Subject: SMML VOL 1192 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:12:16 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: CVN report 2: "we gotta protect those marines!" 3: USS Iowa (BB-61) 4: Upcoming Vacation 5: Re: CVN Report 6: Re: USS / SS United States 7: Re: CVN Names 8: USS Ranger 9: ICM Hood Kit 10: ROYAL NAVY CAMOUFLAGE, VOL II, 1942 11: Re: Virtual Modeling Part 2 12: Re: SS Persia 13: VCR alert -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation 1: Re: Hornet Con 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: KG 5 Class Battleships Conversion Sets -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Chris Crofoot Subject: Re: CVN report >> The discussion on US aircraft carriers has been very interesting particularly in light of a report in the British press that President Bush's administration had completed its strategic review. Flawed though this obviously was the review indicated that the Ronald Reagan was to be the last of the Nimitz class to be built and that no more large super carriers would be built after it. << Flawed? Care to explain? >> The reasons given were that they were too expensive (5 billion dollars quoted) too big and too vulnerable to sea skimming surface missiles and that if any new carriers are built they will be a lot smaller. << Seems to make perfect sense. With our focus on China as our next potential adversary and 3000 miles of water between us, having a faster, less vulnerable fleet seems smart thinking. Emphasis is supposed to be placed on troop movement too. That means more sealift capability, and I would venture to say submarines will become the big stick that will win our next fight. I'd be willing to bet you'll see a whole lot more cooperation between ourselves and Australia to boot. Upshot is we'll probably have more hulls to model... and they won't take up as much space in 1/350. Chris Crofoot -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Andy Anderson" Subject: "we gotta protect those marines!" Howdy shipmates! Welcome to Yip Island! it's "somewhere in the South Pacific" during 1942-43, (time just all runs together out here on these islands!) Its got a 4000' strip down the middle of it, ocurtesy of the enemy, and we've just landed a few B-17s, R4Ds, and B-26s. The marines here have gotta be protected!! We need some decent antiaircraft guns--who makes some brass etchings of these?Im in 700 scale. BTW my table is 45"x86". (for those of you who have confused meters with miles in my last message!!) Andy Anderson Fifth Grade -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Glenn & Kelly Neklason" Subject: USS Iowa (BB-61) Anybody have an idea as to when the USS Iowa (BB-61) is scheduled to sail under the Golden Gate? Thanks, Glenn -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "John Rule" Subject: Upcoming Vacation I am going to be visiting Sao Miguel Island in the Azores in April. Does anyone know of any ship related places to visit? John Rule -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Roland Mar Subject: Re: CVN Report >> The discussion on US aircraft carriers has been very interesting particularly in light of a report in the British press that President Bush's administration had completed its strategic review. Flawed though this obviously was the review indicated that the Ronald Reagan was to be the last of the Nimitz class to be built and that no more large super carriers would be built after it. The reasons given were that they were too expensive (5 billion dollars quoted) too big and too vulnerable to sea skimming surface missiles and that if any new carriers are built they will be a lot smaller. << I fear the implications of the smaller CVN's [at least as far as I have heard it is still"N"]. The cost savings are chimerical. You need the same escort per CVBG to protect from attack. You will have a smaller, less capable strike force [smaller decks mean smaller aircraft, mean shorter range and less payload]. You still have to reserve a portion of your CAW for self defense, CAP etc., and the lower capabilities of smaller planes means using more of them to achieve the same level of protection. This means far fewer, less capable planes to project power, which is the mission after all. To have the same number of strike planes putting ordnance on target takes about 1/3 MORE in cost with 2 smaller CVN's rather than 1 large. However, there are other points in this BURP that are being passed over by the political class. It is not a matter of having more smaller carriers in place of fewer larger carriers. They have explicitly said that there will be fewer, smaller carriers. They are publicly saying that we are reducing the ability to project power for the next 20-40 years. While the review gives lip service to swinging our emphasis from Europe/Middle East to the Pacific, there is no reduction in commitments to Europe/Middle East. Until we decide what we will drop in these theaters [and the coming energy crunch makes it unlikely that we will do so], it is the Pacific that will get the short end of the stick, with fewer, less capable forces trying to cover the same area. In short, we are going to cede the Western Pacific as an American sphere of influence. Despite our trade ties with Taiwan, Japan, and S. Korea, they will be outside of an effective American "defense umbrella" and they will know it. This means they will have the choice of either reaching political and economic accommodations with China, Russia, and North Korea, or will be forced to create their own defensive shield. The only way that a small nation can deter a large nation is home grown nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea all have the technological base to do this, but if they do it will be a far more complex world. Either choice they make in the absence of US influence is not going to be beneficial to US interests. This is not to be considered a case of "Carriers Forever!". If we can come up with another technology that proves to have the same or better flexibility and force projection capability, lets do it. But the things they are talking about to replace or supplement CVBG's are, by their own projections, 20+ years down the road. You have to be sure of living through the short term, before you can deal with the long term. Deliberate weakening of our forces in the face of a very threatening short term, does not bode well for making it to the long term. This should start the comments that Chris Langtree asked for. Let the thread begin! Roland Mar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: SeaPhoto@aol.com Subject: Re: USS / SS United States The SS United States - no matter how meager her existence these days, would not impact one way or another on the ability of the Navy to name a carrier the USS United States, clearly they would be two different vessels. There have been numerous instances during the last century of civilian and military ships having the same name. For example, the Carrier USS America (CV-66) had her name assigned and was christened before the Ocean Liner SS America was taken out of service in 1964. Kurt Greiner SeaPhoto Maritime Photography http://warshipphotos.com - now taking Paypal! Warship Models Underway http://warshipmodelsunderway.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Richa5011@aol.com Subject: Re: CVN Names >> ...be much smaller ships with smaller airgroups. ... I fear that the small ones will need names like BULLSEYE or LILLIPUT. << In that case, how about naming them: Bilbo, Samwise, Meridoc, Peppin and Frodo. Offered with tounge firmly in cheek.. Nat Richards -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Andy Anderson" Subject: USS Ranger My dad flew from the Ranger in 1946. At the time it was a training ship -- Does anyone make a kit of her in 700 scale? Would anyone have a short paragraph history of her?? Was she used in active service in WWII? BTW I'm not 10 years old as the grade implies--although some are convinced otherwise!! ;^) I'm the teacher! Andy Anderson Fifth Grade -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Richa5011@aol.com Subject: ICM Hood Kit Thought I would pass along the following quote from the April 2001 Model Retailer: "The highly anticipated HMS Hood World War II British Battlecruiser (No. S005, $ 199.00) is a kit that has not been available for about 30 years, and likely will be sought by experienced modelers. This hihghly detailed 1:350-scale ship is 30 inches long and contains more than 650 pieces. It is offered in limited numbers, muck like the previously released HMS Snowberry, so it likely won't be around long." I think the key bit of news to me was the MSRP of $ 199.00, better than twice than the Konig kits. Nat Richards -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Dimi Apostolopoulos Subject: ROYAL NAVY CAMOUFLAGE, VOL II, 1942 An one word review of Alan Raven's 2nd volume: INVALUABLE Dimi ps. I think that we will have much to discuss about this book over the next few weeks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Chuck Messer" Subject: Re: Virtual Modeling Part 2 Fellow SMMLies, For those that may be interested in my posting about converting 3D computer models to resin, here's a more detailed address: www.starshipmodeler.com/projects/soft2hard.htm The company in the article will, for a fee, create any part you want, even from hand-drawn sketches. The details in the model in the article were as small as 0.5 mm. Not bad! :^) Chuck -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "*Anderson, D, Doug (MSc)" Subject: Re: SS Persia Yes it is. I am just starting the research on her in order to build a large scale model of her. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Rod Dauteuil Subject: VCR alert I hope this makes the list in time for Monday! For you New Englanders, tonight (Monday, 3/26) at 9:00 on New England Cable News is a story of the USS Indianapolis, and interviews with 3 New England survivors. Rod -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: wem Subject: Re: Hornet Con 2001 If you're thinking of going as far afield as Benicia, don't forget the S.S. RED OAK VICTORY at Point Richmond. While the ship is still awaiting restoration, they are open and would be glad to have visitors. John Snyder White Ensign Models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Subject: KG 5 Class Battleships Conversion Sets Thank you to everyone who just gave me a nudge to get things moving with the King George V class parts to convert the Airfix 1/600 scale kit. I have been in possesion of the completed patterns for some weeks now but have been unsure as to what form to make them available, or even what sort of response i would get. The response is now obvious, and the form of availabiltiy I have chosen is to package each of the items seperately rather than have a complete conversion kit, for example, to convert KG 5 to Anson. This is because several of the items are universal and can be used for upgrading other kits, so it makes sense that you should be able to obtain what you need to do the job with as little left over as possible. I will submit the patterns to the caster this week, and I should be able to put prices to the list shortly, but for now here is what will be immediately available on return from casting:- ATC6001 KG 5 Forward superstructure block with bridge wing extensions x 1 per pack ATC6002 5.25" HA/LA Gun Turret and barrels x 8 per pack ATC6003 KG 5 Midships Superstruture and Boat Deck to fit over catapult x 1 per pack ATC6004 42' Open Launch x 2 per pack ATC6005 Aft AA Weapons Deck x 1 per pack ATC6006 HACs Mk 5 Directors (The square ones) x 4 per pack ATC6007 20mm AA Gun Tubs (Circular) x 10 per pack ATC6008 Twin 20mm Powered Mountings x 6 per pack ATC6009 4 Barrelled 40mm Bofors x 2 per pack These will be released on the Atlantic Models label and available from White Ensign Models or possibly from Keith Butterley as an alternative. As time passes I will be adding items to the list of accessories so that those of you who do love the old 50 feet to the inch scale (1/600) can either enhance existing kits or convert them to other ships of the same basic class. I have had one or two suggestions that I do the same sort of thing for subjects in other scales. There are so many possibilities, and so little time, that I think for the standard scales anyway, it may be looked at as future WEM subject matter. CAROLINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I am going to continue to create the 1/600 scale Photo Etch accessorry sets for WEM to add to the existing range, the next will be the Ultimate Kreigsmarine detail set, backed up by the Generic Kreigsmarine fittings set. Once again thank you, those of you that have contacted me with regard to the conversion sets, it's good to get possitive input. All the best Peter Hall WEM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://www.smml.org.uk Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://www.tac.com.au/~sljenkins/apma.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume