important to think of the type of scenario situation that you want to record. If the
situation involves relatively simple, linear actions with predictable positions (e.g. a ship
transiting the Atlantic), you can get away with a large interval number (low sampling rate)
49
WAYPOINT
without losing much in the way of visual information. If on the other hand you’re dealing
with a fast-paced, violently dynamic environment (e.g. a huge air-battle over Central
Europe) then it is probably advisable to sample frequently, i.e. set a very low interval
number (even “0” if you deem it worthwhile).
Unfortunately, it is often the case with Harpoon that such conditions often co-exist (and
frequently interleave) in the same scenario. Both air and naval operations often consist of
what men in uniform describe as “hours/days of plain boredom interrupted by moments of
sheer terror”. This means that at some point in the scenario you may well find yourself
recording at less-than-optimum settings (either too many shots on an uneventful duration,
or too few shots in an “active” environment).
The obvious solution would be to dynamically adjust the interval number, depending on
the action. Currently this can only be done manually: For example, start with a low
sampling rate (high interval), save and quit when things heat-up, restart the program with
high sampling rate (low interval), go through the action, then save and quit when things
calm down, re-enter with high interval number and so on. This is of course an interim and
quite crude solution; it would be much preferable to be able to change the interval value on
the fly within the simulation. Hopefully this may be implemented in one of the next
versions.1
There is also a special case, that of user-interface tutorials. These, by necessity, will
require a reasonably high sampling rate, so that the viewer can visually follow the flow of
interaction with the program. You will also need to tick “Enforce Real Time” on the game
options at scenario startup. Here is why: As explained before, the interval number of the
Movietime.txt file refers to intervals between ticks of the game’s virtual clock. However,
when real-time is not enforced, at certain GUI menus & windows (such as weapon
allocation, database browsing etc.) the clock freezes, and thus no new screenshots are
taken. It is thus necessary to select this option in order to force the game-clock to continue
counting even when these GUI elements are active, and thus take the proper screenshots
needed for the demonstration.
Post-capture processing: Adding the missing zeros
Okay, so you recorded the scene you wanted, exited the simulation and now you are
staring at a folder of the Windows Explorer, said folder having by default the name of the
scenario you were recording and containing all the snapshots you have taken. These will
be PCX files of the naming convention “[Scen.-Name]XXX.PCX”, XXX being the
sequence at which the screenshots were taken. Now, if you have used Windows
extensively, you have probably noticed an awkward behavior of the Windows Explorer
(which is really a shell for the OS’s file system): when trying to order files with numerical
1
There is yet another way of manual optimization: Record the entire sequence at a low interval (high
sampling rate), regardless of the action. Then go through the files with your favorite image browser and
selectively chop-off the frames of the “boring” scenes. While workable, this is definitely an exercise in
patience and runs the risk of disrupting the game-time intervals between the frames if you’re not keeping a
close eye on the game-clock.
50
strings on their names, it takes into consideration only the first digit. Thus, for instance,
between two files named “File20” and “File8”, it will place the first file before the second,
although 20 comes after 8 in true sequence. That is because it only compares the first
digits – and naturally places 2 before 8.
Why does that bother us, you might say? Because no matter what we do later on with the
screenshots, owing to that logical flaw in Explorer’s ordering perception, a number of the
screen dumps are always going to be viewed (or batch-imported, or processed, or whatever
else you choose to do with them) in the wrong order. Imagine seeing frame-1 of the scene
you have recorded…and then having it followed by frame-100, 101, 102, 103 etc. instead
of frame-2. Not good. What we need then, is to make sure that the full numbering of the
files is somehow taken into account when the files are listed.
One effective method of doing that is to place extra zeros at the front of the numbers. For
example, Frame20 becomes Frame0020 and Frame8 becomes Frame0008. In this way, the
files are guaranteed to be ordered in their correct sequence.
A problem with this method is that it involves a lot of manual work by the user. For
example, if there are 1000 frames taken, the user must add zeros to 999 of them by hand
(only Frame1000 will not need them). There are better ways to spend an afternoon, so an
automatic method to perform this is needed. H3 v3.5.8 automatically takes care of this up
to a point: the program assumes that the number of screenshots that are going to be
generated is going to be smaller than 10000, so it numbers the dumps in a four-digit
scheme that spans from 0001 to 9999.
“What if I have more than ten thousand frames?” I hear you ask. In that case, you can
download and use a small utility I have made specifically for this case, aptly called “Zero-
Adder”. Look for it on the Utilities section on the HarpoonHQ site:
www.harpoonhq.com/utilities/. This little app allows for the proper renumbering of an
infinite quantity of screenshots.
Viewing the replay: making a slide-show
Once you are done with renumbering the screenshot frames, it is time to actually do
something useful with them. How do you actually view a replay out of them?
The first option, and the simplest/easiest one, is to view them as a slide-show. Most image-
viewing/editing programs feature this function and most of them provide a host of detailed
settings such as the time delay between frames, the order of showing them (forwards,
backwards etc.) and other options. The benefit here is that you don’t need to worry about
further reprocessing of the images – you can simply view them as they are. The drawback
of course is that this is not a real video animation per se; it is more a visual trick that gives
the impression of motion. Having the full frames also increases the disk space occupied by
the replay sequence. That is not very important when you keep your replays to yourself,
but becomes a problem when you want to distribute them to others. The good news here is
that the raw PCX files can be quite efficiently batch-compressed. By using a popular
51
WAYPOINT
compression program such as WinRAR or WinACE, compression ratios of up to 1:100
may be achieved using the best-compression (slow speed) settings; I have found WinZip to
be less efficient. This makes it possible to pack-up replays of hundreds of megabytes into
manageable-sized files suitable for download.
Viewing the replay: making a movie-like animation
The second option, and potentially the most interesting, is to create a “true” movie file out
of the PCX screenshots you have. The benefits of this are obvious; the generated product is
a true movie/animation-file that can be shared and distributed without any further
packaging (although compressing files that are going to be transmitted through the web is
rarely a bad idea). Furthermore, forming a movie out of the static frames usually reduces
the file size of the same information drastically, thanks to the various image-compression
techniques developed over the years for video-editing tools (there is a single exception to
this, see below).
There are many tools out here suitable for making an animation or movie sequence out of
still frames: everything from freeware utilities up to heavyweight, feature-laden packages.
These days I’m using the trial version of Ulead’s GIF Animator 5.0 for the purposes of
making single replay files. This application allows the generation of both AVI and GIF
sequences, with a wide range of effects (most of them unnecessary for our purposes for the
time being, but one can never tell about the future). It would be interesting to hear about
recommendations from other users on the most suitable application for this specific task.
There are also various options for making a good animation out of the grabbed frames,
each with its own benefits and disadvantages. Some of these include:
Making an uncompressed AVI sequence. This provides a picture-perfect

sequence and guarantees the widest compatibility with other PCs, since pretty
much every Windows PC is able to playback uncompressed avi files. You pay
dearly for this compatibility however: uncompressed AVI files are humongously
large in size, since no effort whatsoever is made to optimize the frame-to-frame
transition. This not only makes it very difficult to transmit these files outside a
LAN, but also creates hiccups during playback unless you have a very strong I/O
subsystem – the bit rate is simply too high.
Making a compressed AVI sequence. This is one of the most popular methods
and also the one with the fewer limitations on file size. Those in the habit of
reproducing their (legally owned, of course) DVDs or VCDs in a multitude of
formats will be most familiar with this option. A wide range of codecs are available
(from the ancient Radius Cinepak up to the very modern and efficient DivX 5.0) so
there is plenty of choice and enough room for experimentation in finding the right
balance between quality and size. One disadvantage of most of these codecs is the
fact that they are optimised for real-film compression i.e. natural colors, smooth
color transitions etc. In contrast, H3 uses a limited number of colors and sharp
color transitions for which most of these codecs are not optimised. As a result, you
52
may find the picture quality during playback to be less than perfect – particularly in
high-compression rates, the lines of range-rings etc. may give the impression of
“blurring” at the edges. Nevertheless, this option enables very satisfactory
compression rates and allows full customization (codec type, bit rate, dimensions
etc.) so that users can really tailor the final replay product to their own needs.
Making an MPEG1 or MPEG2 sequence. Before the establishment of DivX as

the de-facto standard for high-quality non-DVD movie sequences, MPEG1 was the
choice of pros – and for good reason. MPEG1 combines satisfactory low bit rates
(and therefore file sizes) with good audio and video quality (far more so than
Apple’s ludicrous QuickTime at equivalent bit rates). MPEG2 improved on this
standard with much-improved audio and video quality – good enough to become
the standard DVD-Video format. MPEG2 however is a bit of an overkill for our
purposes and is quite a bit rate hog, so it may be considered only for “internal use”
replays. MPEG2 encoders are also quite hard to find at reasonable prices (it would
Making a GIF replay with GIF-Animator 5.0. Not for the feint of heart and most certainly not for the
impatient.
be useful for readers to inform us of any new contenders in this area). MPEG1
encoding on the other hand, while offering nothing stellar in terms of small file
size, has respectable video quality and can work satisfactory for H3 replays.
53
WAYPOINT
Making a GIF animation sequence. The GIF image & animation format is
probably the most perfectly suitable to the task of converting the PCX images to an
animated sequence. The reasons for this become obvious when one considers the
main technical characteristics of GIF: it handles only 256 colors (exactly as many
as H3 employs) and favors sharp color transitions and large screen areas of the
same color (of which both H3 uses a plenty). It also achieves very impressive
compression ratios, often managing to squeeze tens of megabytes of PCX
screenshots into a full-size GIF file of less than a megabyte.
The end-all ideal method for a replay movie then? It could be, but for two
showstoppers: one, the process is slow. Users of less-than-bleeding-edge PCs
should probably avoid this paragraph altogether if they wish to work on a really
long replay file. Furthermore, it seems impossible to produce a GIF file much
larger than 1.1-1.2 megabytes in size, at least using GIF Animator 5.0 and AVI-
Edit 3.37. Both these programs report running out of memory when attempting to
compile a GIF file larger than that (doubling my swap file to 1.5GB did not result
in any relaxation of the limit). Therefore it is necessary to either split the intended
replay into multiple 1-meg-sized GIFs or alternatively reduce the number of
intermediate frames. If anyone out there has managed to overcome this limitation
somehow, I would be very interested to hear about it.
This early article is the result of just two weeks of experimentation with the new auto-grab
feature. As such, it will probably be updated in the future to reflect new discoveries made
with regards to the various resolution, frame-rate and conversion options, new tricks for
improving the reply quality under given sets of restrictions plus potentially improved
implementations of the feature in future versions of the Harpoon 3 simulation. Until then,
we encourage aspiring replay-makers to experiment on their own, try every trick in the
book (and write a few new ones on their own) and contact us. Feeling ready to make your
own masterpiece yet?
54
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.
I WILL BE YOUR ESCORT

The operational concept of escort and stand-in jamming is about to change
By Michael Puttré
By the accounts of developers,

integrators, and customers - not
to mention supporters in the US
Congress who write the checks
- the Improved Capability III
(ICAP III) upgrade for the EA-
6B Prowler is a new lease on
life for the venerable
electronic-attack aircraft. While
action in Afghanistan has
underscored the US
requirement for a carrier-borne,
An Increased Capability III (ICAP III) EA-6B Prowler arrived
full-spectrum, electronic-attack
at Naval Air Station Patuxent River earlier this year for
capability; it was the 1999 anechoic-chamber testing. Ideally, the first two aircraft will
NATO campaign in Kosovo begin a series of flight trials together later this year at the Air
that demonstrated both the Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) at China Lake, CA.
necessity and pitfalls of the With its new AN/ALQ-218 receiver and mission system, ICAP
III is intended to better identify, track, and respond to modern
Prowler and its mission.
threat emitters with the ability to hop after frequency agile
radars. Other ICAP III improvements include integrating the
The good stuff first: Faced with USQ-113(V)3 communications jammer with the mission system,
a requirement of providing a provision for Link-16, geolocation targeting capability, and
escort jamming for stealth new displays and controls. US Navy photo
strike aircraft - the F-117 and
the B-2 - in addition to more conventional platforms, the US Air Force was chagrined on
two counts. One, stealth is not a cloaking device. Although the more sober term "low
observable" had been in the vernacular for some time, some Air Force officials clearly
enjoyed the mystique of their exotic, expensive black planes. The need to escort these ultra-
modern aircraft with rickety old crates making beeps and squeaks brought more than a few
grins from Long Island, home of the Prowler. Two, having retired their EF-111 Ravens,
peaked hat in hand, the Air Force had to approach the Navy and Marine Corps to provide
55
WAYPOINT
indispensable escort- jamming services. Of course, this could also be spun as an example of
inter-service cooperation at its finest. In any event, the Prowler escorts had full dance cards.
The bad news was the Prowler demonstrated that it was not a particularly cooperative
aircraft in what was supposed to be a coalition war. In an exclusive JED interview, Major
Thomas Emig of the German Air Force Command and a Tornado electronic-warfare officer
(EWO) said that German ECR Tornados on suppression-of-enemy-air-defense (SEAD)
missions in the Kosovo conflict often were unable to identify enemy radar and SAM sites
due to the effects of Prowler jamming. Thus, the HARM-armed Tornados were not able to
fulfill their missions. While many of the problems could be addressed with more
cooperation between coalition air services during mission planning, the fact is that Prowler
operations by their very nature impose limitations on who can fly other missions when and
where. Currently, Prowler operators are capable of spot-jamming selective frequencies of
known threat emitters. However, more mobile air-defense systems that use sophisticated,
frequency-agile sensors are capable of staying ahead of operator-controlled spot jamming,
leaving barrage jamming of the RF spectrum as the only viable alternative, and once again
we are sharing a back seat with the frustrated Tornado EWOs of Kosovo.
Clearly, escort jamming is needed for air forces that seek to penetrate opposed airspace.
Also needed is an alternative to indiscriminate, broadcast-based jamming, which, in
addition to rendering many strike aircraft impotent bystanders, has the effect of
telegraphing the intention and possibly even the direction of a raid. These are the sorts of
issues that ICAP III is supposed to address. Escort jamming as a mission is alive and well,
and it can be done better than it has been in the past.
A Feather in ICAP
According to Sam Abbate, ICAP III program director and integrated product team leader at
Northrop Grumman (Bethpage, NY), ICAP III enables selective reactive jamming, in
which the AN/ALQ-99 jammer hops around
on different frequencies with the target radar.
ICAP III's AN/ALQ-218 dual receiver
(formerly designated the LR-700) has a
broadband primary receiver that searches the
entire RF spectrum and an auxiliary receiver
that focuses in on specific frequencies. The
ALQ-218's controller is extensively software The first ICAP III Prowler aircraft took to the
air for its initial flight on November 6 at
driven, and software development is Northrop Grumman's test facility at St.
occupying most of the unfinished work in Augustine, FL. The aircraft, one of two
preparation for operational assessment of the prototypes being modified by the company
first two ICAP III Prowlers later this year. In a under a $200-million development program,
separate activity, the ALQ-99 jammer's was completely outfitted with all the new
electronics that make up the ICAP III
transmitters are being upgraded by BAE enhancements, along with new antennas and
Systems (Nashua, NH). In addition, the radomes. The first flight was used to assess
Universal Exciter Upgrade being carried out concerns such as safety of flight, flight
by EDO Corp. (Deer Park, NY) is extending worthiness, and structural integrity. Northrop
Grumman photo
56
the frequency coverage of the ALQ-99 and incorporating advanced jamming techniques
(see "Prowler Upgrades Moving Along," JED , December 2001).
Coupled with advanced threat libraries and pre-mission data-load files tailored to the threat
environment, the system is expected to automatically detect and track emitters and provide
the correct jamming response. If the threat emitter is frequency agile and starts hopping
around, the ICAP III is designed to hop with it. "This capability allows ICAP III to attack
more emitters in the environment by applying power more selectively and also be more
discrete about the way it operates in that environment," Abbate said.
The ICAP III retains the Prowler's primary mission as a radar-jamming platform, covering
a more current threat environment. Furthermore, ICAP III is still an escort jammer,
intended to penetrate with the strike force. Nevertheless, improved capabilities are
suggesting other roles. The combination of the ALQ-99 transmitter pods and the Rockwell
Collins (Cedar Rapids, IA) AN/USQ-113 comm jammer - first deployed just in time for the
air war over Yugoslavia - was important over Afghanistan, where Prowlers reportedly did a
fair amount of communications jamming. Increased frequency coverage and long-baseline
interferometry also enable the ICAP III to target emitters by geolocation, which gives it a
much greater targeting capability for its own HARM anti-radar missiles and for other strike
assets. Geolocation, where the aircraft is receiving target-quality data from threat emitters
without broadcasting its presence, represents something of a new mission for the Prowler,
although its signals-intelligence capabilities are well known, if not widely reported. "ICAP-
III has a 360-degree field of regard with respect to detection, and very good fore and aft
long- baseline interferometry," said John Young, Northrop Grumman's vice president and
integrated product team leader for EW systems.
Mission creep is increasing the Prowler's need to communicate more closely with other
assets in the theater of operations, and possibly beyond. In terms of connectivity, Northrop
Grumman is implementing provisions for Link-16/MIDS [Multifunction Information
Distribution System], although there is a separate contract that puts Link-16 in place. The
inclusion of Link-16, although programmatically outside of ICAP III, is important because
it represents a broadband datalink that will allow the aircraft to cue other assets either to
perform jamming or a strike mission, if a given Prowler chooses not to let one of its
HARMs go. It will also vastly expand the universe of aircraft with which the EA-6B can
share data.
Inside the four-place cockpit, ICAP III is integrating a number of capabilities that currently
are handled by discreet systems and crew stations. The Multimission Advanced Tactical
Terminal (MATT) and an improved data modem, first installed under the ICAP II Block 89
program beginning in 2000, added provisions for satellite communications (SATCOM) that
enabled the Prowler to share HARM- targeting data with similarly equipped Prowlers,
Rivet Joint aircraft, and ideally with F-16CJs. But this was not an integrated function.
"Right now, Prowler crews use a ruggedized laptop computer to work the SATCOM data,"
said Abbate. "Somebody literally sits in the back cockpit with a computer in their lap. It is
not tied into the system at all. The only tie-in is the intellectual capacity of the operator.
And obviously, a Prowler cockpit is not a great environment to have a loose object."
57
WAYPOINT
On that note, ICAP III integrates the USQ-113 communications jammer, which today also
requires a separate panel as a dedicated crew station - and the laptop. Integration of the
MATT, the data modem, and the USQ-113 will enable all of these systems' functions to be
accessible on new 8x10" color multifunction displays in each crew station, including the
pilot's. Currently, the pilot just drives the bus. "The added pilot display will enable him to
take on selective roles, which have not been determined yet," Abbate said. "But the concept
is once the aircraft is launched and is on station, the pilot can contribute to the EW
mission."
It is very interesting to note that the development of operational concepts for improved
Prowlers does not appear to have kept pace with the technical developments, which, it must
be said, have not been especially hurried to market. "The specific CONOPS [concept of
operations] of how the Navy will function with ICAP III is still to be determined, because
they haven't really wrung it out in a wargame environment," Young said. "The three
significant attributes at the core of ICAP III: passive geolocation for accurately finding a
spot on the geodetic world sphere; rapid response time for jamming, firing a HARM, or
handoff to another asset on the network; and connectivity to enable the handoff will be the
keys to its warfighting capability. We're not sure how they are going to use it yet from a
CONOPS standpoint, but those attributes will certainly be employed."
Still a topic of debate in the fleet is how many Prowlers will be retrofitted to the ICAP III
configuration. The lack of a firm CONOPS is probably contributing to some of the
uncertainty (see sidebar p. 44). That, and the always-mercuric attitudes about EW-program
funding. Estimates are that somewhere between 50 to 120 Prowlers will eventually be
ICAP IIIs, both Navy and Marine. Given the Pentagon's penchant for treading water,
particularly with the “Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)” review of a Prowler replacement
underway, the lower end of that spectrum
seems likely.
Growling For Dollars
The ICAP III program also plays a significant

- if not the deciding - role in determining the
fortunes of the EA-18 electronic-attack variant
of the F/A-18F Super Hornet being proposed Boeing and its partner Northrop Grumman
by Boeing Military Aircraft (St. Louis, MO) have funded development of the EA-18
and partner Northrop Grumman. Boeing has airborne electronic attack concept aircraft,
led the development of an EA-18 (previously which they hope will be selected as a follow on
dubbed the F/A-18G "Growler") demonstrator to the EA-6B Prowler. The test configuration
consists of a used F/A-18F Super Hornet leased
with its own money and an aircraft leased from the Navy that carried three ALQ-99
from the US Navy. The aircraft would be physical mockups, including one low band pod
capable of carrying the ALQ-99 jamming mockup under the fuselage. Wingtip ALQ-218
pods on its centerline and under-wing stores receiver pods are still undergoing wind tunnel
stations and the ALQ-218 receivers on testing. To support the effort, Boeing had
developed an advanced EA-18 cockpit
specially designed wingtip pods. The Navy is simulator to demonstrate interface and
clearly interested in the concept, and Boeing is workload for the two-place crew. Photo by
Michael Puttré
58
banking on spinning that interest into contracts. To increase the appeal of its horse in the
AOA race, the company is stressing the high-performance capabilities of the EA-18 and the
more aggressive missions these suggest.
Late last year, Boeing completed its first flight-test program, where it got the demonstrator
aircraft equipped with mock pods to 0.8 Mach and about 18,000 feet. "The data showed
that we were well within the noise and vibration envelope of the ALQ-99 pods as loaded,"
said Paul Summers, Boeing's director of F/A-18 derivative programs. "We saw nothing to
indicate that we shouldn't go further. Our plan this year is to get transonic with the pods.
We'll go to about 0.9 Mach and up to 30,000 feet."
In addition, Boeing has started to do an analysis with BAE Systems that looks at whether or
not the electronics would be able to operate in the aerodynamic environment under the
Super Hornet. Summers reported that the analysis has shown very positive results. "So far,
they don't predict a problem," he said. "As we get more data from our flight analysis, we
are feeding them directly to BAE Systems so they can continue to matriculate their
computer analysis."
In the conventional jamming mission, there really is no need to have transonic or

supersonic capability. However, in Boeing's vision of the future, the EA-18 will have
performance compatibility with the strike assets. Having an electronic- attack capability
that can match the speed and endurance of the strikers is seen as essential because the
escort aircraft will have to handle "pop-up" threats in time to do the strikers some good at
ranges where Prowlers fear to tread. Such a capability would also be important if the Navy
chooses to use this aircraft in the Wild Weasel role.
"You can envision a loadout where you will have one jamming pod on centreline -- maybe
to suppress SA-6s, for example -- and weapons on all the other stations," Summers said.
"We spend our weapons in the standard Wild Weasel role, and then we want to do a dash to
get out of there quickly. We believe that you need transonic or Mach capability. Although
this is not part of any formal CONOPS the Navy has shared with us yet, we believe that,
when they get a hold of this airplane, they're going to want to use it like that."
In mid-April, at press time, Boeing was scheduled to hang a F/A-18E in the anechoic
chamber at Patuxent River with ALQ-99 pods radiating on the airplane to do
electromagnetic systems-compatibility testing. Summers said that Boeing is looking at
ways to use the self-protection suite with the jamming suite, exploring techniques such as
blanking. Such a capability would be essential in the aggressive posture that is the
Growler's raison d'etre. "Although we don't anticipate flight testing that kind of
demonstration on our own funding, as that's going to be a fairly substantial effort and
would have to be done under contract during system development and demonstration,"
Summers said. "What we are doing is an analysis on a position that would support the use
of those assets together."
59
WAYPOINT
Back Off
Of course, the United States today is just about the only country that can afford scores of
dedicated electronic- attack aircraft and the cast of thousands of highly trained experts who
support them. "The US has specialized EW aircraft that cover an area and so take some of
the burden off the strike aircraft in terms of self- protection." said Dov Granot, business
development manager for the Elisra Group (Bene Beraq, Israel). The Israeli Air Force
favors a system where select aircraft in a strike package are equipped with escort- jamming
pods. "Israel's philosophy is that an aircraft needs to be able to protect itself from start to
finish, from take-off through landing."
Jean-Philippe Gourion, deputy director of strategic planning for Thales Airborne Systems
(Paris, France), said Thales is working on an escort-jamming concept in which dedicated
platforms and crews would be replaced by a combination of integrated systems featuring a
solid-state, phased-array jammer with very high transmitted power and real-time multi-
beam steering. This would be fitted in an automatic pod carried by a multirole fighter for
the stand-in/escort jamming mission. Since 1993, Thales has been developing its Carbone
offensive jammer demonstrator under contract to the French military procurement agency.
According to Gourion, the Carbone is significantly more powerful than existing or
upgraded offensive-jamming pods. Carbone also draws on Thales' digital receivers and
real-time geolocation algorithms, such as those implemented in the Spectra EW system for
the Rafale aircraft.
The Carbone demonstrator has been mounted on a Mystere 20 testbed aircraft and has
flown extensively since 1998, including during the NATO MACE X field trials in August
2000. A preliminary study for a pod installation has been through cost-assessment and risk-
reduction studies. "Operational trials have demonstrated Carbone's effectiveness, and
particularly its capability to jam through scattered lobes." Gourion said. "This is a big
change in the strategy of the use of such equipment."
A fighter aircraft carrying a pod-mounted phased-array jammer would have the ability to
loiter at the periphery of the threat area, but not necessarily in line with the flight path of
the strikers. Once the strike package is about to enter the threat area the electronic attack
aircraft is alerted by datalink to commence jamming through the secondary or scattered
lobes of the threat emitters. Thus, the enemy would remain unaware of the direction of the
strike package's arrival. Gourion pointed out that there would be some burden during the
mission-planning phase to ensure that timing, waypoints, and jamming duration are
synchronized. "In fact, if your mission planning is excellent, then you are not obliged to use
a datalink or otherwise transmit between the strikers and jammer aircraft," he said.
Another benefit of this approach to stand-in/escort jamming is that the electronic-attack

aircraft does not have the same demands on its self-protection jammers, thus eliminating
the potential for interference. In fact, Gourion questioned the wisdom of even attempting to
operate electronic-attack and self- protection systems on the same aircraft at the same time.
"Frankly speaking, I don't think that it would be a very good idea to use stand-in jamming
tactics other than those that attack side or scattered lobes at some distance," he said. "If the
electronic-attack aircraft is loitering at very low altitude somewhere in a relatively safe
60
place quite close to the danger zone, then you can decide at a given instant to pop up and
begin your jamming job."
But if you have to stay in the high-threat area, Gourion continued, it would be much more
preferable to use a UAV as a stand-in platform, loitering at very high altitude -- say, over
50,000 feet. The very same selective-reactive technologies that automatically detect, track,
and provide the correct jamming response to threats in ICAP III conceivably also make it
possible for the EWO to be snug in a command shelter hundreds of miles away, monitoring
the proceedings via SATCOM with a cup of coffee. Try that in a cockpit.
SUPPORT JAMMING AND FORCE STRUCTURES

By Carlo Kopp
In December 2001 the DoD released the Joint Airborne Electronic Attack Analysis of
Alternatives (AEA AoA) document, which distills the findings of a team comprising more
than 180 specialists across the armed services, DoD and industry. The unclassified
summary document (see "AEA AOA Charts Future Direction for Airborne Electronic
Attack," JED, March 2002, p. 26 or go to www.jedonline.com for the full document)
underscores the difficulty in reconciling the EA role against a complex multi-service force
structure.
Until the 1998 retirement of the USAF's EF-111A Raven fleet, support jamming was a
specialized capability in the land-based USAF and carrier- based Navy/USMC force
structure. While the core Tactical Jamming System (TJS), the AN/ALQ-99, was
substantially common, its mode of deployment into combat was unique to its respective
users, with the Navy operating its dedicated EA-6B Prowler fleet. How the two services
came to operate variants of one TJS on very different platforms is a reflection of the trend
well established by the 1970s, of taking the core theater strike asset then in use and
adapting it to carry the jamming payload. The USAF's EB-66 and Navy operated EKA-3
support jammers were land and carrier-based variants of one airframe. By the early 1970s
the last vestiges of commonality in platforms vanished as the Navy deployed the EA-6A
and then the substantially re-engineered four-seat EA-6B, while the USAF rebuilt over 40
F-111A bombers into the superlative EF-111A Raven.
The parallel model of EA capabilities was a good fit to the environment of the latter Cold
War period. The EA-6B was well matched in performance to the A-6E, the Navy's core
strike asset, while the EF-111A fit very closely with the USAF's F-111E/F wings based in
the UK and very much the backbone of the NATO strike force. This fit worked well both in
logistical terms due to substantial commonalities in support infrastructure, but also in
tactical terms as closely matched climb, cruise, and penetration performance and
capabilities facilitated escort jamming as well as standoff jamming. Economies of scale
implicit in the operation of jammer variants of the mainstream tactical bomb truck
alleviated the total cost of operating the respective jammer fleets.
61
WAYPOINT
This model began to unravel over the last decade, with the massive force-structure
downsizing following the collapse of the Soviet Bear. The Navy's increasingly less
survivable A-6E was phased out as the A-12 foundered and died, leaving the service
without a medium bomber type. The USAF, threatened with repeated F-22 cancellations
and the concurrent pressure to accept new-build F-15Es and F-16Cs to keep the industrial
base alive, progressively retired all four F-111 strike variants -- even though the F-111's
other user, Australia, plans to operate them to 2020 or beyond.
The retirement of the A-6E and F-111A/D/E/F changed the whole context of the EA
capability in the evolving force-structure model. Neither the USAF nor the USN/USMC
now operates a medium bomber type - the role having been subsumed with varying degrees
of success by multirole fighters, i.e. the F-15E "Beagles," F-16C "Lawn Darts", F/A-18C/D
"Bugs", and F-14B/D "Bombcats." The EF-111A and the EA-6B became specialized
platforms without the economic advantages of a large base of bombers using common basic
airframes, bomb- navigation systems, propulsion, electrical, hydraulics, and defensive EW
equipment.
The disappearance of the medium-bomber class is significant, since this category of aircraft
carried sufficient internal fuel to provide very good in-theater loiter performance, vital for
persistent suppression of hostile emitters, yet was also survivable enough to operate at the
boundaries or indeed inside a hostile integrated air-defense system (IADS). The inverse
square law of the jammer-to-signal (J/S) equation is operative here, since the closer a
jammer of a given power rating is to the target emitter, the better the J/S ratio.
An EA platform carrying a TJS package should be highly survivable in contested air space,
since the value of such an asset in monetary and tactical terms is very high: it is a priority
target for any air-defense operator. The challenge of providing an EA capability after the
retirement of the EA-6B fleet remains daunting. Fighter airframes are not optimised for
persistent loiter in the manner of an EA-6B or EF-111A, with high aspect ratio 26-27
degree swept wing. This is an important design optimisation for an aircraft intended to
loiter with many thousand pounds of jamming payload.
The need for good loiter performance in an EA platform has not diminished with time, the
opposite has occurred. With the EA-6B tasked in Afghanistan with the jamming of hostile
battlefield communications using modified ALQ-99 pods, the demise of an opposing
integrated air-defense system only sees the EA asset swung into another vital information-
superiority role.
If we are to draw long-term conclusions about the EA role and its importance, one
conclusion is that the evolution into a more generic EA role is already in progress (the term
"information attack" would better describe this role, but it has already been usurped by the
cyberwar community!), while another is that we can expect to see Moore's Law enabling an
increasing effort by opponents to fuse data - especially from low-band radars or networked
emitters in an attempt to counter evolving stealth capabilities. Therefore, the ability to carry
a powerful programmable jamming package into contested airspace will remain important,
if not critical, for many combat scenarios.
62
How should this be reconciled against the planned future force structures? The AEA AOA
analysis explores a wide range of alternatives including UAVs, bizjets, EA-6B, F-15E,
F/A-18F, JSF, F-22, B-737, B-767, B-1B, and B-52H derivatives. Yet the public and not-
so-public debate following the release of this analysis does not show highly decisive
preferences. The most likely successor to the Navy's EA-6B will probably be the EA-18,
simply because it will be the standard carrier-based fighter asset, at least until the JSF
arrives on a carrier deck. This aircraft will not provide the kind of survivable deep-
penetration capability we will see in the F-22, but is likely to be adequate for the littoral
combat environment central to Navy air operations.
From a land-based air-power perspective, the EA-18 is not particularly competitive against
the USAF F-22, which has the ability to go deep, perform the mission repeatedly, and
survive no matter how good the IADS might be; stealth and supersonic cruise in
combination are hard to beat. While a JSF-based solution might be viable in terms of
subsonic persistence, it will not have the survivability of a F-22 airframe. If the intent is to
carry an expensive jamming package deep into heavily defended airspace, then a F-22-
based solution may be the only viable
choice, especially since the aircraft's
kinematics and observable performance
makes it a difficult target for the best S-
300/400 series SAMs, even if cued to
the jammer emissions.
The alternative of stand-off jamming

using a large airframe or high- flying
UAV runs into two key obstacles: the
inverse square law pushes up the size,
The decline of the medium bomber in US usage has
weight and cost of the jamming package,
led to something of a crisis in manned electronic while the limited survivability of the
attack platforms in that there are no longer any cost- platforms constrains their effective
effective strike aircraft with long endurance times to footprint to less than the radio/radar
base a future EA configuration on. This has caused horizon. Mobile S-300/400- style long-
the US to consider heavy bombers, commercial
aircraft, business jets, tactical aircraft, and even
range SAMs could push the operating
UAVs as candidates for replacing the retired EF-111 orbits of such EA platforms well back
Raven (shown here flying by Gibraltar) and the from the forward edge of the battle area,
increasingly overworked EA6-Bs, whose airframes further exacerbating the inverse-square-
are nearing the end of their useful lives. USAF photo law constraints.
The Global Strike Task Force (GSTF) model envisages the use of a combined force of F-
22As and B-2As penetrating deep inside hostile airspace, with the F-22 elements sanitizing
airspace to permit 24-hour operations by the B-2A element. The GSTF is the centrepiece of
USAF strategic planning and could become in the long term the force-structure paradigm
for an air expeditionary force, should the USAF acquire additional F-22 and B-2C aircraft.
In this context, an F-22-derived EA capability is a good force-structure fit, even if it does
represent a more expensive basic platform.
63
WAYPOINT
The difficulty with any F-22 derived solution will be persistence. Experience in
Afghanistan with loitering bombardment by B-52H and B-1B heavy bombers clearly
illustrates that the engagement of dispersed and highly mobile ground targets, such as
ballistic missile launchers and SAM systems, will require the ability to loiter in contested
airspace. This is an easy task for a B-2 to perform, but will be challenging even for the
large F-22 which is optimised for super cruise and agility - and arguably puts the smaller
JSF out of the game altogether.
An F-22 derivative with more internal fuel and a variable cycle engine would fit this role
better than the baseline design does, as it would better fit the GSTF strike roles. However,
such a derivative will incur development costs, which in turn exacerbates the existing
political arguments over the aircraft. If the USAF were to acquire the 750 or so F-22s
originally planned, this argument might be wholly academic. In such a build volume, the
incremental costs of modest design alternations would not be decisive.
The force-structure issues implicit in providing a credible and survivable EA capability

with the longevity that makes for a good investment of taxpayer's funding are not trivial
problems. The very limited range of production types in the post 2010 period complicate
this problem very significantly. The genuine risk is that by adopting expedient -- or indeed
"affordable" -- solutions the US will find itself with a large investment in assets with poor
survivability and thus limited operational flexibility in the long term, forcing in turn yet
another replacement cycle. The intellectual effort expended in the AEA AOA study
illustrates that this is a problem that is not easily or cheaply solved.
The central question is that of what value should be placed upon the EA capability over the
longer term. With dominance in the information domain becoming an increasingly central
feature of the global warfighting paradigm, the argument that multirole electronic-attack
capabilities will progressively increase in value has much merit. Gazing into the strategic
crystal ball is never easy, but this is one prediction that is unlikely to fail. The challenge
will lie in articulating this reality in terms understood by parties other than the EW/IW
community.
Dr Carlo Kopp is a defense analyst and air power theorist based in Melbourne, Australia. He is best known
for his theoretical work in information warfare.
64
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 technical nature, where they
relate to real-world events and strategies, are also covered here.
PLAYING THE RED SIDE

Handling effectively Eastern-block forces in Harpoon
By Steve Mills
Perhaps it’s just me being perverse (Ed. You aren’t – wait till you meet some others), but I
have always tended to play Harpoon Classic and then Harpoon 2 and 3 from the
Soviet/Russian or whatever side. I think originally this was because I had hoped to be able
to play head-to-head and everyone needs an opponent. As it looks increasingly likely that
H2H may become a reality in both H3 and H4, this seemed an appropriate article.
This isn't intended as a “definite guide to OPFOR handling” per se, but rather how I prefer
to play. There are some strong differences in the game if you are not on the NATO side.
1. Protect your Forces
Specifically, you need your available assets to remain available.
That is by no means assured: A number of scenarios start with NATO assets conveniently
within Tomahawk or Harpoon range. Being ready helps. I use ECM assuming I have them,
a confused picture in my view helps the Soviet side more than it helps NATO.
I also check the speed settings of the naval units, submarines in particular are best set to
creep, at least initially. Missile patrol boats
are often safest at a fairly high speed by
contrast. They have limited defences, but
have the speed to avoid the search area for
many missiles if they get lucky. Missile
boats have a great deal of fun dashing
about at speed anyway.
Submarines in many scenarios regrettably

seem to adhere to the following rule: the
value of the unit is in direct proportion to
how fast the speed is set to. Oscar SSGNs
in particular often run around at flank. I have nothing against subs using high speeds on
occasion, however there is no point doing it as the scenario starts up. One surprisingly
65
WAYPOINT
important area is to check the depth around the sub. It’s pretty easy to blunder into an area
of shallow water.
I also like to establish combat air patrols as fast as possible. These should be ideally
arrayed along the expected axis of the main threat. It is generally useful to task the long-
ranged assets ( e.g. Flanker and Foxhound ) to attrite the defences of a target area. If, for
example, you are attempting a landing on Iceland, some sort of CAP over Iceland itself
helps.
It doesn't always matter whether you gain air superiority, parity may suffice. Often the
main threat to your forces is from the air, reduce that threat and you are already ahead of
the game. There isn't actually a vast amount you can do to stop Tomahawk attacks if they
start within range. The best bet is to sink the launching ships before they can get there. If
they do start in range you already have problems. The only upside is that you get some
idea of the bearing and range to the launching units once they are sighted. It is often
best to simply scramble all aircraft with a useful loadout and assume the worst case
scenario.
If you expect to be overwhelmed on the air front then its best to avoid the 1/3rd rule on
CAP missions, just scramble everything and see if you can cause any damage. This is
often best done with obsolete aircraft anyway, being brutal you can afford to lose them.
2. Locate the Enemy
This can be one of the more difficult tasks

for you. In general terms, relatively few
OPFOR aircraft carry really good surface
search radars, the Tu-95RT Bear-D and Ka-
25RT Hormone-B being noticeable
exceptions. Many other maritime patrol
aircraft carry a radar sufficient for locating a
submarine periscope, but not for a long
range search.2
I find when playing the Russian side I spend a lot of time watching and classifying ESM
contacts. Under most circumstances you do not want to be actively searching with a recon
aircraft until the attack is ready, or you have been detected. You should not expect an
aircraft with its radar switched on to have a long life expectancy. The detection phase is
probably the most difficult part of the game, and is often played very badly by the
computer. I don't bother too much with attacking from many different directions etc, but it
is worth using reconnaissance from many different directions and altitudes. Tu-95/142
Bear variants in particular are useful for this, having extreme range and reasonable speed.
Submarines are useful once you know where roughly a fleet is, especially as they stand a
2
Ed. The use of satellite information is of course encouraged, where available.
66
decent chance of tracking & classifying contacts. They are able to do this effectively even
if they are out of position for any attack (for instance if they are behind the contacts).
Using the periscope is not to be underestimated either, as long as its for a very brief sweep
and then you clear the area.
3. The Attack
In my personal opinion, there are only a few attack methods that are useful from the Red
side. If you want to sink a defended target
then you either need the long range
heavyweight cruise missiles, or you need a
submarine attack. All other attacks are
much weaker by comparison.
At its simplest, the chances of surviving to

launch a good attack diminish the closer
you need to get to the target. This is the same problem you encounter with the
reconnaissance phase. Any missile that requires you to get within 100 nautical miles, and
any radar that requires you to get within 100 nautical miles will often be more of a liability
than anything useful. This is also tends to hold true for surface forces. Manouvering for a
shot with SS-N-22s for example is often counter-productive.
Submarine forces on the other hand can get close enough to scare an opponent. They have
the benefit of being hard to detect. They are also reasonably able to classify contacts as
they close with them. The main difficulty is getting into a position to make the attack. I
don't think there is any foolproof way to make a submarine attack. I usually use deep
and creep in towards where I think the ships are heading. I think the only way to guarantee
an effective attack is to have many subs spread over the path of the enemy. This is an area
where the Red side makes up a bit of ground in many scenarios. You will typically have a
good number of obsolete units at your disposal.
Try attacking a convoy with outdated aircraft or ships and it’s likely to be an exercise in
futility. Now try it with a Foxtrot. Even a noisy submarine is useful at creep. It’s still a
useful scout even if its sonar means you have to use the periscope, and all carry a useful
attack load if you can get close enough. The tactics you use for a submarine attack aren't
really any different to those you'd use if say playing NATO. However, in using obsolete
submarines there is a small variation. Diesel subs in particular are not to be
underestimated.
For a cruise missile attack, I don't tend to spend any time working out how many missiles I
need to target at each ship. I much prefer to target all at the carrier if there is one there. If
not I pretty much assume around 4 missiles per target depending how many I have
available. If you know you have plenty of missiles and have been unable to classify the
targets you can always hold back some. You usually know which are the AAW cruiser
types as they'll be the first targets firing: these can then be targeted on a second wave.
Often you do not have time to carry out anything more complex. If you launch all at the
67
WAYPOINT
carrier, you often find there is some collateral damage from missiles that sought out a
neighboring target.
BOL attacks are pretty much a last resort. Having said that, they can help reveal where a
target is, assuming you have follow up forces. The opportunity to fire on targets you have
a good contact with is usually brief, I prefer not to worry overly about allocating as a
result. It’s often more crucial just to get enough missiles in the air so that the defences get
overwhelmed. You will generally only know how successful your attack was when you are
in a position to launch the next one. Again I find the heavy-hitting missiles (and torpedoes)
to be particularly useful as they give you some idea of damage assessment. Even then you
will have often lost contact with the missiles or the target before you are able to register
hits.
Apart from those main attacks, it’s just a question of being inventive with whatever is left
over. Without wishing to denigrate the remaining forces, I find most are not viable in an
attack on a CVBG or a defended convoy. Aircraft that only carry bombs etc or are short
range are at least able to attack any airbases nearby.
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone else who predominantly plays as the Russians….
AFTER ACTION REPORT: INVASION OF NORWAY (HC2002)

By Brad Leyte
The discovery of oil in northern Norway has led to a border clash between Russia and
Norway. Russia has seized territory in Northern Norway including the airbase at Bardufoss
and a nearby power station. The mission at hand is Spec Ops – delivery of Navy SEALs by
submarine in order to take out Russian SAM sites near the seized installations and thereby
assist in repelling the invasion.
To begin, I send an E-3D Sentry, a Tristar tanker and a trio of Eurofighters are dispatched
from Leuchars to assist the beleaguered Norwegian air force contingent at Bodo. And a U-2
is dispatched from Keflavik to take a closer look at the enemy forces around Bardufoss.
East of the Shetlands, a Royal Navy task force centred on the carrier Ark Royal cruises
northward to meet the challenge, escorted by the attack submarine HMS Torbay.
The focus of my mission – the USS Kamehameha and its escort, USS Tucson – are over
100 nm to the west of Bardufoss. I immediately start them out on a course toward the
Andfjorden, the large fjord th at leads toward Bardufoss and my objective.
68
It isn’t long before a large force of Su-32 and Su-27 fighters are making for Bodo, and it
would still be more than two hours before the U-2 reached its station and could provide me
with any decent information on enemy strength. Luckily for me, a company of USMC
troops are trapped a short distance north of the fallen airbase at Bardufoss and are feeding
me data on activity there. Not so lucky for
them; they are in contact with a Russian
battalion.
Norwegian F-16C’s manage to fend off

the attacks but several fall victim to the
murderous Su-27 Flankers.
Just when I think the Russian first wave

was over, my F-16s detect a flight of 48
cruise missiles some 60 nm northeast of
Bodo, and incoming. Several salvoes of
AMRAAMs & Sidewinders later, the
enemy cruise missiles are downed, but a last missile penetrates through the fighters and
threatens the airfield. It is at last dispatched by a brave RBS70 crew with two missiles.
Then, a trio of surface contacts detected 19 nm south of Tucson, moving southwest at high
speed. Included among them is at least one Sovremenny-class destroyer. I choose not to
engage, not wanting to risk the Kamehameha and its spec ops “cargo”.
Torpedo in the water! An enemy submarine had attacked the Ark Royal carrier battle
group. Luckily, my ships were able to outrun the torpedoes, but just barely. I never did find
the offending sub, but Ark Royal had other commitments, and the group continued to race
north.
Finally, my Eurofighters arrive to take up a combat air patrol around Bodo. They trade
blows with Flankers, and losses are roughly equal on both sides. Meanwhile, the AWACS
and Tristar tanker take up a patrol station between Bodo and the empty airfield at Vaernes.
Not long thereafter, my U-2 identifies two SA-10 Grumble SAM batteries deployed in
defence of the seized airfield at Bardufoss. The high flying recce aircraft also detects
something nearly as interesting – a Kilo class sub, on the surface, in the fjords outside
Bardufoss. I would have to deal with this threat before getting close enough to deliver the
spec ops team.
While the Kamehameha and Tucson

move to their objective, another
consideration must be addressed. I must
try and relieve the pressure being
exerted against the USMC contingent
trapped behind enemy lines.
I cannot assault Bardufoss or the nearby
69
WAYPOINT
Russian battalion. Both are protected by the lethal envelope of the SA-10 batteries.
However, the bridge at Alta, further north, is not.
Bringing down the bridge would no doubt severely hamper the enemy’s attempts to
reinforce its presence in Norway.
A Tornado recce variant is put on patrol east of Bardufoss in preparation for a strike against
the Alta bridge. More Tornados, flying out of Leuchars with tanking support, all armed
with 1000 lb laser guided bombs, are sortied against the target.
On their final run to attack the target, a battery of SA-8 Gecko SAMs are detected deployed
in protection of the bridge. Their radar is not active, however, and my strikers remain
undetected. The bridge is heavily damaged but has not been dropped.
I arm a flight of three Norwegian F-16s with a total of six 2000 lb LGBs and try again. This
time, the enemy is ready and I lose an aircraft to an SA-8, but the bridge at Alta is history.
Soon, it appears the Russians will be exacting their revenge post haste. 16 more cruise
missiles are detected approaching Bodo from the northeast, this time “escorted” by Su-27
Flankers. Again, a RBS70 crew knocks down the last missile before it can wreak havoc
among the exhausted flightline at Bodo.
The Russian Navy SAG moving rapidly down the coast is identified as comprising a Kresta
II cruiser, a Sovremenny destroyer, and a Udaloy destroyer.
Once the enemy SAG comes within range of Ark Royal’s Harriers, I prepare an antiship
strike mission. I armed a pair of Norwegian F-16s with four AGM-65D Maverick each, and
another four with two Penguin Mk 3 each. These six F-16s launched from Bodo, together
with all 12 Harriers from the Ark Royal. The Harriers were already equipped for the
antiship mission with Harpoons. (A small departure from reality here, but I think Fred did it
in order to improve the quality of his scenario).
All 18 aircraft converged on the Russian SAG simultaneously, with the Harriers splitting in
two groups to make their attack from port and starboard. The Mavericks were fired first,
their higher speed serving to attract the attention of the longer ranged SAMs aboard the
Sovremenny and Kresta II. Hits were obtained against both these ships with Maverick and
Penguin Mk 3. My barrage of
24 Harpoons followed, the bulk
of them being launched against
the Udaloy and the remainder
against the other two warships.
The attack was successful,
resulting in an outright kill against the Udaloy and the Kresta II. The Sovremenny blew up
and sank a short while later, having sustained heavy damage.
It wasn’t long after my aircraft had returned to their respective bases when the Russians
launched another raid. Three Kh-41 type AAMs were detected incoming toward my
Eurofighters on patrol northeast of Bodo. Two of these fighters and an F-16C were lost to
70
the surprise attack. The attackers were revealed as four Su-32s, and it quickly became
apparent that they were making a run against my AWACS north of Vaernes. More F-16s
launched from Bodo, once the Su-32s had passed, allowed me to bring the intruders down
from behind with AMRAAMs.
The lesson was learned, however. It was time to eliminate the threat posed by cruise
missiles and super long range AAMs launched by enemy aircraft operating out of
Severomorsk.
A pair of British Tornado GR4, armed for SEAD, and four Norwegian F-16s, armed with
2000 lb LGBs, undertook the mission. My Tornados penetrated at very low level, and I was
surprised to see that there was no enemy CAP or AEW&C waiting for me. Perhaps they did
not expect such a bold attack. The antiradar attack was successful, and the F-16s quickly
followed their lead by pasting the Russian airbase with bombs.
The emphasis of the war now turned to my two submarines, Kamehameha and Tucson,
which were now entering the mouth of the Andfjorden.
I quickly realized that the penetration of the fjord wasn’t going to be cakewalk. I was wary
of bringing two large SSNs so deep into coastal waters anyway, but when I realized the full
extent what awaited me, I was downright scared. I had already discovered a lurking Kilo,
thanks to my U-2, but there was also a minefield. A big one.
(HC2002 doesn’t (yet) model submarine launched mine countermeasures, so mines are
treated virtually identical to any other subsurface contact. That makes them vulnerable to
torpedoes)
My plan was to have the Tucson take the lead into the fjord, proceeding cautiously at creep
speed and maximum depth as both submarines eased their way into the confined waters. I
was wary that another Russian submarine, yet undetected, might be lurking nearby.
Clearing the mines proved to be tedious and nerve wracking. The first transient was the
worst, because I half expected a barrage of Russian torpedoes in response. But there was
nothing. I chose to assault the Kilo first, taking it out with a single Mk 48.
Next came the mines. The minefield proved to be a deadly mixture of Cluster Bay and
contact mines, but the Tucson’s Mk 48s and ADCAPs made good kills from near
maximum range. Eventually both the Tucson and Kamehameha were able to make their
way deep into the fjord, and into range of the enemy SA-10 batteries.
It was time for the Kamehameha to come into play, the Tucson having expended nearly all
of its torpedoes in clearing the minefield. I launched half a dozen salvoes of Mk 48’s to
simulate the deployment of the Navy SEALs, and soon both SA-10 sites were out of action.
The rest of the mission was largely a mop-up.
My Eurofighters and F-16C’s were badly chewed up by Flankers, but eve ntually won the
71
WAYPOINT
day and seemed to eliminate the Russian presence at Bardufoss. A salvo of Tomahawks
from the Tucson crippled the airfield.
It was time to relieve the beleaguered USMC company trapped north of the airfield, and the
best way to do that, I believed, was to directly assault the Russian battalion arrayed in the
field against them.
F-16s and Tornados softened the enemy

positions with well placed Mavericks,
GBU-16 laser guided bombs and iron
bombs. Precision attacks were also carried
out to cripple the power station south of
Bardufoss.
I chose not to further degrade Bardufoss

itself, figuring that the Russian presence
had already been demoralized by the loss of their aircraft and also, that I might need the
airbase later.
My bombing attacks were followed by paratroops, with C-17s flying from Leuchars against
the power station and C-130s from Bodo dropping on the enemy positions north of
Bardufoss. Both attacks were successful, with no losses, and the war was over.
Altogether, a challenging and excellent scenario. A good test of patience and planning,
which is often lacking among many HC2002 scenarios. Thanks, Fred !
72
TACTICAL PROBLEM: DENYING THE GULF
Given that the US (and presumably a coalition) may begin Persian Gulf operations very
soon, this question has been spawned for this month’s tactical discussion at Waypoint. It is
a two-fold question.
1) How would you prevent the United States from operating from within Persian Gulf
waters? This is under the condition that you too must use those waters for economic
purposes and that your neighbors must also use it. So your intention is to strictly keep
the United States out - not bring traffic to a complete halt.
As a follow up…
2) How would the United States overcome your stated method of keeping them out? This
again operates under the assumption that the wheels of commerce must remain turning.
It should be noted that the reader’s suggestions reflect their own views and do not in any
way represent the Waypoint staff.
Harold Hutchinson suggests…
Denial of the Persian Gulf to the United States Navy
Operational Prospective: Iran
Objective: Denial of the Persian Gulf to the United States Navy.
Obstacles and Current Forces:

The major obstacle to obtaining dominance in the Persian Gulf is the American carrier task
force. Assume it contains a Nimitz-class CVN, a Virginia-class CGN (Ed. IIRC these have
been retired…?), a Ticonderoga-class CG, an A.Burke-class DDG, two Spruance-class
DDs, and two Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFGs.
The carrier is the major strike arm, with 24 F-14 Tomcats and 40 F/A-18C/D/E/F Hornets.
However, for defense against missiles, it is reliant on its escorts, particularly the
Ticonderoga and Burke-class vessels with the Aegis system.
The air wing, while geared for offense, is still capable defensively. All sixty-four aircraft
can carry air-to-air missiles for defense of themselves and their carrier, and their training is
far ahead of ours.
American technology is also years ahead of ours – our best warships are the Babr-class
destroyers, with eight SM-1 missiles, and even with the improvements that added eight
MM.38 Exocets, it is no match for American surface vessels. We also have three Kilo-class
submarines, capable of carrying WET-80 torpedoes. They cannot be expected to go head-
to-head with American vessels, however.
73
WAYPOINT
Solution:
To sweep the American Navy from the Persian Gulf, we must first destroy the American
Aegis vessels. The Aegis vessels are very capable systems, but if they can be destroyed, the
rest of the American fleet can be defeated.
The best means to deal with the Aegis vessels is to give the crews little time to react. To do
this, missiles that will move fast and deliver a devastating punch are needed. The best
option is the SS-N-22 Sunburn – already going by the nickname “Aegis killer.” It is a
Mach-2.5 seaskimmer
with a 2,200-pound
high-explosive
warhead, and
sufficient range to
cover the Strait of
Hormuz. A more
reliable means of success would be to combine the Sunburns with an attack by one or more
Kilo-class SSKs.
We currently have a large number of Silkworm and even some Exocet missiles. These
forces should be increased, but the key to controlling the Strait of Hormuz is to add a
significant force of SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles, half of which should be set to home on
SPY-1 radars. At least 80 missiles should be ready for initial launch, with as many
additional reserve missiles as possible.
The SSM batteries should be defended heavily with SAMs and AAA. Our current HAWKs
are not a bad start, but additional missiles will be required. The best systems would be SA-
10, SA-6, and SA-11 systems, backed up with SA-8s and ZSU-23s. Additional support
could come from 57mm, 37mm, and 23mm anti-aircraft guns, which could provide literally
walls of lead for a cruise missile or stealth bomber to fly through.
If we could acquire a passive radar system or two from the Ukraine, it might give us
enough early warning that we could shoot one down.3
Tactics/Attack Plan:
The ideal time to strike is when the American carrier group is transiting the Strait of
Hormuz. While they will be on high alert, they will still have very little reaction time,
particularly when the attack is a coordinated attack between Sunburn batteries at Qeshm
Island and the Silkworms at Bandar Abbas. Firing the Silkworms at the carrier and the
Sunburns at the Aegis vessels will maximize the chances for success.
3
Passive locator systems like the Ukrainian Kolchuga are unable to detect non-emitting targets. They may,
however, be able to locate faint emissions from terrain-following radars or TERCOM bursts by cruise
missiles.
74
Should the American carrier manage to launch aircraft, F-4s and MiG-29s from Bandar
Abbas are to launch and draw them over the SAM belts. Any survivors will be engaged
and destroyed by the fighters.
After the initial attack, the American force will be attacked from multiple aspects. The
former Iraqi Mirage F-1s and Su-24s will combine with the Su-24s and Tu-22Ms purchased
from Russia to complete the destruction of the American task force.
Conclusion:
Defeating a carrier force is not easy, but this plan provides us the best chance. If we can
wipe out a task force, the political repercussions would force an American withdrawal from
the Persian Gulf. The result could even enable us to force America to change their policy to
reflect our will. This effort should be pursued as soon as possible.
The American Response
Subject: Means of countering Iranian buildup
Initial Response:
Announce that our ships have orders to “launch on warning” in the Strait of Hormuz,
targeting the Tu-22M Backfire base at Masshad, command and control in Tehran, and
Iran’s nuclear weapons program. They need to know that if they try to hit us, we will hit
back – hard, and we will not limit the theater of activity to the Strait of Hormuz.
Down the road options:

Commence reactivation of the Iowa-class
battleships. These vessels are tough, and
with modernization, they will be able to
survive a pitched battle in the Strait of
Hormuz, including Sunburn hits4. The other
advantage: Iran’s systems are not capable of
shooting down 16” projectiles. We also
should look into measures designed to
counter passive radar systems. Laser-based
close-in weapons systems would also be a
good idea in light of the increasing
capabilities of some missiles.
4
Ed. This point has been a source of endless Usenet discussions…..there appears, however, to be a general
consensus amongst most naval warfare experts that battleships are much less resistant to modern weapons
than the general public’s impression. This is reinforced by the catastrophic results of primitive guided
weapons on battleships in WW2.
75
WAYPOINT
Preemption:
The last option would be a pre-emptive strike, with all the risks it entails. We would need
to time it precisely, but it would remove the Iranian Sunburn threat on our terms. The risks
are great, and we would have to be ready for Iranian counterattacks.
Michael Mykytyn suggests…
From the OPFOR side:
Given US Naval and Air superiority in the region, I only see three possible options to keep
the US Navy out. These include anti-shipping missile attacks, selective mine warfare and
unconventional warfare. All of these have been successful against US forces in the past and
certainly would have some effect this go-around, hopefully, to the point of keeping them
out.
First, all nations in the area have access to modern anti-shipping missiles, whether they are
ship mounted or even land based. The most popular seems to be the Chinese Silkworm,
which I will assume my forces have. I would prefer to have them shore-based, as the
United States would conceivably have less warning time than launched from a ship. It
would also force US forces to attempt to hunt these assets downs which could conceivably
cost them more than sinking PTM’s with relative ease (as they did in the second Gulf War).
The geography, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz also gives me the ability to launch
from several points along the axis (complicating US defensive strategies) as well as giving
me the ability to hide them. Given the US history with these weapons in the region (USS
Stark, Tankers and a near miss of a BB during the Gulf War) I believe these weapons can
be employed to great effect.
Next, selective mine warfare may be a viable option. This is probably the least feasible, as I
must keep trade flowing through the region and Lloyd’s would surely keep anything
moving if a noncombatant was struck. If I had access to modern
bottom mines which have the capability to engage certain
displacements I would certainly use these. The United States has mine
warfare craft in the region but just making the US employ them would
hamper US efforts a great deal. Again the United States has not had a
great history with this (Bridgeton, Samuel Roberts, Princeton, Iwo
Jima, and numerous flagged Tankers). These mines are more expensive and fall under a
bunch of arms bans so I may not have access to them. If I do however, they will be used.
Finally, although completely immoral, unconventional warfare seems very effective against
US forces. Small lightly armed combatants and even suicide craft could cause significant
damage to US forces. US forces have enacted certain measures to protect their assets from
these threats but the risk-rewards of such action are too good to ignore. Again this
completely violates what most civilized nations consider moral but it would be effective
none the less.
76
From the US side:
The danger from anti-shipping missiles, mines and unconventional warfare would be
integral to my planning a Persian Gulf expedition. There are a number of improvements I
would like to make but I would have to work with what I have in inventory now.
An integral factor in how well you deal with anti shipping missiles is location and
detection. Prior and during entry into the Persian Gulf, particularly through the Strait of
Hormuz, I would allocate as many intelligence assets as I could to locating these threats.
These would include satellite, UAV and
HUMINT assets who would scan the
coastlines and waters for all platforms capable
of carrying these weapons. With that
information, I would be sure my transiting
forces bypass these threats and are arrayed to
detect any missile that leaves any rail. Given
that distance and flight times may be
relatively short I would be sure to keep my
high value units screened by the best SAM-
armed combatants. As soon as any launch is detected I would attack all assets capable of
launching such weapons.
Mines would be high on my list of concerns while moving through the Persian Gulf. I
would be sure to have all assets possible to sweep for these formidable weapons. Beyond
the obvious I would also be watching for any craft laying these weapons as the more
complicated types take much longer to deploy than the older types (can’t just kick them off
the back of the boat). I would also be sure that my submarines had snooped around a good
bit making sure nothing is deployed.
Finally, unconventional warfare is a clear and present danger in the region given the recent
attack on USS Cole. I would be sure that all my ships are equipped to engage smaller
combatants (25mm Bushmasters, AGLs, machine guns) as well as employing smaller
special warfare craft such as the Cyclones or Mark V’s to act as escorts for the larger
combatants. If time and money allow I would like to employ a small force of special
operations forces, light attack helicopters and combatants as what was deployed during the
end of the Tanker War. The forces where successful and would certainly prevent a regional
player from using these craft with low risk.
Dale Hiller suggests…
This can be summed up into one word…comittment.
With that one word, you can overcome any obstacle. However, as with all military
operations, there is much more to it than just this one word.
77
WAYPOINT
One of the reasons that the US and its allies won the 1991 Gulf War was that they were
committed to a set of objectives. Once those objectives were met, they called for a halt to
their operations.
To this extent, commitment can be broken down into three basic parts:
1. Equipment
2. Training
3. Support from High Command
These are obvious, are they not? One cannot fight a war without equipment, cannot use the
equipment without training, and without support from high command, the ordinary soldier
will lack the morale and willpower to fight his enemy. Let’s look at each one in depth.
Equipment
For the situation at hand, an investment in modern military equipment is a must. There are
two basic routes that can be taken to block the Persian Gulf to US traffic.
Conventionally, we talk of using an integrated network of mobile surface-to-surface missile

batteries, ground-based radars, airborne radars, and modern military aircraft. Assuming
that US sources are not available, Russian or European (or even Chinese) contractors can
be the suppliers of this equipment. A nation can also use an untraceable third party to
avoid any unwanted publicity.
The US, being the predominant military force on the globe, will have the best training and
most up-to-date (for the most part) equipment available. Therefore, it would behoove a
nation to procure the most modern
equipment available on the market today.
The Russian P-800 Yakhont (NATO
designation SS-N-26) has been designed in
a coastal defence version with a range of
120 km in sea skimming mode at a speed
of Mach 2.5. At its narrowest point, the
Persian Gulf is less than 35 nm wide while
at it’s widest it is less than 185 nm. While
this leaves the southern portion of the Gulf
beyond the range, it is important to note
that US vessels will probably be destined
to the mile-long pier of Al Jubayl on the Saudi coast. This will require US shipping to pass
the Quatari coast where the Gulf narrows to just over 100 nm. The P-800 missile has a
range of 300km in mixed (hi & low) trajectory mode, more than enough range to reach
Qatar.
The basic problem facing long-range missiles today is over-the-horizon targeting. This has
been somewhat alleviated over the last ten years with the increasing speed of SSMs,
78
especially Russian SSMs (the faster the missile, the shorter the distance the target can
travel). The P-800 being no exception, some form of OTH system will be required. This
can be accomplished using a variety of aircraft; however, the most ideal will be helicopters
flying from the numerous oil platforms. The Kamov Aircraft Company, a long time
supplier of helicopters for the Soviet/Russian Navy, has developed its Alba-F radar
designed by Phazotron-NIIR. The Ka-28 helicopter is currently equipped with this radar. It
has a 250km range against large surface vessels and the Ka-28 is a proven design of naval
helicopters, making it much ideally suited for OTH targeting.
Backing all this up is the air support. Modern fighters like the Su-27 or Su-30 series are
more maneuverable than even the most modern systems currently in use by Gulf States
today. Recent developments indicate a possible Saudi interest in EF-2000 aircraft but no
concrete information is available at this time.
The use of land based multi-role aircraft; especially modern multi-role aircraft would add a
further dimension to US forces. Aside from the obvious requirement for air cover, there is
also the threat of offensive counter air strikes against US and US allied forces in the Gulf
region. The threat of serious air attack is something that the US and her allies haven’t
faced.
Unconventionally, there are several different methods open, mainly against merchant
shipping and its infrastructure. Special Forces can conduct attacks against vessel traffic
services, loading terminals, and can attack shipping tied to the dock. Air-mobile and light
naval forces can mount assaults on merchant shipping in the area and insert teams to attack
targets of opportunity. Finally there’s the option of using third party terrorist organizations
to close down the Gulf to commercial traffic. However, this kind of operation can lead to
indiscriminate destruction, taking away from the main goal of removing US forces from the
Gulf.
Training
Equipment is useless without training. It is a well documented fact that a smaller, better
trained force can indeed defeat a larger, conscripted force. For years, this was NATO
policy in dealing with the Warsaw Pact and it was an aspect of the coalition victory in
1991.
Due to the political and military nature of the Gulf, it is very unlikely that any sort of
extended advanced training would go un-noticed by US forces. The result will be constant
observation by US intelligence sources, none of which can be interfered with.
Consequently, even before the commitment of hostilities, US forces will have an idea of
what they can expect with regards to tactics & forces employed.
Before developing a training regimen, one must look at past situations where US forces
have been defeated. The natural first choice here would be Vietnam. However, this is a
poor example due to the political considerations in the US and South Vietnamese politics
and corruption. Ultimately, the US lost the war not because of poor training or equipment
79
WAYPOINT
but due to lack of commitment on a national level. Training in our regard is more of a
tactical nature than of a strategic aspect. A better example would be the 1993 US operation
in Somalia. Although the US had the best equipment and training, and also the best of
intentions, they still failed in their ultimate objectives because they lacked the support from
high command (in this case the segments of the executive branch of the US government).
This was only exacerbated after the loss of two Blackhawk helicopters and the deaths of
over 20 US Army personnel in the battle that followed. Soon after, US forces were
withdrawn. Nations must look for and exploit the weakness that US forces displayed. In
this regard it was the high (and in US public opinion unnecessary) casualties sustained in
an operation that resulted in the removal of US troops.
The second aspect to training can be summed up by an old saying: To defeat an enemy, one
must train like that enemy. It should be noted that the US is considered the foremost power
of the globe even though their pilots train in an environment where many days of the year
are lost due to weather. This isn’t so much of a problem in the Gulf where there is warm
climates and very little in the way of hazardous weather to contend with. Training using
US methods and US tactics must increase the level of skill. Training is the most expensive
aspect of this and must proceed with every advantage that money will be able to buy.
Limited dissimilar air combat training can
be accomplished by provoking other Gulf
States. However, the primary main goal is
to train combat personnel to work together
and to react well when under fire.
Training with naval and ground based

units will require good communications
and emissions control. Nevertheless, it will
be impossible to train without radiating.
This will open radiation frequencies to US
ELINT sources and possible jamming once hostilities begin. However, given the nature of
the naval craft to the used (mainly small GRP and rubber boats) their low RCS will take
radar out of play to a certain extent.
The training itself can be masked by using targets that are not as capable as US vessels.
Large tankers and other types of merchant ships fall into this category because of their
limited radar and almost non-existent passive sensors.
Support from High Command
To most countries, the US armed forces represent a gigantic, unstoppable juggernaut. For
the most part this is a myth. US forces are successful because they are very well trained,
their operations are extensively planned and gamed-out, given sufficient logistical support
and, most importantly, they support the troops that they commit to battle. Again it will be
noted that in 1991, Iraqi troops were not supported by their own high command and as a
result were rendered combat-ineffective after the first weeks of the air war.
80
In 1990 author Barrett Tillman wrote a book called ‘Warriors’. It is a fictionalized account
of how Saudi Arabia, with the help of retired US pilots, assists other Arab states in an
attack on Israel. Near the end of the book, the main character, in a meeting with Saudi
General Staff cites an adage gained from the Battle of Jutland during World War One. He
said that Imperial Germany, even though possessing warships of murderous power, had
never adjusted psychologically to the Royal Navy. They sailed never thinking they could
defeat the British while at the same time the British sailed thinking they could never be
beaten.
The end result of ‘Warriors’ is that Israel, near defeat and faced with nothing left to lose,
uses nuclear weapons against advancing Arab forces.
Even though this is a fictionalized account, it can be applied to the same extent. In the
book, Israel looses a war because Arab forces were committed to winning. In our
discussion, preventing US forces from operating in the Persian Gulf requires the same level
of commitment even though the mission involved (sea denial) is much easier to accomplish
tactically. It is the myth that is created by the consistent victories of US forces that must be
dispelled.
Support from High Command is the most important aspect of closing the Persian Gulf to
US forces. Once you start something, you should finish it. Equipment might be complex,
training might be expensive, but both are worthless unless military commanders lack the
will to use them.
Conclusion
Diplomacy doesn’t mean war. However, it could be argued that war is simply an extension
of diplomacy. The second half of the 20th century has shown that war only succeeds when
one side has committed to victory. Starting a war isn’t the same thing as winning a war.
Recent history shows us that nations that are committed to winning will take any and all
steps to win that war. It is here that the Vietnam War can be cited as the example. The
North was committed whereas the US and her South Vietnam ally were not. Commitment
can be broken down into three segments: equipment, training, and support from high
command - the third aspect being by far the most important. One needs only to look at the
1991 war to understand this.
81
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
waypoint@harpoonhq.com
JAS-39 Gripen
By Michael Mykytyn & Dimitris Dranidis
Users: Sweden, Czech Republic
Potential Buyers: Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, South Africa and Brazil.
Roles & Mission:

The Gripen is an advanced
multirole combat aircraft
designed as a follow-on to the
successful JA-37 Viggen.
Designed by SAAB Military
Aircraft , Ericsson Microwave,
Volvo Aero and Celsius
Aerotech; this semi-stealthy
fighter is charged with defending
neutral Sweden’s territories with
advanced air to air, air to ground,
anti-shipping and reconnaissance
capabilities. As with previous
Saab fighters, emphasis has been
given to a small size and weight, serviceability by conscripts, STOL performance and
overall small turn-around times to optimally serve the Swedish air force’s doctrine of
prolonged wartime operations from dispersal bases. It is normally expected to operate in
close conjunction with airborne Erieye radar-equipped platforms for optimum A2A
coverage. This aircraft is gradually replacing the aging Viggen in the skies over Sweden.
The Gripen is actively marketed by a consortium between SAAB and MBDA and has
already scored an export success with the Czech air force.
Strengths: A powerful jack of all trades, this aircraft is designed to perform all missions
expected of a combat aircraft during wartime. The Gripen is a fierce predator in the air to
air role and can carry out attack missions with full self-escorting capability. Like most
Swedish combat aircraft, it has a significant STOL/rough-field capability and is expected
to operate from remote dispersion airfields and highway strips throughout the Swedish
homeland. The built-in serviceability allows fast turn-around times, particularly for light
82
A2A loads. The improved C version will introduce a new IRST sensor for additional
“silent attack” options. This will also be retrofitted to A-models later.
Weaknesses: The strict limits on the

basic airframe’s size and weight have
taken their toll on the payload/radius
performance of the Gripen, just as was
the case with the Viggen. Range and
combat radius is not too bad at
altitude, but sharply deteriorates at
low-level. While this is not of critical
importance to the Swedish air force,
export customers with an emphasis on
low-level operations might find the
Gripen to be a bit short-legged for their
needs. A number of very interesting
weapon options originally planned for
the aircraft, like the ALARM anti-
radiation missile, the M64 LGB and
the RB-105 Taurus (KEPD) tactical cruise missile, have been cancelled, leaving the
aircraft with an unimpressive diversity of stores for the strike role. The only other
weakness noted with current Gripen inventories is the lack of sufficient numbers, partially
a result of the high unit costs.
Game Stats:
Max Speed: 900 kts Length: 14.1 Meters
Span: 8 meters Weight: 4990 kg
Crew: 1 Climb Rate: 255 m/s at SL
Equipment – JAS-39A Gripen (Sweden 1996) – DB2000 v6.3
Radars:
Type and Quantity Max Range Abilities Notes
PS-05/A 120 nm Surface Search, Air Intercept, Range Advanced
Information, Bearing Information, multifunction radar
Altitude Information, IFF Information
IR/EO Sensors:
Camera 10 nm Surface Search, Air Intercept, Bearing Recon Camera
Information, IFF Information,
Classification
Electronic Warfare:
RWR 100 nm Surface Search, Air Search, Bearing Standard RWR
Information
DECM N/A Standard Defensive
83
WAYPOINT
ECM Suite
Mounts:
1x BK-27 27mm gun
Stores:
RB-74 Sidewinder SR-AAM
RB-99 AMRAAM MR-AAM
RB-15F AShM
RB-75 Maverick ASM
BK-90 Mjolner Mk 1 (Frag munitions) glide dispenser
BK-90 Mjolner Mk. 2 (AT munitions)
135mm Rockets
1275 Liter Drop Tank
Versions (H3-DB2000):
JAS-39A (1996): As described.
JAS-39A (2002): New store: RB-15 Mk3 AShM (improved RB-15). Planned
acquisition of M64 LGBs (with LU-2000 LRMTS for designation) has been
cancelled.
JAS-39C (2002): As JAS-39A (2002) with modifications. Optical camera replaced

with OTIS IRST.
JAS-39A (2004): As JAS-39A (2002) with modifications. Optical camera replaced

with OTIS IRST. New store: RB-98 IRIS-T SR-AAM. This missile replaces the
RB-74 in all loadouts.
JAS-39C (2004): As JAS-39C (2002) with new store: RB-98 IRIS-T SR-AAM.
This missile replaces the RB-74 in all loadouts.
JAS-39A (2006): As JAS-39A

(2004) with new store: Recon Pod.
JAS-39C (2006): As JAS-39C

(2004) with new store: Recon Pod.
JAS-39A (2007): As JAS-39A

(2006) with new store: Meteor
MR-AAM. This missile replaces
the RB-99 AMRAAM in most
loadouts.
84
JAS-39C (2007): As JAS-39C (2006) with a new weapon, the Meteor MR-AAM.
This missile replaces the RB-99 AMRAAM in most loadouts.
Current Service:
Swedish Airforce- Svenska Flygvapnet:
Satenas Airbase: 2 JA-39A Divisions

Angelholm-Barkakra Airbase: 2 JA-39A Divisions
Malmslatt Airbase: Various JA-39 (various) testing
85
WAYPOINT
Halifax Class FFG
By Michael Mykytyn
General:
Users: Canada
Roles & Missions:

Being born of the
Cold War, his frigate
was designed to carry
out extensive patrol
and escort duties
throughout the North
Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans. A robust
design, this frigate
(like it’s American
Perry Class
counterpart) is designed as a jack of all trades but excelling in anti submarine warfare.
Nowadays the Halifax can be found patrolling Canadian territorial waters and paired with
NATO allies in expeditionary deployments.
Strengths: This class is an excellent all around escort in most situations. Its ASW systems
are top notch and capable of engaging the most modern submarines with modern NEARTIP
torpedoes or the embarked CH-124 Sea King ASW helicopter. The Halifax’s surface punch
consists of modern variants of the Harpoon missile as well as a Bofors deck gun which are
capable of successfully engaging all by the most modern warships. Its air defenses are
suitable for point self-defense and local air defense.
Weaknesses: While being an excellent all around platform the Halifax Class requires the
support of other combatants in a high air/missile-threat environment due to the short range
and low rate of fire of its SAM armament. This class should be paired with Canadian
Iroquois class DDG or other NATO AAW-oriented combatants when on expeditionary
deployments.
Game Stats:
Maximum Speed: 29 knts.
Displacement: 4270 Tons
Damage Points: 152 DP
Length: 134.7 meters
Crew: 198
Aviation: 1 CH-124A/B Sea King,
86
Equipment – F-330 Halifax (1992) - DB2000 v6.1.9

Radars
Type & Quantity Max Range Abilities Notes
AN-SPS-49(V)5 (1) 250nm Air Search, Range Information,
Bearing Information, IFF
Information
CA/SPG-503:STIR? (2) 75nm Surface Search, Air Search, Range
Information, Bearing Information,
Altitude Information, IFF
Information
Sea Giraffe 150 HC (1) 55nm Surface Search, Air Search, Range
Information, Bearing Information,
IFF Information
Type 1007 (1) 45nm Surface Search, Range Information,
Bearing Information
Electronic Warfare
CA/SLQ-501 (1) 550nm Surface Search, Air Search,
Bearing Information,
Classification
CA/SRD-502 (1) 600nm Surface Search, Air Search,
Bearing Information,
Classification
CA/SLQ-503 0nm Defensive Jammer
Sonars
CA/SQS-510 HULL (1) 9nm Sub Search, Range Hull mounted sonar
Information, Bearing
Information
CA/SQR-501 CANTASS (1) 69nm Sub Search, Bearing Towed Array Sonar
Information
Mounts
Type & Quantity ROF Capacity Weapon (Service Date)
324mm Mk32 TT Twin: Mk 5 2 Mk 46 Neartip Mod 5 (1992)
46 Neartip (2)
12.7mm/50 Machine Gun (4) 1 10 12.7mm/50 MG Burst (1992)
57mm/70 Bofors Mk2 1 55 57mm/70 Mk. 2 GP (1992)
Mk 141: 1980/C/D (2) 2 4 RGM-84C Harpoon IB (1992)
RGM-84C Harpoon IC (1992)
Mk 48 Mod 0 VLS: RIM-7M 3 8 RIM-7M Sea Sparrow M (1992)
(2)
Mk 15 Block 1 CIWS 4 5 20mm Mk. 15 Blk 1 Burst (1992)
Plessy Shield (4) 1 6 Plessy Chaff
Plessy Flare
AN/SLQ-25A Nixie (2) 1 1 AN/SLQ-25A Nixie
87
WAYPOINT
Version (H3-DB2000)
Halifax (1992): As described.
Halifax (1998): Modification to SAM Armament

o 2 Mk. 48 Mod 0:RIM-7P Launchers (Each ROF: 3, Capacity: 8, weapon
RIM-7P Sea Sparrow) replaces 2 RIM-7M launchers.
o RIM-7P missile replaces RIM-7M
Current Service:
Canadian Atlantic Fleet- Based
in Halifax
Halifax (1992-present)
Ville de Quebec (1993-
present)
Toronto (1994-present)
Montreal (1994-present)
Fredericton (1994-present)
Charlottetown (1995-present)
St. Johns (1996-present)
Canadian Pacific Fleet- Based

in Esquimalt
Vancouver (1993-present)
Regina (1994-present)
Calgary (1995-present)
Winnipeg (1995-present)
Ottawa (1996-present)
Pictures, ship names and fleet assignments found at Andy Toppan’s web site, Haze Gray - World Navies Today
at: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/
88
Collins Class SSK

By Michael Mykytyn
General
Users: Australia
Roles & Mission: The

Collins class
submarine is one of
the best diesel types
in service today.
Based on a Swedish
design and fitted out
with local and
American equipment
the Collins is tasked
with conducting
patrols of Australian
territorial waters as
well as carrying out
expeditionary missions throughout the Pacific Ocean. The Collins-class design has
undergone a long and troublesome development period, but has now reached maturity
and has provided the Australian Navy with arguably the best submarines operating in the
South Pacific.
Strengths: Given the excellent sensor suite and ranged weapons, the Collins is an
excellent anti-shipping platform. It also has a strong antisubmarine capability and can
challenge even the most modern submarines in service today. During last year’s
RIMPAC exercises, a Collins class boat successfully penetrated an American carrier
group and simulated a torpedo run on the carrier itself.
Weaknesses: Like most diesel submarines, the Collins has a limited endurance, depth and
speed. The weapons capacity also suffers as result of the limited displacement. Therefore,
great care must be taken when managing this asset. These submarines should lurk in the
path of their potential targets instead of giving chase in most circumstances.
Game Stats:
Maximum Speed: 20knts
Displacement: 3051 Tons
Damage Points: 56 DP
Length: 77.8 Meters
Crew: 42
Max Depth: 300 Meters
89
WAYPOINT
Equipment: SS 73 Collins 1996 (DB2000 v6.2)

Radars:
Type 1007 45 nm Surface Search, Range Primary surface search
Information, Bearing radar.
Information
Electronic Warfare:
Argus AR740 280 nm Surface Search, Air Search, ESM Sensor
Bearing Information
Sonars:
Karriwarra TASS 39 nm Sub Search, Bearing Information Towed Array
Scylla: 1980/Adv 39 nm Sub Search, Range Information, Active-Only Sonar +
ELEDONE Bearing Information Passive Flank Array
Mounts:
Type and Quantity ROF Capacity Weapon (Service Date)
(6) 533mm TT 5 1 Mk 48 Mod 4
Mk 45 Mod 5 ADCAP
UGM-84D Harpoon IC
(2) Signal Ejectors 1 2 Esonification Bubbler
White Noise Decoy
Versions (DB2000)
SS 73 Collins (1996): As described.
SS 75 Waller: (1998): Sensor Modifications:
• TB-23/BQ towed array (99 nm, Sub Search, Bearing Information)
replaces Karriwarra TASS.
Current Service
Australia-HMAS Sterling (South of
Perth)
SS 73 Collins (1996-present)
SS 74 Farncomb (1998-present)
SS 75 Waller (1999-present)
SS 76 Dechaineux (2001-present)
SS 77 Sheehan (2001-present)
SS 78 Rankin (2002-present)
90
SU-24 FENCER
By Dimitris Dranidis
General
Users: USSR/Russia, Ukraine, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Lybia and Syria.
Roles & Missions: The Su-24, like its MiG-23/27 fighter stablemate, was the result of a
renewed emphasis by the
Soviet Air Forces (VVS) on
non-nuclear air operations
in the late-60s, following
NATO’s shift from the
doctrine of “Massive
Retaliation” to that of
“Flexible Response”. Under
the revised doctrinal
circumstances, offensive
counter-air (OCA)
operations against NATO
air forces, hitherto the
almost-exclusive province of nuclear-tipped MRBM salvoes followed by massive nuclear
airstrikes, would now also have to be able to be performed by conventional means of
air/missile attack. At the same time, the vehicles delivering these attacks would
themselves need to be highly survivable (both in the air and on the ground), and capable
of prolonged operations in austere dispersion airstrips, as the primary bases would
presumably have suffered heavily from NATO’s own OCA effort. The task of developing
essentially a Soviet version of the Tornado IDS but with additional STOL/rough-field
performance and better serviceability under adverse conditions was a technically
challenging one, particularly for the technological standards of the Soviet aviation
industry. A protracted development and pre-deployment process was inevitable, the first
operational units not forming before the mid-70s. The end result however fully justified
the effort, and produced a strike platform that ushered the VVS into a completely new era
of all-weather precision-strike capability. Although the Su-24 is primarily an OCA anti-
airfield platform, it can also perform any other interdiction/strike role with equal
effectiveness, including
nuclear strike.
Strengths: For over 15

years, the Su-24 was a
creator of nightmares for
NATO air commanders,
and with good reason. It
was the first Soviet non-
strategic aircraft capable
91
WAYPOINT
of striking targets deep in Western Europe under realistic flight-profile restrictions (i.e.
flying on the deck for the majority of the flight). It was also, together with the MiG-27
and later Su-17 variants, the aircraft that introduced the widespread use of PGMs with the
VVS in the mid-to-late-70s. Their presence in Eastern Europe in large numbers allowed
the local TVD commanders to withhold a significant nuclear-tasked reserve while at the
same time retaining hundreds of airframes available for conventional strikes (in contrast,
USAFE F-111s and RAF-G Tornados, being scarce to begin with, always had to walk a
tightrope on the splitting of assets between QRA-Victor and OCA/interdiction duties).
The considerable offensive payload of the aircraft (which, in the later versions, comprised
of such advanced weaponry as stand-off ASMs, munition dispensers, various LGBs and
anti-runway bombs) combines with high performance at low level, air-refuelling
capability and an elaborate avionics & ECM suite to make a fearsome strike platform.
The ability to operate from dispersal bases and even short, rough airstrips makes this
aircraft considerably less vulnerable to enemy OCA efforts than its western stablemates.
Weaknesses: While having possibly the most advanced avionics suite of any Soviet
tactical aircraft of its time, the Su-24 was still primitive in independent target-hunting
capability compared to contemporary western systems. This was rectified, up to a point,
on subsequent improved variants (and in particular the Su-24M), with an integrated
avionics suite and an internal laser designator. Its self-escorting capability is typical of
contemporary strike platforms i.e. nothing to boast about. Its range at low level, while
Su-24M FENCER D
Game Stats:
Max Speed: 890 kts
Length: 14.1 Meters
Span: 17,6 meters
Weight: 21150kg (22320
on Su-24M)
Crew: 2
Climb Rate: 150 m/s at SL
92
adequate for most of its duties, could have been a lot better if it was fitted with even
rudimentary turbofans (as e.g. the F-111) instead of a pair of AL-21F turbojets (based, to
an extend, to J79 technology). The air-refuelling capability was also not exploited until
the early/mid-80s by the Su-24M.
Deployment & Scenario Use: The

Su-24 starts appearing prominently
in service numbers from the mid-70s
onwards, initially in regiments
located in the Western USSR. From
the late 70s significant numbers were
present in the 16th Air Army in East
Germany, primarily in two bases:
Brandt and Grossenhein. Even
greater numbers (multiple regiments)
were located with the 4th Air Army
in Poland, in the following bases:
Krzywa, Malbork, Szprotava, Zagan
(Zagatz) and Zohastchev. Bases in Hungary included Debrecen, Kunmadaras and
Mezõkövesd. Even more units were stationed in the western Soviet republics, and
particularly in White Russia and Ukraine. The more widely used version was the definite
production standard Su-24M (Fencer-D), with the Su-24 Fencer-C trailing in numbers.
With about 1000 units built overall, the majority of them being located in Eastern Europe,
the aircraft is a “must include” element in any attempt at simulating a NATO-WP conflict
– either on the Central Front or in the flanks. The very considerable production run of the
reconnaissance version (Su-24MR) also makes it a frequent appearance in scenarios
including major actions of the Soviet Naval Aviation (AV-MF). A significant portion of
the aircraft based in the Ukraine remained there after the break-up of the Soviet Union;
however the actual operated numbers are presumed to be much lower than the total
inventory, as the aircraft have received little if any maintenance for most of the 90s.
In the Far East, the aircraft appeared
in lesser numbers and usually in the
older, less capable versions (Fencer-
A/B/C). Considering the status of the
Chinese contemporary air defence
network however, this was expected
and did not reduce its offensive
ability. (A smaller number of “D”
models appear to have been
stationed in bases facilitating
operations against Japan).
The aircraft was exported during the 80s in the downgraded Su-24MK version to Algeria,
Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
93
WAYPOINT
Equipment: Su-24 Fencer-B (1980) – DB2000 v6.3.2
Radars:
Orion-A (NATO: 80 nm Surface Search, Air Intercept, Primary surface search
Drop Kick) Range Information, Bearing & attack radar.
Information, IFF Information
EO/IR Sensors:
LRMTS 10 nm Surface Search, Range Laser designator &
Information range-finder
Electronic Warfare:
SPO-10 Sirena III 100 nm Surface Search, Air Search, Standard Soviet 60s/70s
Bearing Information internal RWR
SPS-161 Geran N/A Defensive radar jammer
Note: Initial Fencer-A/B units entered service with all combat avionics (except the
radar) in external pods. All systems were retrofitted internally during the late-70s.
Mounts:
GSh-30-6 6-barrel 30mm cannon with 500 rounds
Stores:
R-60M (AA-8 Aphid) SR-AAM
2000 & 3000 litre fuel tanks
Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) tactical ASM
Kh-25L (AS-10 Karen) laser-guided ASM
Kh-25MP (AS-12 Kegler) light ARM
KAB-500/1500 guided bombs - EO &
laser
Kh-28 (AS-9 Kyle) heavy ARM
FAB-100/250/500/1000/1500 GP HE bombs (M54 & M62 versions)
RBK-250/500 cluster bombs (HEAT and Frag versions)
BetAB-500SP concrete-piercing (anti-runway) bomb
ZAB-500 napalm
S-5K (57mm), S-8K (80mm), S-13 (130mm) & S-24 (240mm) rocket pods
TN-1000/1200 nuclear bombs
94
Versions (H3-DB2000)
USSR/Russia/Ukraine
Su-24 Fencer-B (1980): As described. Terrain-avoidance capable only

(40-100m VLow flight in H3 terms). AL-21F-3A engines. No inflight-
refuelling ability.
Su-24 Fencer-C (1981): As Fencer-B (1980).
Su-24 Fencer-B (1983): As Fencer-B (1980).
Su-24 Fencer-C (1983): As Fencer-C (1981).
Su-24M Fencer-D (1983): Major operational version, significant

improvements :
• Greatly increased MTOW increased payload weight (example :
Max. 30x FAB-250 bombs vs. 18x on Fencer-B/C)
• Inflight-refuelling capability added
• True terrain-following (20m VLow flight in H3 terms)
• New avionics:
o Integrated Nav/attack electronics suite (Advanced
Bombsight in H3 terms)
o New Kaira-24 LRMTS (internal)
o Improved RWR
o Mak MAWS added
• Additional Stores:
o Kh-58 (AS-11 Kilter) long-range ARM. Sometimes used in
conjunction with Phantasmagoria ELINT pod.
o Kh-59 (AS-13 Kingbolt) stand-off ASM. Used in
conjunction with APK-9 datalink pod in LOAL mode.
o Kh-29 (AS-14 Kedge) tactical ASM – EO & laser
o KAB-1500L-Pr penetrator bomb
Su-24MR Fencer-E: Dedicated reconnaissance & ELINT version. No

offensive weapons (only AA-8 AAMs). Avionics based on Su-24M, but
Kayra-24 removed and Orion-A radar replaced by Shtyk SLAR and EO
cameras. Additional recon & ELINT equipment on external pods.
Su-24MP Fencer-F (Russia): Dedicated escort-jamming version,

roughly EF-111 equivalent. Avionics based on Su-24M, but Kayra-24
removed and extra internal offensive & defensive ECM.
Su-24MP Fencer-F (Ukraine 1991): As Su-24MP (Russia).
95
WAYPOINT
Su-24M Fencer-D (Russia 1991): As Su-24M (1983), with additional

stores :
• Kh-31P (AS-17 Krypton) high-speed ARM
• Kh-59M (AS-18 Kazoo) EO-guided stand-off ASM
Also Kh-23/AS-7 no longer available (retired).
Su-24M Fencer-D (Ukraine 1991): As Su-24M (Russia 1991).
Su-24M Fencer-D (Russia 2003): As Su-24M (Russia 1991) with R-73

(AA-11 Archer) replacing AA-8 as self-defence AAM.
Export versions
Su-24MK Fencer-D (Algeria): Based on Su-24M. Only guided weapons

available are AS-7/9. Carries only the M54-series of FAB bombs. No free-fall
weapons over 500kg.
Su-24MK Fencer-D (Iran 1990): Based on Su-24M. Guided weapons are AS-
7/9/11. Carries both FAB and western Mk-8x series bombs. Carries only the
M54-series of FAB bombs. No free-fall weapons over 500kg.
Su-24MK Fencer-D (Iran 1996): As Su-24MK (Iran 1990), with additional

store: C-801 AShM.
Su-24MK Fencer-D (Iraq): As Su-24MK (Algeria), but additionally carries Kh-

29 (AS-14) tactical ASM.
Su-24MK Fencer-D (Libya 1989): As Su-24MK (Algeria).
Su-24MK Fencer-D (Syria): As Su-24MK (Algeria).
96
Current Users:
(Source: Peter Grining’s H4 site)
Algeria 10 Su-24MK
Iran 14 Su-24MK ordered 1990, in service from 1992. 18 ex-Iraqi flew to Iran and were
kept as war booty. Around 30 remain in service as of 2000. The UPAZ-1A is in service.
Weapons include R-60M, FAB-500, Mk-82 and Mk-83 (assume Mk-82 can replace any
FAB-250 in attack loadouts, likewise for the Mk-83 and FAB-500). The C-802K is in
service from around 1998-1999 on at least 6 aircraft.
Iraq 25 Su-24MK. These were flown to Iran to escape the Allied bombing. Iran decided
to keep the Iraqi aircraft for
herself.
Libya: 15 Su-24MK
Russia:
VVS: 365 Su-24 Fencer-C/D,
80 Su-24MR
AV-MF: 70 Fencer-C/D, 25
Su-24MR
Syria: 20 Su-24MK, remainder
of original order for 42
cancelled due to lack of funds.
Ukraine: 200 including 7 Su-
24MP.
97
WAYPOINT
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 for the internals of the programs increases.
Have an oft-quoted question that you don’t see being answered here? Ask us (waypoint@harpoonhq.com),
and we’ll post it as soon as we have an answer for it.
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
98
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?
99
WAYPOINT
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
100
- WestPac
- 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
101
WAYPOINT
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.
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?
102
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.
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.
103
WAYPOINT
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
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.
104
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
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?
105
WAYPOINT
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
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.
106
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.
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.
Harpoon 4
FAQ prepared by Dimitris V. Dranidis
When is Harpoon 4 coming out?
107
WAYPOINT
Latest word on the street is spring-2003.
Why has it taken so long?!?
1) All good things in life take time ☺

2) The product has had a difficult birth, and has gone through a number of changes in
development teams, owners etc. etc. Things appear to have calmed down in the latest
months, which has renewed our confidence in the current developers (Ultimation)
delivering a solid product.
Quoting from Ultimation’s website:

“Harpoon4's development history is a convoluted and harrowing tale, unsuitable for small
children or pregnant women. Some day, if you buy us some drinks, we might regale you
with it.
Right now, we're working as fast as we can to make Harpoon4 live up to the high
expectations that all have for it. At the current moment, the unfinished Harpoon4 code
poses a small but statistically significant threat of erasing all the data on your computer.
Therefore, we think it is best not to ship the game quite yet.”
What are the projected system requirements for Harpoon 4?
Quoting from Ubisoft’s H4 website:
Pentium® III 600 MHz (Pentium® III 1000 MHz or faster recommended).
128 MB RAM (256 MB recommended).
32 MB Video Card (DirectX 9 compatible).
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.
Will H4 support multi-player?
Yes, 2-player mode is planned.
Will a scenario editor be included?
Yes, it is planned to ship the product with a built-in scenario editor.
Does H4 use fixed maps like Harpoon Classic/97/2002 or user-defined maps like
H2/3? What parts of the world are covered?
108
Harpoon 4 will probably have fixed maps like Harpoon Classic. The maps appear to be
much larger than those of HC, however, so large-scale scenarios should not be a problem.
No single map will cover the entire world (as is possible in H2/3), but the sum of the maps
will include the entire globe.
Will it possible to modify the database like in H2/3 or in HC2002?
Yes, although the DB-editor will be a standalone Windows app that will not be thoroughly
QA-tested and thus may be prone to bugs, crashes, dataset corruption etc. The database
itself, however, will probably be based on a set of DBF files (Fox Pro) so it can be
manipulated by 3rd-party community tools.
Since H4 will use 3D graphics like Fleet Command, will it be possible to modify the
existing 3D models or add new ones?
Probably not, at least in the original release. It will be possible however to associate new
platforms with existing 3D models.
Questions not yet answered here…
An interview on Shawn Stork on WarGamer

(http://www.wargamer.com/articles/harpoon4_interview/)
has quite a few material that classifies as FAQ-grade stuff. Have a look there if you have a
H4 question not answered here. The official H4 forums at Ubisoft’s site are also a good
source: http://forums.ubi.com/messages/overview.asp?name=Harpoon_GD&page=1
109
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. Think we have left out something important/interesting/beneficial? Tell us
(waypoint@harpoonhq.com) and we’ll gladly include it.
G'day Guys
Firstly I must congratulate Jessie and the team on a huge effort and great work on getting
H3 to the state it is in.
Extremely well done.
OK
As a long time miniature's Harpoon gamer/gamemaster I have long modified myself many
of the value's used for SAM's and also air to air missile's.
Why you may ask? Well from where i am sitting the sim has always had an enormous
problem with aircraft attrittion being to high due to the high PK's of both SAM's and air to
air missiles.
Given the relatively high values of some weopons aircraft are being shot down in droves
with often very little in return as the survivors dive for shelter from a hail of lethal
missiles.
To give you some example's.
First.
SA2B Guidline.A missile which has a PK of some 15% in Harpoon 3 had an effective kill
rate of 1 kill for every 150 missile fired during the Vietnam war.
Early Aim 9 and Aim 7 which in the sim have PK's of around the 60% mark. In actual
employment in Vietnam the missiles had an effectiveness of 15% and 8% respectively.
Now from my position these early missiles are WAY WAY WAY overrated and hence
causes a flow on effect which means we are now facing modern missiles which can cause
losses far greater than in reality.
Take a look at the AIM 9L in the Falklands conflict.
Of 26 missiles fired 18 scored hits and the destruction of aircraft.
That works out to be 75% kill rate.
Well considering the Argie's did not employ countermeasures(flares) and where in the
absolute best heatseeking environment imaginable. With a beautiful cold water
background they should have performed this well if not better given the conditions.
Yet in the sim it has a base kill rate of 85% as compared to 75% in reality. Ouch!
Given that on many occasions the missiles will be fired at far more agile aircraft with
relatively effective countermasures and in most cases a far less missile friendly
environment. I can't see how we can arrive at a PK of 80+%.
Given that in particular with radar guided missiles and IR missile terrain masking is used
extensively and trained for by both navies and air forces around the world aircraft are
being underrated in their survivability in the sim vs ALL missiles.
Even just using terrain masking comes at a risk of crashing which again has a PK in excess
of actual aircraft losses in combat situations.
Where am I going with this?
Well as far as i can see from where i sit the missile kill value's need a major re-evaluation
in terms of there anti air effectiveness.
110
Considering most targets will be at extreme low level dodging between trees and on most
occassions will not be visible till the last seconds before an attack the window we now
have is far to large for the launch of multiple missles which would not occur in the real
life.
The amount of mission planning to minimize exposure to SAM's and approach routes can't
realy be simulated so at the moment a/c losses can be staggering and far to great to say the
least.
I am looking for other people's comments on this subject, what you think and do you think
if something needs looking at.
In a great sim this is in my opinion of 15 years of Harpoon gaming the only hole.
What do you think?
Darren Howie
Dimitris Dranidis answers:

Hi Darren,
First of all, I would recommend that you try a Harpoon 3 scenario with the After-Action
Log enabled and afterwards open the log file and read some of the missile engagement
calculations. They are quite revealing at what is going on during the engagement endgame
and what factors affect the final probability of kill.
When we assign a certain Pk to an anti-air weapon, we do so only after very careful

consideration of what its final Pk is going to be against various typical aircraft types
(small fighters, large fighters, strikers, bombers, transports & misc. etc.) - in other words,
how well it is going to fare against each target _after_ all the endgame factors have been
taken in: weapon's initial Pk, target's manouverability, whether the target was alerted at
the presence of the weapon or not (if it wasn't, it loses the manouverability modifier),
target's ECM, weapon's ability against Vlow targets (if applicable), target's very high
speed (if applicable), target's very small signature (if applicable) etc. (Ragnar especially,
being something of an airwar nut, spends endless hours testing, say, the Pk of an AA-6
against an F-14A+ etc. etc. The detail & thoroughness of his tests manages to bore even
me sometimes, which is quite an achievement :-).
So, to use the SA-2B example, the initial 15% Pk will easily be reduced to 5% (the
minimum Pk we use on all weapons) as a result of manouvering and ECM by a typical
target of its era, say a B-52C/D. (BTW what is your source for the 1/150 Pk? What we've
read and heard suggests a rough 1/20 rate). Harpoon correctly shows that even a high-
end SAM such as a late Patriot or SA-10 variant is going to have a very hard time against
a fast, stealthy, terrain-hugging, highly-agile and ECM-stuffed target. Never assume that
the "stock" Pk that you see in the database is the weapon's actual chance of killing the
target. The database Pk value refers to the weapon's ability against a perfectly
cooperating target in the best of conditions (which almost never materialise).
There are also a number of real-life factors detrimental to SAM & AAM performance that
cannot be easily taken into account in Harpoon. For instance, many (and I mean many) of
111
WAYPOINT
the missed shots of such weapons since the early 60s are attributed to the fact that they
were launched either outside the weapon's parameters for the engaged target(s) or without
properly establishing a clear lock to the target. This would was either done deliberately
(putting up a lot of "stuff" quickly to literally scare the attackers off and break the
cohesion of their carefully organized formations, subsequently making each of them an
easier target for the "real" killing shots), or unwillingly: Accurate and effective fire-
control computers able to provide a solid estimation of whether the target is within the
valid launch envelope appeared in widespread use only in the 70s in the Western block,
and even later in the East. Until then, you simply had to have a well-trained & experienced
operator at the console and hope he knows his stuff. This was often the case with the AIM-
7 and SA-2 & SA-7 (and AAA) in Vietnam, the SA-2, SA-3 and HAWK in the Middle East
etc. there is even strong evidence to suggest that the Patriot PAC-1 in DS had a very low
Pk against Scud-mod TBMs because of this problem (and because the crews would
frequently, out of "can't be too careful" conservatism, fire multiple missiles at the same
TBM in rapid succession, typically the latter shots being wasted).
Now in Harpoon 2 & 3, the AI handling the missile engagements is smart enough to never
fire unless the preconditions of valid launch parameters and valid lock are satisfied (it
also walks the extra mile of firing only within the no-escape zone, which is calculated
using the target's velocity). This means that a boatload of missiles that in real-life would
have been fired and missed, in the simulation they are never fired at all. So it makes
perfect sense that you get the impression of missiles in Harpoon being more deadly than
their real-life counterparts.
On your note on use of terrain by aircraft: Harpoon 2 & 3 correctly model the effect of
terrain masking; they actually calculate the LOS of each weapon to each target within its
maximum range. Put a mountain between your aircraft and enemy sensors/weapons and
you _will_ disappear (unless the other guy is using an OTH-B system). The effect of
terrain clutter on sensors is also used on sensor detection-range computations as well as
terminal missile engagement calculations (VLow target modifier). So we have strong
reason to believe that the simulation justly rewards aircraft that make the sacrifices of
taking the low road (reduced sensor horizon, minimised launch parameters of own
weapons, reduced range etc.).
If even after these arguments you are still convinced that we are being overly generous to
anti-air operators, feel free to contact us on the HHQ (webmaster@harpoonhq.com) and
we can discuss concrete examples as well as methods of refining the weapon engagement
models - both in the database and in the simulation code itself.
I have been playing Fleet Command for some time and am considering purchasing
H3. Could you tell me, is there any similarities in the games and would I be correct in
assuming H3 is more like the real thing and perhaps therefore, much more difficult to
play?
Your comments would be greatly appreciated.
112
Dave Fouracre.
Hi there, and happy holidays.
To give you a perspective, both Fleet Command and Harpoon 3 had the same goal: to be
the successors to Harpoon 2, arguably hitherto the finest air/naval strategy-simulation.
Fleet Command, while having its own merits, failed miserably because the developers
chose (or were forced) to "target the mainstream market" (you know what this means).
Harpoon 3 succeeded brilliantly because the developer stayed true to the spirit of H2 and
improved the aspects that needed attention (Windows compatibility, speed, bug fixes,
added features etc.).
Similarities: Both products deal with air and naval warfare at the tactical/operational
level. You will find H3's tactical windows quite similar to Fleet Command's 2D-view, but
with much grater functionality (automatic range-rings etc.). H3 does not use any 3D
graphics whatsoever, it only uses the 2D-display method.
Harpoon 3's realism level is light years ahead of Fleet Command. This has been the
subject of endless discussions in the past, so I'll be brief here. Fleet Command is a game,
Harpoon (in all versions) is a non-classified simulation. Simple as that.
However, H3 is quite easy to get into. The user-interface is very "logical" (far more so
than Fleet Command) and easy to master. Also, the "advanced" interface features
(missions, tactical overlays, logistics management etc.) are optional; you can easily play
and win most scenarios with the familiar point-and-click interface. Moreover, there is an
entire battleset (group of scenarios) dedicated to tutorials, all the way from elementary
functions to advanced and complex operations. If you go through it, manual in hand, you
should have no problem whatsoever.
Hi!
I just began work on a monster scenario and had 3 bases built, 4th under construction for
Soviet side (nothing on NATO side) when the editor locked up. Trying to reload it gives
me a fatal error, that the weather fails to load. Anybody want to look at this?
File size at last save (which won't load) is about 1 meg. More details upon request.
Regards,
Michael Masters
Ragnar Emsoy answers:
113
WAYPOINT
Michael,
What I think happened was that the editor crashed while saving the scenario, and thus
weather (the last part of the scenario file) was not written to the disk. This has happened a
couple of times to me too, although only in Harpoon II. A total loss.
To avoid losing the scenario if Harpoon3 crashes I strongly recommend taking lots of
backups by frequently saving the scenario with different names. I've use the following
system for several years now:
test_001.sav
test_002.sav
test_003.sav, etc
And then I use a separate file for the 'release' version, for example: testing.scn
PS. but why design a monster scenario? Why not scale it and cut it up into smaller scens
so that everyone can play it? I've never played a monster scenario myself, and I probably
never will. And the HarpoonHQ site log shows that these scens are only downloaded 1/10
as any times as the normal scens. So... :-))
How do you download H3 if you previously purchased it through nws.org? I recently

upgraded to WinXP, and had to format my HD in the process. I thought I had copied over
the H3 install stuff, but only copied the latest exe. I have my lok and kee files. The email
receipt for my purchase says to go the the nws.org webpage and scroll down for directions,
but it appears you can't d/l anymore.
Jerry Snitselaar
Steve Eggleston (eggstor@wi.rr.com) answers:
If it's just the executable (Harpoon3xxx.exe, ScenEditxxx.exe and DBEditxxx.exe) you're

missing and not anything else, you can download the latest version (3.5.7) at
http://www.harpoon3.com/designer_notes.html and just continue playing as though
nothing happened. If you're missing anything else, either e-mail Jesse directly or Chris
Dean (NWS Team Director) at warshipfc@yahoo.com
1. Can you use the KC10 Extender (or any tanker) to perform in-flight refueling? Do you
set the tanker up at a waypoint or add it as a element to a mission - and if the latter is
true - can it be broken off from the mission at a certain point?
114
2. Is there a tutorial just on the mission editor? The missions themselves seem
straightforward - but I'm sure there are tips on how to employ certain mission types.
3. The KC10 doesn't have a graphic or a pic in the db. Alot of things don't. If I want to
take the pic at http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/KC_10A_Extender.html and clip it in
- how do I add it as a pic?
4. I remember from the old H97 days to add a jamming platform, such as the Prowler - to
a strike package. How do you designate the target of a strike package? I can select
aircraft and set waypoints - but if I want a SAM battery to be the subject of a strike - I
can't seem to select it?
5. Are there any tips to the Intermittent use of ECM? Is there a reason to use it one way
or another? Can I fly very low until I get close and then activate it in a strike package?
6. I set option 1 in the harpoon.ini file so I can talk to subs after they submerge. But I
can't figure out if there is a trick to dropping sonobuoys. I think the helos I deploy are
just using dipping sonar – will they deploy the buoys automatically?
That's it for now - thanks to all in advance.

GPL Dan

1. IIRC you can add it to the aircraft assigned to a mission and it will refuel the other
mission aircraft as appropriate. It's also a good idea to have a tanker in the air at all
times (regardless of mission) wherever you have intensive air ops - you never know
when your fighter CAPs will run short on fuel after an intensive BVR clash, for
instance. Keep in mind that air-refueling in H3 is somewhat broken; it's inconsistent
(sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't) and doesn't always work the way you want it
to. This is one of the bugs given priority on being fixed.
2. Mike Mykytyn has written a great guide to the mission editor. Here's the simple text
form of the article: http://www.harpoonhq.com/articles/articles.h2mission001.htm. An
improved version of the article, with some corrections and pictures, is included on
issues #1 and #2 of Waypoint.
3. I seem to recall that there was an utility just for this purpose. Don't remember if it
worked as advertised, though. Anyone...?
4. Before you create the strike mission, you first click-select the target. Then you create
the mission and select "Edit now". When you go into the mission screen (the one in
which you assign assets to missions) and select that mission, there should be a line
saying something like "Anti-surface strike - Target: XXX".
5. Depends on the type of ECM. Using the DB-2000, all self-defence jammers are used
automatically whether you have them activated or not. Offensive and stand-off
jammers, such as those carried by the Prowler, are activated and used manually. The
offensive jammers are a bit omnipotent at the moment because of H2/3's simplified
ECM model (one other thing that is being worked on) - for example, their effectiveness
does not reduce with range, they are not LOS-limited by the horizon, and individual
115
WAYPOINT
frequency bands are not modelled. Using terrain-masking to your advantage is always
a sound tactic. H3 makes it much easier than in H2, as aircraft now perform true
terrain-following without needing constant babysitting (as was the case in H2).
6. There's a much easier alternative to manually editing the ini file: Paolo Moneta's H3
Launcher, get it here: http://www.harpoonhq.com/utilities.htm. To manually drop
active and passive sonobouys, press "[" and "]". To have your air assets drop them
automatically, you have to assign them to air patrols from the formation editor. Two of
the patrol types are "ASW - sonobuoys" and "ASW - Dipping sonar". Depending on
what you select, the air units will drop buoys or use the dip on the patrol area you
have specified (the area is defined relative to the center of the group and moves along
with it, of course).
Hi, I have a little problem because my pc crashed resulting in a total re-install. I've bought
the key file etc. But it seems that the download version of H3 is gone from the NWS site.
Is it me or?
Cheers
Mark Jensen
Mike Mykytyn answers:

Yes, NWS has discontinued the downloadable version of the game. Jesse's site
http://www.harpoon3.com does have it however:-). I'm sure if you email him about the
issue he'll take care of you.
Anyone able to help me out with false sub contacts when editing scenarios (using
DB2000)?
Basically the problem is that any aircraft can "see" false sub contacts and ID them as false
sub contacts.
Nothing kinda ruins an intense sub warfare mission like flying an F-15 over the water and
having it ID all the "goblins" as false contacts or worse yet fill the map with visual
spottings of false sub contacts before friendly subs are even within 500nm of the
contact...intentional or not.
Confirming that during the scen editing, yes the false contacts are set to intermed depth
and not on the surface with big white searchlights pointing into the sky, fireworks shooting
into space and tin-foil kites flying off the decks with chem lights daisy chained down the
string....
cheers
zero2espect
116
One small comment on how to use false contacts:
Submarines without orders will automatically go to periscope depth or surface. This is

what happens to the false contacts in your scenarios. The easiest way to prevent this from
happening is by plotting a small course for the contacts. Since the contact cannot move,
they will never reach the end of the path and thus will stay 'Plotted' for the duration of the
scenario without surfacing.
You can also use Whales in your scenario, they look very much like diesel-electric subs,
and if you're lucky you get the player to waste dozens of $400,000 torps on these things :-)
Played “Entering the Norwegian Sea” scenario with the current database and build. I had a
message come up to report to H3 a bug. A Nimrod and a Viking on several occasion
detected what appeared to be an aircraft carrier by its symbol, however since the are no
surface vessels in the area and detection was by MAD, I presume it was a sub. The AA-log
was running. What other information can I supply?
Tony

That’s a sceneditor/DB trick which you saw. Basically, there's a neat unit in the DB2K
called “Landbase” which is like an invisible carrier. This platform was designed to give
you the ability to have waterborne remote bases (the idea being you can base aircraft off
axis, within in certain range, a neat tool really :-). They are supposed to be invisible and
we'll surely look into it. IIRC it was behind a Nav Zone designed to keep AC out (or a
marker to warn you to keep your AC out). So if you check out your log you'll see that
violation and it may be on your victory screen as well.
My question concerns setting the date for the scenario. When the edit menu on the taskbar
is selected and reset date and time is selected and the window opens, you can reset the year
up to 99 but not 03 or 04. Can this be overcome, and if so, how?
Thanks,
Tom Stansell
Fred Galano (f.galano@att.net) answers:

In my experience the scenario date is stuck in the century of the original date. In other
words, if you create a scenario in 1985 for example, you can change the date to 1988 or
1995 for example (dates within the century) but you cannot change it to the year 2003. This
also means that if you create a scenario in the 21st century, you can’t change it back to the
20th. So for example, you can change a 2002 scenario to 2007 or 2009 (dates within the
century) but you can’t change it to 1997. Anyway, hope this helps.
117
WAYPOINT
I have a couple of general questions about databases:
1) What references are folks using, I know about Jane's Fighting Ships but I saw a review
on Amazon that generally says Jane's isn't very good. Something I already knew from
looking at entries for the subs that I was personally on, the Jane’s specs are not very close.
He recommended “Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships” in place of Jane’s. I don't
think I've ever seen one of these.
2) I noticed that in DB2000 there is a considerable gap in US Nuke subs, the entries seem
to start with the Sturgeon Class and ignore everything prior. All the Boats from the
Nautilus to the Sturgeon are missing. I was thinking about trying a scenario with the
Scorpion based on what I heard about the cause of its loss.
J Bryan Kramer

1) From what I know all sorts of sources from Jane’s to the Harpoon Annex. The
database guys I know do their homework.
2) The DB2k covers the years 79-02 which explains the gap. There is a DB in the works
(UDB56-79) which will cover the time period you require.

1) See Mike's reply :) We discovered long time ago that Jane's is not a reliable source.
2) The DB2K covers 1980-2003++. I know some boats are missing, but no-one have
requested them for their scenarios so I never bothered creating them for the database:
SSN 685 Glenard P. Lipscomb (1974->1990)
SSN 593 Thresher (1963->1992-97)
SSKN 597 Tullibee (1960->1988)
SSGN 587 Halibut (1960->1986)
SSN 585 Skipjack (1959->1986-90)
SSN 578 Skate (1957->1984-88)
SSN 575 Seawolf (1960->1987)
Let me know which ones you need :)
I have noticed for some time new aircraft types in DB2000. Some of them like the Raven,
Skywarrior and the Greyhound I figured out were for AWACS or reconnaissance. Some
helicopters were to carry marines, which I figured out you could load the marines and use
them as a weapon against ground targets. However, some aircraft and helicopters like the
C-130H and various Sea Kings do not have any loadouts and I cannot figure out if they are
for decoration or have some purpose. Most of these aircraft are used to carry cargo or
men; some of the helicopters seem to be for search and rescue. However, these functions
are not modeled in Harpoon 3. Fleet Command, an otherwise poor wargame, did allow
you to rescue pilots. A neat feature but not really important. But in Harpoon 3, why are
these aircraft included in the database and some scenarios if they cannot serve a purpose?
Jim Yalem
118

Technically you are correct. Some are just there for aesthetics and serve no real purpose
than perhaps a set of eyes or perhaps a neutral contact to create a "real" atmosphere. I
think its a good thing and given that there inclusion doesn't hurt gameplay. I don't think we
should start erasing the entries. I also would like to note that a lot of Ragnar's design
goals are to create a realistic OOB and not just one that is functional. DB size isn't really
any issue anymore (at least as it was way back when) so don't think there is anything
wrong with keeping them.
Tim Ousley comments:

Jim Yalem's question about aircraft additions was a good one because of something I've
seen happening intermittently. In H3 with auto-formations OFF, when I have different
missions going on--both manual and mission-editor types--I find that sometimes I can't
land planes on the carrier from which they launched, even in one-carrier scenarios. I get
a message that says "unit unable to land at selected destination" or something like that.
There is a workaround (plot plane to the carrier and let it loiter and it eventually lands, I
guess when it's out of fuel) but this ties up some resources. It seems to me the simulation
would take into account that the aircraft director would be able to handle the recovery of
all aircraft launched on missions.
My questions are 1) does anyone know the cause of this; and 2) will it get worse if I
introduce Greyhounds into a scenarios and have COD traffic shuttling back and forth
between land & carrier, adding to the number of planes on deck?
Ragnar Emsoy responds:

There are many things that can cause this problem, the most common ones are:
1) There are too many aircraft on the carrier

2) We've changed an aircraft's size in the DB2K database, so that it takes up more space
on a carrier. The game will allow you to take off, but when coming back there is no longer
enough room.
3)There is a bug in the aircraft facilities somewhere. In the original database, aircraft
carriers had hangars with different sizes. Normally, the larger hangars were filled up first,
and if the AI put all the small aircraft here, you will not be able to land your Tomcats
because the remaining hangar space is 'too small'. I’m pretty sure we've fixed this problem
_for good_ in the DB2K, but it could be that we've missed one or two ships.
So please let us know right away when this problem arises the next time so that we can fix
it (if possible). Thanks.\
Adding-in CODs will of cause make the situation worse :) But we've added in some slack
in the DB2K and you should be able to put nearly 100 planes on a carrier.
First a quick one; Have the monster scens by Klaus been updated to DB2000 v6.2 yet? Is
any body playing them with the database mismatch?
119
WAYPOINT
Second, I had a proplem with a Type 42 destroyer under SS-N-12 attack. It saw about 12
incoming missiles and started shooting 2 at a time, however all the incoming missiles
showed the icon mark that says they are under attack, and none of my other SAM ships
would engage automatically.
My guess is the game is saying “I am going to engage them all with the first SAM ship”
and does not take into account rate of fire since other ships could get SAMs away before
the first ship gets the second salvo away.
Tony

1) No, the scenarios will not work with a newer database. Normally, Harpoon3 will
handle smaller mismatches (even where Harpoon2 did not), but the difference between
v6.1.X and v6.2 is too great.
2) This has to do with the way Harpoon3 analyzes an incoming attack, and the 'strength'
of the defending ships. In some cases, all missiles will be assigned to a single ship, thus
the icon mark. To solve the problem you can set WEAPONS TIGHT and handle
engagements manually.
Klaus Behrman comments:

The monsters will be updated once [DB2000 v6.3] is released.
I already have the downloadable version of Harpoon3. I was wondering how I can get the
CD.
mm60445

Assuming you have purchased the download version, it's a tricky question…the normal
procedure when ordering the CD (from NWS) is that you are paying the full price, which
includes the purchase of the actual software. But if you've already paid for registering the
DL version, you'll have to make sure that the NWS are aware of it (maybe contact Jesse
himself?) and thus only charge you for the S&H costs.
How does one break apart an enemy base into the components of airstrip, bunker, hangar,
etc?
Thanks.
GPL Dan

If you mean during scenario-design time, you add the components individually and then
group them altogether as appropriate.
If you mean while actually running the scenario, you switch from group-view to unit-view
("9"/"PgUp" on the keypad).
120
Is possible to use the Scenario Editor if you don't have a full copy of H3 e.g only the
demo.
Thanks
Chris

No, the scenario editor will behave just like the main program executable, ie. it will ask for
the lok-kee combo that you get during registration. On the other hand, you get the same
10-day free trial period as with the main game.
My Name is Clayton Powers and I have registered Harpoon 3. I'm emailing because I had
a disk disaster and lost harpoon3 I cured the problem and tried to reinstall the program. I
still have my .kee file. It's in the Harpoon 3 directory but I get a message that the game is
not registered. What should I do to get back up and running?
Clayton Powers
Dan Hayes (danielh@bom.gov.au) answers:

Clayton, make sure the path is to your H3 directory is the same as it was before and
ensure that the .lok that was used to generate the .kee file is also in the same location. If
that doesn't fix it or you have lost the .lok file then just run the registration proram again
and get a new lok and send it to Jesse with an explanation. He will get you a new .kee
then.
121

Waypoint Issue 2

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 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WAYPOINT

THE MAGAZINE OF THE COMPUTER HARPOON COMMUNITY

LEGAL NOTICES & DISCLAIMER

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

What is happening with Harpoon 4?

There was an interesting exchange of information recently on the Yahoo H3 group,

Ragnar Emsoy responded:

Soviet/Russian SEAD doctrine, tactics and

The integration of UAVs with manned

Precision emitter location using the

Plus a wide variety of news and reports on

Other database additions:

Database updates and bugfixes:

An interesting article on satellite-guided munitions, written by Michael Putre of JED fame,

Some news and tidbits, courtesy of the HDG:

The TACTOM (Tactical Tomahawk) is due to enter service in 2004. Guidance is

Harpoon Classic 97/2002

Briefing - Orders for NATO:

Clarification of Victory Conditions

2) Destroy Iowa, Illustrious and Leahy Class CG

That is all. Good Luck

Clarification of Victory Conditions

Clarification of Victory Conditions

Fight or Flight – The Russian Version

Clarification of Victory Conditions

Joint Exercise ‘02

LOCATION : SOLOMON / BISMARK SEA

Only 32 air-launched Harpoon missiles are available at this time.

COMMAND AND SIGNAL:

When Michael Mykytyn set out to attempt to recreate this surrealistic-meets-technothriller

While adequate for the purposes of

The scenario itself starts fast and

“BOOM!” has stood the test of time

BOOM! – An interview with the designer, Michael Mykytyn

I really didn't want the scenario to be a cruise

Well that goes back to what I was

The enemy AI in "Boom!" is quite aggressive, both in offensive and defensive

BOOM! – AFTER-ACTION REPORTS

The F-16 and F-15 fighters joined up with the bombers

At maximum toss-range from Anadyr, I brought it up as quickly as possible in order to toss

THE INFAMOUS H2/3 MISSION EDITOR – PART II

Lesson 3: Understanding the Missions that can be assigned in the game.

FIRST, AN IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT MISSIONS AND THE PLATFORMS

NEXT, A NOTE ON ANY PLATFORM THAT CARRIES A WEAPON:

Tips and Tricks of the Plotted Mission:

THE TRANSIT MISSION:

Tips and Tricks with the Transit Mission:

THE FERRY MISSION:

Tips and Tricks with the Ferry Mission:

THE AIR INTERCEPT MISSION:

Aircraft assigned to the Air Intercept Mission: The

Subs assigned to the Air Intercept Mission: Assigning a submarine to an intercept

Tips and Tricks for the Air Intercept Mission:

THE GROUND STRIKE MISSION:

Aircraft assigned to the Ground

Facilities assigned to a Ground Strike Mission: Facilities can be assigned to a ground

Tips and Tricks for Ground Strike Missions:

THE SHIP STRIKE MISSION:

Ships assigned to Ship Strike Missions:

Tips and Tricks for Ship Strike Missions:

THE SUB STRIKE MISSION:

Ships assigned to the Sub Strike

Tips and Tricks For Sub Strike Missions:

This mission is an excellent mission to assign to embarked anti-submarine warfare aircraft.