Subject: SMML VOL 1193 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:21:13 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: USS Iowa (BB-61) 2: Flawed review 3: Re: USS United States? 4: USS Ranger History and Pictures 5: CVN names 6: Re: ICM Hood kits 7: Re: Persia 8: Re: CVNs 9: Re: "we gotta protect those marines!" 10: Re: From Sea to Shining Sea 11: Re: USS Ranger 12: External dimensions of Arizona, Iowa gun barrels 13: ODDITIES 14: Mikasa's colors 15: AA guns and emplacements 16: Re: ICM Hood Kit 17: Re: CVN Report 18: Re: USS Iowa (BB-61) 19: BURP and Rumsfeld 20: Re: Spheres of Influence 21: Re: ICM Hood Kit 22: Model shops in Taipei 23: Warship Perspectives: Royal Navy Camouflage 1942 24: USCG Mohawk 1942 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: JAG's new Bronstein Frigate now shipping -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: SeaPhoto@aol.com Subject: Re: USS Iowa (BB-61) >> Anybody have an idea as to when the USS Iowa (BB-61) is scheduled to sail under the Golden Gate? << Here is the URL for a page that tracks the move: http://www.ussiowa.org/daily_sitrep.asp On the bottom of the page is a clickable link to a map that plots the coordinates Kurt Greiner SeaPhoto Maritime Photography http://warshipphotos.com - now taking Paypal Warship Models Underway http://warshipmodelsunderway.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: Flawed review Hi Chris This is where I assume that the report I read quoted the review correctly. The term used in the report was enemy which is a very loaded and restrictive word to use. It assumes someone that you want to fight. The term you used - potential adversary - is better though the word rival would be even better. Enemy automatically assumes that things are black and white and if this is the word used indicates flawed thinking. You defeat enemies with all means possible you do not compete with them. All countries have their own interests which sometimes overlap and sometimes conflict. This makes international relations a complex and difficult business. To simplify such matters to basic terms and concepts is refusing to acknowledge that things aren't like that. The US and China are not going to see eye to eye on a lot of things and yes China will challenge the US (try to see it in business terms rather like a new competitor starting up against an established incumbent) both economically and strategically. One hopes it will not be militarily. Most of this will involve rivalry and competition except if they do fight and only then they will be enemies. The use of such a term so early locks thinking and strategy into a specific mindset. This can also preclude flexibility. In a world of ever increasing complexity it is flexibility that is needed not outmoded rigidities from the past. When I was undergoing basic training in the Royal Air Force we were asked a question - would you salute a soviet officer? We recruits all said no, after all they were the enemy. This was the wrong answer, unless we were at war with the Soviet Union their officers were to be treated as officers of a friendly power and courtesy demanded that we showed them respect. Have no illusions about your rivals but do not treat them as enemies until you need to do so. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: drwells@hogpb.mt.att.com (David R Wells) Subject: Re: USS United States? Jodie (raisingirl@mindspring.com) wrote: >> Regarding all the discussion about the possibility of a future USS United States, it's worth sharing here something I read somewhere (might have been a Proceedings Naval Review issue) about the renaming of CVN-75 for President Truman. Since it was during the Truman administration that the carrier v. B-36 conflagration took place, one wag noted that it was the second time that Harry Truman had kept an aircraft carrier from being named "United States." :) << And look how well it worked the first time. The defence secretary was one Louis Johnson, who, until his appointment, ran Convair, maker of the B-36. Coincidence? How many people remember the Revolt of the Admirals? (of course, that didn't work either) And then, the Korean war broke out, and just look how useful those B-36s were in that war..... There was another USS United States cancellation as well: the battlecruiser CC-6, cancelled under the Washington Treaty in 1922. Anyhow, since USS United States is a traditional name, I would support using that name on a carrier, if only because it would stop the "tradition" of naming carriers after politicians. (who, at best, should have garbage scows named after them) >> While I think a new USS United States would be a wonderful thing, let's not forget about the passenger liner by the same name, which still sits awaiting an uncertain future in Philadelphia. Much as I would love to see a flat-top with that name, I'd much rather see the passenger liner back to sea under her own power. :( << As much as I'd like to see the SS US sail again, (I'd probably even buy a ticket!) I doubt it's going to happen. Those magnificent old steam turbines that made her the world's fastest ocean liner are obsolete in an economic sense. There's not much of a market in Atlantic crossings crossings today, and the SS US uses too much fuel to be an economical cruise ship. Her best hope is the plan that the SS United States Foundation has for her: a hotel in New York. Not ideal, to be sure, but certainly a better fate than the scrapyard. David R. Wells "There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells with our bloody ships today" | AT&T Middletown, NJ Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | http://home.att.net/~WellsBrothers/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: USS Ranger History and Pictures USS Ranger (CV-4) The sixth Ranger (CV-4), the first ship of the Navy to be designed and built from the keel up as an aircraft carrier was laid down 26 September 1931 by Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Newport News, Va.; launched 25 February 1933, sponsored by Mrs. Herbert Hoover; and commissioned at the Norfolk Navy Yard 4 June 1934, Capt. Arthur L. Bristol in command. Ranger conducted her first air operations off Cape Henry 6 August 1934 and departed Norfolk the 17th for a shakedown training cruise that took her to Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, and Montevideo. She returned to Norfolk 4 October for operations off the Virginia Capes until 28 March 1935, when she sailed for the Pacific. Transiting the Panama Canal on 7 April, she arrived San Diego on the 15th. For nearly 4 years she participated in fleet problems reaching to Hawaii, and in western seaboard operations that took her as far south as Callao, Peru, and as far north as Seattle, Wash. On 4 January 1939, she departed San Diego for winter fleet operations in the Caribbean out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. She then steamed north to Norfolk, Va., arriving 18 April. Ranger cruised along the eastern seaboard out of Norfolk and into the Caribbean Sea. In the fall of 1939, she commenced Neutrality Patrol operations, operating out of Bermuda along the trade routes of the middle Atlantic and up the eastern seaboard up to Argentia, Newfoundland. She was returning to Norfolk from an ocean patrol extending to Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Arriving Norfolk 8 December, she sailed on the 21st for patrol in the South Atlantic. She then entered the Norfolk Navy Yard for repairs 22 March 1942. Ranger served as flagship of Rear Adm. A. B. Cook, Commander, Carriers, Atlantic Fleet, until 6 April 1942, when he was relieved by Rear Adm. Ernest D. McWhorter, who also broke his flag in Ranger. Steaming to Quonset Point, R.I., Ranger loaded 68 Army P-40 planes and men of the Army's 33d Pursuit Squadron, put to sea 22 April, and launched the Army squadron 10 May to land at Accra, on the Gold Coast of Africa. She returned to Quonset Point 28 May 1942, made a patrol to Argentia, then stood out of Newport 1 July with 72 Army P-40 pursuit planes, which she launched off the coast of Africa for Accra the 19th. After calling at Trinidad, she returned to Norfolk for local battle practice until 1 October, then based her training at Bermuda in company with four escort aircraft carriers that had been newly converted from tankers to meet the need for naval air power in the Atlantic. The only large carrier in the Atlantic Fleet, Ranger led the task force comprising herself and four Sangamon-class escort carriers that provided air superiority during the amphibious invasion of German dominated French Morocco which commenced the morning of 8 November 1942. It was still dark at 0615 that day, when Ranger, stationed 30 miles northwest of Casablanca, began launching her aircraft to support the landings made at three points on the Atlantic coast of North Africa. Nine of her Wildcats attacked the Rabat and Rabat-Sale airdromes, headquarters of the French air forces in Morocco. Without loss to themselves, they destroyed seven planes on one field, and 14 bombers on the other. Another flight destroyed seven planes on the Port Lyautey field. Some of Ranger's planes strafed four French destroyers in Casablanca Harbor while others strafed and bombed nearby batteries. The carrier launched 496 combat sorties in the 3-day operation. Her attack aircraft scored two direct bomb hits on the French destroyer leader Albatros, completely wrecking her forward half and causing 300 casualties. They also attacked French cruiser Primaugut as she sortied from Casablanca Harbor, dropped depth charges within lethal distance of two submarines, and knocked out coastal defense and anti- aircraft batteries. They destroyed more than 70 enemy planes on the ground and shot down 15 in aerial combat. But 16 planes from Ranger were lost or damaged beyond repair. It was estimated that 21 light enemy tanks were immobilized and some 86 military vehicles destroyed-most of them troop- carrying trucks. Casablanca capitulated to the American invaders 11 November 1942 and Ranger departed the Moroccan coast 12 November, returning to Norfolk, Va., on the 23d. Following training in Chesapeake Bay, the carrier underwent overhaul in the Norfolk Navy Yard from 16 December 1942 to 7 February 1943. She next transported 75 P-40-L Army pursuit planes to Africa, arriving Casablanca on 23 February; then patrolled and trained pilots along the New England coast steaming as far north as Halifax, Nova Scotia. Departing Halifax 11 August, she joined the British Home Fleet at Scapa Flow, Scotland, 19 August, and patrolled the approaches to the British Isles. Ranger departed Scapa Flow with the Home Fleet 2 October to attack German shipping in Norwegian waters. The objective of the force was the Norwegian port of Bodö. The task force reached launch position off Vestfjord before dawn 4 October completely undetected. At 0618, Ranger launched 20 [33] Dauntless dive bombers and an escort of eight Wildcat fighters. One division of dive bombers attacked the 8,000-ton freighter LaPlata, while the rest continued north to attack a small German convoy. They severely damaged a 10,000-ton tanker and a smaller troop transport. They also sank two of four small German merchantmen in the Bodö roadstead. A second Ranger attack group of 10 Avengers and six Wildcats destroyed a German freighter and a small coaster and bombed yet another troop-laden transport. Three Ranger planes were lost to antiaircraft fire. On the afternoon of 4 October, Ranger was finally located by three German aircraft, but her combat air patrol shot down two of the enemy planes and chased off the third. Ranger returned to Scapa Flow 6 October 1943. She patrolled with the British Second Battle Squadron in waters reaching to Iceland, and then departed Hvalfjord on 26 November, arriving Boston 4 December. On 3 January 1944, she became a training carrier out of Quonset Point, R.I. This duty was interrupted 20 April when she arrived at Staten Island, N.Y., to load 76 P-38 fighter planes together with Army, Navy, and French Naval personnel for transport to Casablanca. Sailing 24 April, she arrived Casablanca 4 May. There she onloaded Army aircraft destined for stateside repairs and embarked military passengers for the return to New York. Touching at New York 16 May, Ranger then entered the Norfolk Navy Yard to have her flight deck strengthened and for installation of a new type catapult, radar, and associated gear that provided her with a capacity for night fighter interceptor training. On 11 July 1944 she departed Norfolk transited the Panama Canal 5 days later, and embarked several hundred Army passengers at Balboa for transportation to San Diego, arriving there 25 July. After embarking the men and aircraft of Night Fighting Squadron 102 and nearly a thousand marines, she sailed for Hawaiian waters 28 July, reaching Pearl Harbor 3 August. During the next 3 months she conducted night carrier training operations out of Pearl Harbor. Ranger departed Pearl Harbor 18 October to train pilots for combat duty. Operating out of San Diego under Commander, Fleet Air, Alameda, she continued training air groups and squadrons along the California coast throughout the remainder of the war. Departing San Diego 30 September 1945, she embarked civilian and military passengers at Balboa and then steamed for New Orleans, arriving 18 October. Following Navy Day celebrations there, she sailed 30 October for brief operations at Pensacola. After calling at Norfolk, she entered the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard 18 November for overhaul. She remained on the eastern seaboard until decommissioned at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard 18 October 1946. Struck from the Navy list 29 October 1946, she was sold for scrap to Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Chester, Pa., 28 January 1947. Pictures are at: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-r/cv4.htm http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/04.htm http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/usa/cv4-2.jpg Kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Shirley Sachsen Subject: CVN names >> As for new names, the Senate has approved a "Sense of the Senate" resolution (I think that is the parliamentary device they used, I could be wrong) that stated the name for CVN-77 should be Lexington. I would to see a return to traditional names, but I don't think it'll happen. Congress has authorized LHD-8, and so far every hull has been named for an Essex lass carrier (Iwo Jima was the canceled CV-46). Between this class and the Tico cruisers, there are only 9 of the 26 names untaken (10 if you discount the Intrepid at the Naval Academy ... Look it up!) HORNET << Hornet is taken, and I don't mean the museum... at one of the many end of WWII events aboard the ship in 1995, one of the Admirals, and right now the name escapes me, said in his speech that the F/A-18 Hornet was named for the ship--not the bug. If this was a true fact statement, and not smoke for the sake of those at this event, then one might consider the Hornet name retired as a ship name so long as the aircraft is in service. s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: ICM Hood kits >> I think the key bit of news to me was the MSRP of $ 199.00, better than twice than the Konig kits. << With that ridiculous price tag it had better be a limited production kit, because they sure as hell won't sell many. I sure won't buy one. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. You can now pay using your Visa / MasterCard http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs!" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject: Re: Persia I seem to remember that there is a fully detailed builders models of this vessel on show at the Science Museum in London. If not on show, then it is probably in storage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: CVNs >> 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 << They have been making that argument, or a variation on it since the day that the first carrier was launched! The bottom line is that the modern (for each time period) carrier has been one of the more successful and useful warship around. That doesn't mean that they can operate alone, or without support, but bottom line is that a properly supported and properly commanded carrier fleet is the most useful way to project force at any point in the world, under the widest variety of conditions. And that is the bottom line here. It is a mistake to orient a military force to counter a single foe. We made that mistake during the 50s and 60s, concentrating on the USSR (which had a certain logic) to the point of ignoring potential 3rd world adversaries. Our attempts to deal with Vietnam as if we were facing the soviet military was the result. Yes, carriers are expensive, but so is the inability to project overwhelming force when needed. I have heard many times that when there is an international crisis, one of the first questions asked in the situation room is "where are the Carriers" I don't recall ever hearing that anyone asked where are the small auxiliaries!!! Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Marc Flake Subject: Re: "we gotta protect those marines!" Just about all the etched brass people make 20mm pom-poms. I believe Classic Warships is making some with resin pedestals, which would be my choice. However, I'm not real sold on the etched brass and usually prefer to use the injection-mold versions from Skywave sets. They look out-of-scale on warships, but could work out great for you diorama. In fact, I would recommend buying one of the Skywave DE kits. You'll end up wth two DEs, a couple dozen 20mms, as well as a few 40mms, 3-inchers and 5-inchers. The last two as open mounts. Just the thing you'll need to protect your atoll. Marc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: drwells@hogpb.mt.att.com (David R Wells) Subject: Re: From Sea to Shining Sea Gary Kingzett (GKingzett@aol.com) wrote: >> NIMBY is now BANANA's? What would you expect from monkeys? In the great state of New York yesterday the politicians could not resist the opportunity to pat themselves on the back publically for solving a serious environmental problem. The last barge load of garbage was transported to the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island from Queens. The politicians were lauding themselves for ending the abominable practice of putting garbage in this landfill. After the self-congratulations died down, someone did ask what they were doing with the garbage now. This may not be an actual quote from Governor Pataki, but it is damn close, "We're shipping it to other states." << Yeah, guess which one? (thanks to state Sen. Lesniak.....) Politicians..... don't you just love 'em? Maybe New Jersey should commission some ships to patrol the Arthur Kill and sink any garbage barges before they reach our waters....... It would make an interesting 1/700 scale diorama, don't you think? Some resin tug boats & garbage barges (flying the blue New York flag) being blown away by a suitable New Jersey warship. Any guesses as to which ship I have in mind? And to Gov. Pataki, Mayor Giuliani, et al, I say, "Ever hear of recycling? It's mandatory in New Jersey....." David R. Wells "There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells with our bloody ships today" | AT&T Middletown, NJ Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | http://home.att.net/~WellsBrothers/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Marc Flake Subject: Re: USS Ranger This *was* kitted by Corsair Armada but is now OOP. It retailed for well over $100. That was about twice as much as I would pay for a resin 1/700 ship. Although the thought of having this model for my WWII USN collection was tantalizing -- I fought the temptation. I'm sure Corsair Armada will be testing my resolve once again with its release of the USS Wasp. Marc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Paul Borchers Subject: External dimensions of Arizona, Iowa gun barrels I'm posting this for a friend. He would like to obtain the external dimensions of the 14"/45 (as used on the USS Arizona) and the 16"/50 (as used on the USS Iowa). He is planning on turning brass barrels on a lathe and would like to know the diameters and lengths of the various gun barrel segments, any taper, etc. As he is modeling the portion of the barrels that protrude from the turret, I'm assuming he'd also need a reference to some point on the turret itself, either the mantlet for a given elevation or perhaps the trunnions for the guns. Thanks for any help or related advice. Paul Borchers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Phil M. Gollin" Subject: ODDITIES Re. the strand on future choices for USN CVN's, I would point out that one of the main points is their susceptibility to highly supersonic cruise missiles. The Russian "Sunburn" has been around for 15 years and was designed to beat both the inner missile design defences of USN ships and the AEGIS system in general. This system is presently offered on the general market. An article in this month's Janes Navy International about the proposed 3rd upgrade of the "Standard" missile makes great reading, but doesn't cover it's proposed capability against the "Sunburn" and its ilk. I doubt if there is anyone on this list who knows the real truth about the real abilities of ALL the weapons, but that is where the decision about the future size of the CVN's lies. Re. names, I recall the famous signal made when H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth met the cunarder R.M.S. Queen Elizabeth - "SNAP". Regards, Phil -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Masashi Ito Subject: Mikasa's colors Would anyone who has ever built Seals Models (or others) Mikasa tell me what gray you used for the hull, steeled decks and so on? The instruction says two kinds of gray are used; it refers to #31, and #32 of Gunze Mr. Color. But I wouldn't like to use, if possible, lacquer because of its smell... So, if you used enamel or acrylic, please let me know what color(s) of what brand(s) you used for your Mikasa. By the way, what is "gunship gray", which I have seen sometimes in review articles of IJN ships? Thank you in advance, Masashi Ito -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Edward F Grune" Subject: AA guns and emplacements Hello Andy Follow this link to White Ensign Models. http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models/professional/039.jpg They have some resin Anti-aircraft pieces with sandbagged protection. They're in 1:700 scale. They're not etched metal - but they might do for your project. Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "Edward F Grune" Subject: Re: ICM Hood Kit Nat wrote: >> 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) ... << SNIP>> I think the key bit of news to me was the MSRP of $ 199.00, better than twice than the Konig kits. << 1) What is the ad copy deadline for Model Retailer? How many months in advance of publication must the copy be submitted? How fresh is this news? 2) Note: no release date in the copy! 3) At $199.00, ICM will watch the demise of their ship line and with it will go the hopes for Essex. At 200 bucks (MSRP - yes you will be able to get it for 175 on sale), this kit will be out of reach of all but the most dedicated ship modeler - have-to-have-its!. The same people who drop 300 - 400 on a resin & brass kit will drop 200 for the styrene kit - and another 50 to 75 for the brass. They're not the people ICM needs. Too many people already look long and hard at the Tamiya Enterprise before dropping one and a quarter on that kit. ICM needs the impulse buyer to boost their ship sales and to keep themselves in this part of the market. IMO the MSRP price window of the Konigs is about that impulse level. ICM will need to cut the Hood's MSRP in half to capture the impulse market. My buck, ninety-nine. Ed Mansfield, TX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Hank Lapa" Subject: Re: CVN Report All, We've been down this (small carrier) route before. It was during the Carter admiinistration, I think. That should say it all. After all, did we build any? As for the Brits, In desperation for deck space, they kept the third (of the most recent) ARK ROYAL. After all these years operating smaller, cheaper "carriers," they want a big one, and are planning one, even with their limited resources. That, too, should say it all. Economies come with building large. When all is said and done, 3 small CVs cannot replace 2 large ones capability wise. Talking about survivability, as long as we're talking non-nuclear, i.e., Exocet, etc, the bigger the ship, the more survivable. Although one wouldn't tend to think so, the NIMITZs are very well protected by their heavy construction; the only (only!) thing comparable would be the BBs. When the sea-skimmers are incoming, I wouldn't want to be on anything smaller, that's for dam* sure! "Smaller" may be possible because of weight savings associated with new-technology propulsion, and cats&gear, replacing a conventional steam plant. That doesn't equate to a modern "jeep carrier." Of course, much depends on future generation of naval aircraft, especially the RN/USMC versions of JSF. As far as fighting China, just look to fighting Vietnam. As awesome an effort that the brave and determined men of the 27Cs and their smaller air wings were, they were no match for the ability to punch and stay on station like the big-deck boys, especially the nuclear 65-boat. The only thing gained by going with smaller ships, is being able to afford more of them in peacetime, so that OP-tempo doesn't punish crew and ship like today. I wonder if striking the old FORRESTAL and later CVs wasn't a purely political (as opposed to smart) matter, to ensure future funding of *new* carriers. Seems not uncommon these days to cut major ships in half and stretch, re-engine them as necessary. It can't be much worse than refuelling a reactor or changing QE2 to diesel power. The RN should buy, even for a token $1, one of these ships, send it up for complete rebuilding to Harland & Wolff, and get a bargain whilst preserving some of their fast-dying naval shipbuilding capability. The UN should buy another to operate as a VTOL-only ship for humanitarian relief ops (primarily) but also for use in hotter contingencies that it tends to create then drag US (the U.S.) into. It would be a hospital ship, troop transport, cargo transport (just think of the containers that would stack on the roof!), assault/commando ship, command ship all in one. Anyway, my two cents, Hank -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: JBennyis39@aol.com Subject: Re: USS Iowa (BB-61) >> Anybody have an idea as to when the USS Iowa (BB-61) is scheduled to sail under the Golden Gate? << Glenn, The Iowa is to arrive Suisun Bay April 9. Ironically, the anniversary of her turret explosion. She can be tracked by www.ussiowa.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: James Corley Subject: BURP and Rumsfeld IIRC, and my brief bit of research has help this up, Rumsfeld is an Air Force type of guy. In the Ford administration, we saw the birth of the SCS or CVV, which landed on the junk heap of history. Apparently this old scheme has arisen like the phoenix. The current thinking is this .... The F-22 coupled with a "new" B-2B (slightly less stealthy and about half the cost or less) will be able to be our "silver bullet" force and carry out ALL of our strike missions worldwide given the fact that we can base them overseas in friendly nations (UK, Japan, Australia, Kuwait) so they can operate on much quicker sortie rates. There is even some talk of a EB-52H or EB-1B strike jammer for the USAF (These guys really **HATE** depending on the navy for anything other than keeping the tankers coming). The EB-1B would basically have the original ECM suite plus a couple of jammer pods. If we let the USAF get it's way, there won't be any need for the CVN, there won't be anything to put on the deck. DoD has already said that we cannot afford the F-22, F-18E/F, V-22, JSF and CVXN ... guess what will get cut? The V-22 is going to be stretched out a long way at the very least, if not canceled altogether. The ELF has been under continuous attack despite being under revised budget caps and ahead of revised schedules. The F-22 was mentioned above. The JSF is needed to replace the F-16. What does that leave? The Navy will do without once again ... out of sight out of mind. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Re: Spheres of Influence Roland Mar wrote - >> 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. << There was a recent article in the Washington Post on the concern this situation is generating within the European Union: "EU Seeks to Fill U.S. Role in Koreas -- Envoys Will Attempt To Ease Missile Risk, Build Reconciliation" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54009-2001Mar24.html MWL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: "JAmes McCormick" Subject: Re: ICM Hood Kit What? 200 beans for Hood? Whoa!!! Back up the truck!!! How can they come up with a price like that? Geez, Tamiya doesn't charge anywhere NEAR that for Enterprise (or do they?), and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts on which kit is better. If the Hood is 200 bucks, how much would the Essex cost? I'm all for turning a profit, but come on! I'm gonna take a chill pill, and contemplate if all this is justifiable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: "Henry T Chen" Subject: Model shops in Taipei Dear SMMLies, Are there any of you familiar with Taipei, Taiwan that may give me a lead as which model shops to visit over there? I've been told before that you can actually aquire models in Taipei cheaper than in their country of origin. Is that true? I'm visiting Taipei in a couple of weeks and would appreciate any info on shops to visit. Thanks, Henry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: maeisen@erols.com Subject: Warship Perspectives: Royal Navy Camouflage 1942 Folks: Got my copy of Royal Navy Camouflage 1942 by Alan Raven and there's a lot raw material for a whole bunch of modeling projects in 1:350, 1:700, and 1:1250 scale, including: Flower class corvettes, A-I, J,K, & N, L-M, P, V-W, Hunt, and Town class destroyers, C-D, Dido, Arethusa, and Colony class cruisers (plus HMS Edinburgh in a three color design), US-built escort carriers in RN service using USN colors (!), and much more. This book will be an invaluable reference for RN fans. Enjoy! Mike E -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: Randy Short Subject: USCG Mohawk 1942 Hello everyone, I had an inquiry from a lady who wants to build this ship. She needs photo/drawing help on the camo scheme. Can some of you good folks help us out? Randy Short -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "dude" Subject: JAG's new Bronstein Frigate now shipping Our latest release in our 1/700 line is now available and the first batch has been shipped to all our distributors. The kit itself is resin, waterline and includes brass photoetch as well as a complete decal sheet. MSRP is $37. Good weekend kit and if you build both the Bronstein and McCloy , you will have modeled half of the Mexican Navy! Just kidding. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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