Subject: SMML VOL 1888 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:22:40 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: WR Press 2: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important 3: Status of WR Press Computer 4: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important 5: Re: Iowa's Skipper 6: Re: Nitrogen vs compressor 7: Battleships and Amphibious Operations 8: Strange submarines 9: Re: Why the Iowa's Are Not Important 10: Interesting items on eBay 11: PLAN Sovremenny colours ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: John Snyder Subject: Re: WR Press Oh, come on Glenn--we all know it was the Scotch whiskey spilled into the keyboard and hard drive.... Oh, and as regards using gas cylinders for airbrushing, my personal choice was always superdry nitrogen: no moisture at all, totally inert, and doesn't leave you breathing increased levels of CO2. Cheers, John Snyder ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: AAA Hobby Subject: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important >> 2) Regarding costs: Modernizing the BBs has been estimated at $500 million. Far less than the 'new' technological destroyers on the board ($1 billion), which still cannot match the BBs current firepower, and wouldn't even come close to its modernized firepower (much upgraded in # of missiles carried, plus extended range munitions). << But that is just the hardware cost of the actual upgrade. What the Navy cannot afford is to dedicate 1500 men (about 10 DDX crews) to man these things. How much would it take to completely modernize the hull and systems to reduce the crew to 400-500 men - automatic guns, automated minor systems, semi automated propulsion machinery, etc. - all key technology points in the DDX program. Perhaps it is time the USN seriously plan to use the "next best thing" - a newer version of the Mk71 8"/55 gun in turrets on a "real" cruiser. Of course, the gun is 30 years old now and needs to be updated - but there is a much better system than the 5"/54 or even the new 155mm guns being developed. Imagine this: main battery - 6 Mk71 guns in 2 triple turrets sec. battery - 8 127/155mm guns in 4 twin turrets missiles - 32 cell VLS for TLAM or follow-on AA - 2 RAM, 3 Phalanx Armor - similar to protection of Des Moines class using advanced materials Machinery - NGGT to proved 30kt sustained speed Disp - 12000-16000 T 2 faces of modified AEGIS system used for counter battery fire similar to Army TPQ role. Just an idea I've been toying with for a while - might get around to building the model one day! Of course, by the time the Navy actually decides to get back into NGFS, we might well have directed energy weapons and the smaller guns will be useless. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Jeff Herne, NJAHOF" Subject: Status of WR Press Computer Please be advised...I fought my way across the George Washington Bridge...then the Whitestone, down the Belt Parkway to the Van Wvck, then around the traffic near JFK airport, and finally up the Sunrise Highway to the WR Press World Headquarters... The computer is back online...so start ordering books, preferably Fletcher, Gearing and Sumner! Should I mention the 3 hours in traffic fighting my way back to NJ??? Naaahh. PS: Watching a minivan refuse to move for a semi, and watching same semi push and crunch said minivan out of the way, was the highlight of my trip home. Jeff ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "John Rule" Subject: Re: Why the Iowa's are not important With regard to this recent thread. Is it possible I have missed something on the news. The US is at present occupied in Afghanistan searching for Al Queda terrorists. They are also flexing their muscles regarding possibly picking up where they prematurely left off in the war with Iraq. These two I know about. Neither of these countries has a coastline except Iraq's small piece at the end of the Gulf. So my question is to those advocates of maintaining the Iowa's for their capability of firing a 16" shell 30 miles inland, who are you intending to shoot at. Is there a fresh piece of gunboat diplomacy of which I am not aware. Surely if someone disagrees with your opinion it should be sufficient to put a cruise missile through their front door, especially if they live more than thirty miles from the coast. They are beautiful, purposeful ships. Let them retire gracefully. That's my three ha'pence worth. Incidentally, at a glance, the new New Jersey kit from Skywave looks very nice indeed...............and with turned brass guns. Sincerely, John Rule ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: Re: Iowa's Skipper >> I work daily with the last skipper of the IOWA (when the turret exploded) on the Navy' Aegis Programs, and we have had this same discussion (among other critical items such as Navy's football team and the politics of DoD funding). Even he concedes and agrees. It has been most interesting since I read the book and see him every day. << The man whose imcompetence was responsible for that turret explosion (along with a host of other serious problems aboard) is hardly what I would call a reliable source on information. That he went along with the moronic plan to hang the responsibility on Hardwick demonstrates even further his suspect character. Whatever your position of the future of NGFS might be, do take this yahoo's "judgment" with a ton of sea salt. Steve Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: AMDM@aol.com Subject: Re: Nitrogen vs compressor carefull both nitrogen and co2 displace oxygen, vent well ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Joel Labow Subject: Battleships and Amphibious Operations >> I would really encourage everyone interested in this topic to read all the articles at the above site. << Well, I read them. What I found was a collection of special pleading,largely by Samuel Loring Morrison (a well-known BB fanatic much beloved of the USMC). In essence the articles stated that if the Marines ever are required to re-fight the battle of Iwo Jima or Normandy by performing an amphibious landing against well-prepared enemy beachhead fortifications...then battleship gunfire support would be very useful. Guess what, though...THE OPPOSED AMPHIBIOUS LANDING HAS GONE THE WAY OF WWI-STYLE TRENCH WARFARE! The idea that the US military would cast away all it's freedom of maneuver and meet prepared and determined enemies in a place of their own choosing in a static and costly amphibious battle is simply laughable. I make the above statement for the following reasons: (a) Fighting terrorists and terrorist states requires MOBILITY above all else. As we saw in Afganistan our future enemies are unlikely to hunker down in one place conveniently within the reach of naval gunfire support and invite us to give them our best punch. (b) Battleships aside, the USN no longer has the wherewithal to mount a WWII-style amphibious operation against a heavily fortified beachhead. For example, the Okinawa invasion required about 1100 naval vessels of all types...today the USN has fewer than 60 amphibious-type ships of all descriptions. Instead of the plethora of relatively cheap and expendable vessels of WWII vintage the USN has placed it's amphibious eggs in a small number of large, expensive and vulnerable baskets. The typical USN amphibious ready group these days consists of five or so large ships, the loss of any one of which would render the group instantly mission-incapable. The USN tacitly recognised the passing of the traditional amphibious warfare era when they cancelled the planned landings in Kuwait during Desert Storm because of reports of a few 50 year old moored mines. Let the battleships and their 60 year-old systems sleep in peace, along with the AKAs, APAs, LSTs, LCVPs, DUKWs and all the other dinosaurs needed for battles that will never again be fought...those days are gone. Joel Labow ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Michael London" Subject: Strange submarines Further to the recent thread in which the K and M Class submarines were discussed There has been some argument as to whether the M Class where actually built from the incomplete hulls of the last K Class. I have now received confirmation from Captain John Moore of Jane's, courtesy Captain Derek Head to whom I posed the question, that this is indeed the case despite the fact that the M's were some 50ft shorter. Michael London ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Allan and Crystal Plumb Subject: Re: Why the Iowa's Are Not Important >> 1) Regarding what the US Navy wants, check out these articles: http://usnfsa.com/articles/defensenews_firesupportgap.pdf http://usnfsa.com/articles/repliestonavyfInal0073.pdf http://usnfsa.com/articles/NNUSTLandAttackpt-1.pdf http://usnfsa.com/articles/NNUSTLandAttackpt-2.pdf http://usnfsa.com/articles/samsperiscope_3272001.pdf << Wherein we discover, oddly enough, that an organization whose goal is to get at least two Iowas back in service really, really thinks that's a good idea. Hardly a balanced view of the matter. I've found battleships amusing for some time. For an equally biased-in-the-other-direction view, see Robert O'Connell's "Sacred Vessels - The Cult of the Battleship and the Rise of the U.S. Navy". I think he goes too far, but there is IMHO some truth in it. Given infinite budgets, battleships would be nice to have. We don't have infinite budgets. How many times since last September has 16" fire support been needed? Not once. How much of Afghanistan is in 16" range? None. There are times when it would be useful, but I don't think we can afford to keep it around for those very few times. Apparently the USN as-a-whole agrees. Built: -- Washington 1/570 -- Repulse 1/600 -- Warspite 1/600 -- Gniesenau 1/400 -- Strasbourg 1/400 -- Prince of Wales 1/350 -- Adm Scheer 1/400 (yeah, yeah, I know) Someday -- Tirpitz 1/350 -- Yamato 1/350 (partially built) -- Missouri 1/350 -- Jean Bart 1/400 -- probably more, I forget Allan "who usually says 'Battleships!' here" Plumb ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: paulship37@aol.com Subject: Interesting items on eBay I saw these items for sale at eBay. Ship Model S.S. Normandie French Line http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2134408248 Battlship North Carolina Tech Reference http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1557444131 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Ken and Angela Bowes" Subject: PLAN Sovremenny colours A question for those on the list from an old member, recently renewed. I have just acquired the Trumpeter Sovremenny and would like to make the PLAN version. Does anyone know what colours (hull, deck, detail aspects if known) I should be using to match the pale gray used by the PLAN on their two ships. Thanks, Ken Bowes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://smmlonline.com Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://apma.org.au/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume