Flying pickup trucks coming to a Carrier Air Wing near you

[Paul F Austin]

This month's USNI Proceedings outlines the Navy's vision of future
carrier air wings. Following remarks by the CNO, the Navy want's to put
the money in the munitions and use the equivalent of F150s to carry them
to where they can be launched.

There is some logic to this. The Air Force is doing essentially that,
using fully amortized BUFFs as flying bomb trucks delivering brilliant
but cheap JDAMs and SDBs. Before the services forced the development of
really inexpensive smart bombs, they couldn't be procured or used in
large numbers. The old PAVEWAYs, not to mention things like or Tomahawks
or AGM130s were simply too expensive to use on anything but top priority
targets. Now that a smart bomb costs on the order to $25-100K, they can
be used to answer the calls for fire of any squad in the field.

The problem with extending this vision to carrier air wings is this:
those bomb trucks operate in a completely sterile environment with no
anti-air threat at all. The stealth penetrating aircraft that CNO wants
to avoid are in the program plan precisely because of the need to
penetrate defended airspace.

While it's possible to imaging smart, stealthy weapons doing that job,
they won't be cheap and the longer their range the less cheap they will
be. We will return to the days of expensive weapons used only for
critical targets, putting even more burden on the reconnaissance and
ELINT platforms to find those golden targets. There will be too few
weapons procured and we may return to the days of the 1970s when a
carrier put to sea with enough Phoenixes to air the fighter squadrons. Once.

Unless and until long range, very stealthy, very cheap weapons as well
as ubiquitous and equally cheap recon assets are available, expensive
penetrating airframes are the name of the game.

Paul

[Keith W]

Paul F Austin wrote:
> This month's USNI Proceedings outlines the Navy's vision of future
> carrier air wings. Following remarks by the CNO, the Navy want's to
> put the money in the munitions and use the equivalent of F150s to carry
> them to where they can be launched.
>
>

Which is great unless the next aversary has an air defence system
more sophisticated than firing ak-47's and RPG's against low
flying aircraft.

This is exactly the sort of logic that led to the RAF and Armee de L'air
flying sorties against the Blitzkrieg using airplanes and tactics
designed for bombing Kurdish tribesmen.

Keith

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 24/09/2012 10:03, Keith W ha scritto:

> This is exactly the sort of logic that led to the RAF and Armee de L'air
> flying sorties against the Blitzkrieg using airplanes and tactics
> designed for bombing Kurdish tribesmen.

Side question, I never get the reasons of the failure of the Fairey
Battle; in my limited a/c technology knowledge, technically was a
fair/average late 1930s design, so, I ask if the "failure" lies in a
wrong CS doctrine, or the wrong doctrine influences the (in se not bad)
design ?

(aside that the Armee de l' Air has other problems; for example, they
actually fielded the best 1940 year fighter a/c (the Dewoitine 520) and
the avg. French pilot was good and on par to Luftwaffe pilot, perhaps
with more élan, or perhaps some "hussard mindset", because pre-war the
expectactions was basically of charging into the (excessively) feared
"balbos" somewhere above Nice and the Varo River)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[peter skelton]

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
news:dfKdnRTlHtZJJ8LN...@supernews.com...

This month's USNI Proceedings outlines the Navy's vision of
future
carrier air wings. Following remarks by the CNO, the Navy
want's to put
the money in the munitions and use the equivalent of F150s
to carry them

to where they can be launched. . . .

I suspect somebody's nervous about keeping the carriers
going if the F 35 is very late or doesn't work out.

[Keith W]

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Il 24/09/2012 10:03, Keith W ha scritto:
>
>> This is exactly the sort of logic that led to the RAF and Armee de
>> L'air flying sorties against the Blitzkrieg using airplanes and
>> tactics designed for bombing Kurdish tribesmen.
>
> Side question, I never get the reasons of the failure of the Fairey
> Battle; in my limited a/c technology knowledge, technically was a
> fair/average late 1930s design, so, I ask if the "failure" lies in a
> wrong CS doctrine, or the wrong doctrine influences the (in se not
> bad) design ?
>

There were prblems with both doctrine and design.

In terms of design it was rather underpowered and slow
with a max loaded weight of 10,000 lbs and a single
1000 hp liquid cooled engine.

In comparison the Blenheim weighed 14,000 lbs
fully laden and had two 920hp air cooled engines

The Battle also lacked self sealing tanks and cockpit
armour which together with its liquid colled enine made
it very vulnerable to light AA on its low level attack
runs against German armour and with only a single
Vickers K gun for defense the German fighters
had a field day when they were sent into the attack
without fighter escorts.

> (aside that the Armee de l' Air has other problems; for example, they
> actually fielded the best 1940 year fighter a/c (the Dewoitine 520)

Well there were actually very few D-520's committed against
the Luftwaffe with only a single fighter group (Groupe de Chasse I)
with 36 aircraft being committed in May 1940 and even these
aircraft were withdrawn by the French Air force and sent to
North Africa while the Battle of France was still being fought !

A further group (GC II) was also equipped with the D-520
but they were committed against the Italian Air Force where
they shot down over 100 aircraft.

The Curtiss H75 was actually the most effecive aircraft involved
in the air battles of 1940 shooting down over 200 German
aircraft for the loss of 33 pilots killed.

> and the avg. French pilot was good and on par to Luftwaffe pilot,

> perhaps with more �lan, or perhaps some "hussard mindset", because

> pre-war the expectactions was basically of charging into the
> (excessively) feared "balbos" somewhere above Nice and the Varo River)

The Arm�e de l'Air had several systemic problems which included
very poor communications, low availability rates and a poor
command and control structure. Most bases effectively operated
on their own with their commanders having no clear idea of
either what the enemy was doing or what their comrades planned
to do.

The air crews were undoubtedly courageous but were very
poorly led and many aircaft were simply destroyed on the
ground due to the lack of an equivalent to the British
observer corps and command centres.

There is an excellent paper on this at
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html

Keith

[Bill]

1. In what way were the Spitfire, Hurricane and Wellington
unsuitable?

2. In the first major air engagement of WWII the 'Blitzkrieg boys'
got their arses kicked.

3. The great Blitzkrieg airborne symbol, the Stuka, got a sound
spanking when it tried fighting the British aircraft and had to be
retired.

[Keith W]

Jef wrote:

> On 24/09/2012 10:32, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>> Il 24/09/2012 10:03, Keith W ha scritto:
>>
>>> This is exactly the sort of logic that led to the RAF and Armee de
>>> L'air flying sorties against the Blitzkrieg using airplanes and
>>> tactics designed for bombing Kurdish tribesmen.
>>
>> Side question, I never get the reasons of the failure of the Fairey
>> Battle; in my limited a/c technology knowledge, technically was a
>> fair/average late 1930s design, so, I ask if the "failure" lies in a
>> wrong CS doctrine, or the wrong doctrine influences the (in se not
>> bad) design ?
>

> The Battle was a light bomber with a 3 man crew, that was under-armed
> and under-powered. It suffered the same fate as the Stuka when
> confronted with modern fighters which were over 100mph faster.
>
> Jeff

Worse with a single liquid cooled engine and no self sealing
tanks or cockpit armour it was horribly vulnerable to light AA
and even small arms fire. At Sedan many Battles got through to the
bridges only to be shot down by 20mm AA and machine guns
during the attack.

Keith

[Derek Lyons]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>The stealth penetrating aircraft that CNO wants to avoid are in
>the program plan precisely because of the need to penetrate
>defended airspace.

As you said - we're headed back to the 1970's... where after a decade
of war, the USN is facing both a challenging and changing
technological environment *and* an austere budget. That sucked
(badly) then, and it's going to suck (badly) over the next couple of
decades.

Absent either Hitler or Brezhnev... a future Roosevelt or Reagan is
going to have a rough time reversing this.

The other problem of course is that USN lacks fully amortized bomb
trucks like the BUFF in the first place.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:3po068dqsm6bt9t6g...@4ax.com...

>The F-35 will always be a 'minority' aircraft on the
>carriers. The
Air Force has a much bigger problem unless it starts buying
export
versions of the F-16...

The F-15 is still in production.

I'd like a reference for the 'minority aircraft' comment.
The announced purchase is about seven carrier groups worth.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:3po068dqsm6bt9t6g...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

[Andrew Swallow]

On 24/09/2012 15:36, Derek Lyons wrote:
> Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> The stealth penetrating aircraft that CNO wants to avoid are in
>> the program plan precisely because of the need to penetrate
>> defended airspace.
>
> As you said - we're headed back to the 1970's... where after a decade
> of war, the USN is facing both a challenging and changing
> technological environment *and* an austere budget. That sucked
> (badly) then, and it's going to suck (badly) over the next couple of
> decades.
>
> Absent either Hitler or Brezhnev... a future Roosevelt or Reagan is
> going to have a rough time reversing this.
>
> The other problem of course is that USN lacks fully amortized bomb
> trucks like the BUFF in the first place.
>
> D.
>

Hmm.
What are the air defences of Iran like?
What are the air defences of China like?
Will they bed stronger in 10 years time?

Andrew Swallow

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 24/09/2012 14:12, Keith W ha scritto:

>>> Side question, I never get the reasons of the failure of the Fairey
>>> Battle; in my limited a/c technology knowledge, technically was a
>>> fair/average late 1930s design, so, I ask if the "failure" lies in a
>>> wrong CS doctrine, or the wrong doctrine influences the (in se not
>>> bad) design ?
>>
>> The Battle was a light bomber with a 3 man crew, that was under-armed
>> and under-powered. It suffered the same fate as the Stuka when
>> confronted with modern fighters which were over 100mph faster.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Worse with a single liquid cooled engine and no self sealing
> tanks or cockpit armour it was horribly vulnerable to light AA
> and even small arms fire. At Sedan many Battles got through to the
> bridges only to be shot down by 20mm AA and machine guns
> during the attack.

OK thanks to both of you !

[cman...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:32:52 AM UTC-4, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Side question, I never get the reasons of the failure of the Fairey
> Battle; in my limited a/c technology knowledge, technically was a
> fair/average late 1930s design, so, I ask if the "failure" lies in a
> wrong CS doctrine, or the wrong doctrine influences the (in se not bad)
> design ?

The Fairey Battle's problem was it's class: it was a three-man, single engined light bomber. That entire class proved to be deathtraps in any sort of defended airspace, whether you were in a Battle or a TBD Devastator at Midway or a Swordfish during the Channel Dash.

Two man, single engined bombers (mostly dive bombers) were a bit more survivable, but still not great- attack aircraft really needed the power of two engines to make them fast enough to be less vulnerable to enemy fighters, and carry the armor and space necessary to make the planes more survivable, etc.

Chris Manteuffel

[Paul F Austin]

Yep, that's the problem. China is one of the driving cases. The
distances are very long, since China has invested heavily in
anti-carrier technologies (not just the DF-21 ASBM) that will force
CVBGs to keep their distance from the China coast and interdict US bases
in Guam and other possible locations. China has invested heavily in
technologies aimed at countering US targeting systems and threatening
space-based assets as well. As a consequence, US forces will need very
long range and persistent -INT systems as well as ABM systems with deep
magazines.

In addition, the thought processes behind the idea that a few, magic aim
points can be decisive misses the ability of an able enemy (not the
Saddamites) to reconstitute and reconfigure around damage. A war against
an able enemy will require a continued campaign to destroy not just
enemy capstone systems but the numerous weapons, communications and
logistics systems that allow reconstitution. That means _lots_ of
weapons and enough launch and sensor platforms to carry out an extended
campaign.

Paul

[David E. Powell]

One thing is that right now China seems to be going out of their way to be belligerent towards the Phillipines and now, Japan.

Whether the people running things in Washington will be able to notice it is the question.

[David E. Powell]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 8:10:34 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:03:26 +0100, "Keith W"
>
> <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Paul F Austin wrote:
>
> >> This month's USNI Proceedings outlines the Navy's vision of future
>
> >> carrier air wings. Following remarks by the CNO, the Navy want's to
>
> >> put the money in the munitions and use the equivalent of F150s to carry
>
> >> them to where they can be launched.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Which is great unless the next aversary has an air defence system
>
> >more sophisticated than firing ak-47's and RPG's against low
>
> >flying aircraft.
>
> >
>
> >This is exactly the sort of logic that led to the RAF and Armee de L'air
>
> >flying sorties against the Blitzkrieg using airplanes and tactics
>
> >designed for bombing Kurdish tribesmen.
>
>
>
> 1. In what way were the Spitfire, Hurricane and Wellington
>
> unsuitable?

None, but there weren't many Spits in France, and the RAF deployed what they had. Spitfires and Hurricanes both participated in the Battle of France in 1940. The Brits also had Defiant fighters, so it wasn't all the Hurricane-Spitfire Tag Team.

I wonder if Gladiators saw action in the Battle of France? The Germans had some biplane fighters and bombers in Poland as I recall, not sure about the Battle of France but it would not surprise me.

> 2. In the first major air engagement of WWII the 'Blitzkrieg boys'
>
> got their arses kicked.

Poland or France?

As was said before, the French were effective in the air, in air to air combat, but the Blitzkrieg on the ground and as a system was hard for the Allies to match in 1940 in terms of speed, coordination, and tactics. It took a while for the Allies to learn those things and there wasn't time enough before France fell.

> 3. The great Blitzkrieg airborne symbol, the Stuka, got a sound
>
> spanking when it tried fighting the British aircraft and had to be
>
> retired.

Well, transferred to other duties, they stayed on in the Mediterranean and the Eastern Front. They didn't send them over England again though. Different mission profile as well as opposition, they'd gone to other types of bombing over the pinpoint attacks when it came to England. The heavier twin engined bombers became the main threat to English cities and other areas.

[Keith W]

Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:03:26 +0100, "Keith W"
> <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Paul F Austin wrote:
>>> This month's USNI Proceedings outlines the Navy's vision of future
>>> carrier air wings. Following remarks by the CNO, the Navy want's to
>>> put the money in the munitions and use the equivalent of F150s to
>>> carry them to where they can be launched.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which is great unless the next aversary has an air defence system
>> more sophisticated than firing ak-47's and RPG's against low
>> flying aircraft.
>>
>> This is exactly the sort of logic that led to the RAF and Armee de
>> L'air flying sorties against the Blitzkrieg using airplanes and
>> tactics designed for bombing Kurdish tribesmen.
>
> 1. In what way were the Spitfire, Hurricane and Wellington
> unsuitable?
>

The Spitfire and Hurricane were excellent aircraft and were the
first results of a serious rearmament program that kicked
off in the early 1930's when the Government finally woke
up to the fact that their was an air threat beyond that of
a tribesman with a Jezail.

The Wellington was another excellent aircraft but neither it
nor the Spitfire was part of the force committed to France.
That was called the Advanced Air Striking Force and initially
consisted of 7 squadrons of Fairey Battles, 2 of Blenheims
and just 3 sqiuadrons of Hurricanes.

When the Germans attacked France on May 10 1940 the
RAF had just 135 bombers available to attack with around
30 fighters to provide air cover. As the blitzkrieg rolled on
other units were commmitted piecemeal with no effective
command and control.

> 2. In the first major air engagement of WWII the 'Blitzkrieg boys'
> got their arses kicked.
>

The first major air engagement was in France where the Armee de L'air
with its allies should have done MUCH better than it did, in fact
it was a disastrous battle for the allies with the light bomber units
being effectively destroyed taking loss rates of 50% per raid.

> 3. The great Blitzkrieg airborne symbol, the Stuka, got a sound
> spanking when it tried fighting the British aircraft and had to be
> retired.

Well no. it was withdrawn from action over Britain but remained
in service until the end of the war.

Keith

[dott.Piergiorgio]

The gladiators ends in the Med theatre, a sane decision when the
homeland was endangered by air and every modern fighter was badly needed
at home. Of course Regia Areonautica was delighted in RAF complying with
their WWIsh concept of manoeuvring dogfight based on nimbleness instead
of firepower.... The 1940 Med air war was the swan song of the Biplane
fighter, with the two best biplane figther ever (CR.42 and Gloster
gladiator)

in the meantime, a conveniently forgotten story was that USN was rather
slow in the changeover from the last fighter biplanes (Grumman F3F) to
the Brewster Buffalo, and the last CV to get monoplane VFs was the
soon-to became the Legend of Pacific itself, USS Enterprise, in Fall
1941 (and I shiver at the idea of biplane VFs against Zeros...)

[Bill]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:41:44 +0100, "Keith W"
<keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Bill wrote:

>The Spitfire and Hurricane were excellent aircraft and were the
>first results of a serious rearmament program that kicked
>off in the early 1930's when the Government finally woke
>up to the fact that their was an air threat beyond that of
>a tribesman with a Jezail.

In reality British arms procurement was and remains based on a system
known as ' Is there a 'credible threat within the next five years'.

Until 1932-3 there was no credible European threat.

As soon as there was a credible threat the British started designing
and building suitable weapons.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 25/09/2012 15:58, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

>> In reality British arms procurement was and remains based on a system
>> known as ' Is there a 'credible threat within the next five years'.
>>
>> Until 1932-3 there was no credible European threat.
>>
>> As soon as there was a credible threat the British started designing
>> and building suitable weapons.
>>
>

> And it almost cost them the war then (and it apparently didn't apply
> to the RN, else they wouldn't have had all those ships).

Actually, everyone's midd-to-late 1930s planning & procurement was on
the estimate (or plotting..) that war will start in 1942-44 timeframe.

UK's planning was based on this, if peace has hold and not blown up in
sep.39, in 1942-44, RN will have full operational all five KGV's, the
Lions ready or near-ready to enter service, the Hood having his
sorely-needed modernization, same for Repulse, and albeit the Nelsons
probably ends caught in the middle of the modernisation work, surely the
2nd mod of the QEs was done and there's still around the elder and slow
Rs... also, all armoured carrier should be operational....

OK, I have done some educated guess on the RN's 1940, 1941 and 1942
estimates, but in my eyes, twelve fast BB and twelve slow BB, together
with six armoured carriers and six unarmoured (Ark Royal, G&C, Eagle,
Hermes and Furious) is much more than a match for the Z-plan
kriegsmarine and Regia Marina with all Venetos operational (I must point
that for the Regia Marina in 1942-44 the seven CAs will be definitively
in need a strong mid-life/modernization (already in 1940 was evident the
effect of the wear & tear)

[Bill]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:14 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<chied...@ask.me> wrote:

>Il 25/09/2012 15:58, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>
>>> In reality British arms procurement was and remains based on a system
>>> known as ' Is there a 'credible threat within the next five years'.
>>>
>>> Until 1932-3 there was no credible European threat.
>>>
>>> As soon as there was a credible threat the British started designing
>>> and building suitable weapons.
>>>
>>
>> And it almost cost them the war then (and it apparently didn't apply
>> to the RN, else they wouldn't have had all those ships).

Nope.

It was dead on target.

The only way they could have lost the war was by some political
poltroon hanging out a white flag.

[Jim Johansenn]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> Please post your address so we can verify your name is not fake.
>
> I'm afraid to post my address...some nut may come kick my ass.

Don't be afraid.
;-)

[dott.Piergiorgio]

why you replied to me (whose concur with your analysis) instead to Fred,
whose originates our opinion ?

[Bill]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:20:57 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"

<chied...@ask.me> wrote:

>Il 25/09/2012 17:26, Bill ha scritto:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:14 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>> <chied...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> Il 25/09/2012 15:58, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>>>
>>>>> In reality British arms procurement was and remains based on a system
>>>>> known as ' Is there a 'credible threat within the next five years'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until 1932-3 there was no credible European threat.
>>>>>
>>>>> As soon as there was a credible threat the British started designing
>>>>> and building suitable weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And it almost cost them the war then (and it apparently didn't apply
>>>> to the RN, else they wouldn't have had all those ships).
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> It was dead on target.
>>
>> The only way they could have lost the war was by some political
>> poltroon hanging out a white flag.
>
>why you replied to me (whose concur with your analysis) instead to Fred,
>whose originates our opinion ?

I've got Fred killfiled.

He's pathological.

[Keith W]

The last great all biplane air battles happened during the Iraqi
revolt of 1941 when the Gloster Gladiators and Hawker biplane
bombers at RAF Habbaniyah took on the biplanes of the
Iraqi air force and Italian CR-42's and managed to gain
control of the air and repulse the ground attack by using training
aircraft with jury rigged bomb racks.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

On 25/09/2012 14:58, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> And it almost cost them the war then (and it apparently didn't apply
> to the RN, else they wouldn't have had all those ships).
>

See the Cruel Sea. In WW2 Britain used converted fishing boats to
defend convoys against submarines.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 25/09/2012 19:07, Keith W wrote:
>
> The last great all biplane air battles happened during the Iraqi
> revolt of 1941 when the Gloster Gladiators and Hawker biplane
> bombers at RAF Habbaniyah took on the biplanes of the
> Iraqi air force and Italian CR-42's and managed to gain
> control of the air and repulse the ground attack by using training
> aircraft with jury rigged bomb racks.
>
> Keith
>
>

The way the VTVL aircraft are going we will have to convert helicopters
into fighters and bombers.

For sea defence fighter which type of helicopter and which missiles?

For bombers which type of helicopter and what sort of bomb?
Or will it have to be ship launched missiles?

Andrew Swallow

[Bill]

While the 'Flower Class' corvettes may have been based on a fishing
boat (in reality a whaler, the ship is the minimum length necessary
to survive the North Atlantic swells) they were built as warships and
to warship standards.

[Keith W]

The Compass Rose in the Cruel Sea was a purpose built
ASW corvette. While the design was based on a whale catcher
it was a sea going ship displacing the best part of 1000 tons.

They were actually ordered before the war started and not
only served with the RN and RCN but were also supplied to
the USN in 1942 as part of reverse Lend Lease.

Some converted fishing vessels were used to support coastal
convoys but this was very much a desperate measure adopted
at the outbreak of war as they were not very effective.

Keith

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <2Gj8s.210909$GZ3.2...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,

chied...@ask.me (dott.Piergiorgio) wrote:

> and there's still around the elder and slow
> Rs...

No if there had not been a war the R class would have been laid up and
probably scrapped. Apart from treaty limits the manpower needed to crew
them could be much more useful in news ships.

Ken Young

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <j1e368pi230d7oirh...@4ax.com>,

fjmc...@gmail.com (Fred J. McCall) wrote:

> And it almost cost them the war then (and it apparently didn't apply
> to the RN, else they wouldn't have had all those ships).

The Ten Year rule was abandoned in 1931 and replaced by a five year
rule abolished IIRC in 1936. The RN budget increased steadily from 31 on
though BB could not be ordered before 1936. From 1936 the RAF was
expanded with new aircraft ordered , army expansion also started about
then with the main spending on new weapons.

Ken Young

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <D_Cdna7_Nq-hZfzN...@bt.com>,

am.sw...@btinternet.com (Andrew Swallow) wrote:

> See the Cruel Sea. In WW2 Britain used converted fishing boats to
> defend convoys against submarines.

Admiralty drifters and trawlers were highly effective as escorts for
coastal traffic. So useful in fact that they were built as such.

Ken Young

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <8dp8s.309207$qi2.1...@fx17.am4>,

keithnosp...@demon.co.uk (Keith W) wrote:

> Some converted fishing vessels were used to support coastal
> convoys but this was very much a desperate measure adopted
> at the outbreak of war as they were not very effective.

They were effective against submarines less so against aircraft and
surface attack but useful enough to be built from new.

Ken Young

[Cal Mage]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> I'm peeing-in-my-pants afraid of you-know-who

we know
;-)

[Keith W]

Well now the purpose built armed trawlers such as those of
the Isles Class, Castle Class and Lake Class and the large deep
sea trawlers were a rather different beast to many of the converted
fishing vessels pressed into service in 1939.

They typically displaced 500-700 tons, had a 4" gun, 3 or 4 Oerlikons
and a depth charge rack. The RN classified these vessels as Naval Trawlers

There was another much more numerous class designated Motor Fishing
Vessel, these very much smaller vessels armed with at best a 6 pounder
and a couple of WW1 vintage Lewis guns, many had just a single
0.303 Lewis mount.

Keith

[dott.Piergiorgio]

mhm.... you're correct, aside that by 1938-9 estimates the treaty limits
are gone, and the five KGV's will have replaced the Rs on the 1:1 basis,
but good sense and intl' climate dictates not to dispose of major
fighting ships until the replacement are 100% operational. so the first
step (paying off) will be taken *after* the full

[Keith W]

Most of the surviving R's had been paid off by the end of the war.
Resolution and Revenge were used as a training ships from 1944 with
Revenge losing her guns to provide spare barrels. Royal Sovereign
had been turned over to the Soviets in May 1944. Only Ramillies was
in active service and that due to the fact that she had been partially
refitted in 1937 with a better AA fit and another upgrade in 1943.

She was part of the bombardment fleet for D-Day and was finally
laid up in Jan 1945.

Keith

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Il 25/09/2012 17:26, Bill ha scritto:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:14 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>>> <chied...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Il 25/09/2012 15:58, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>>> In reality British arms procurement was and remains based on a
>>>>>> system known as ' Is there a 'credible threat within the next
>>>>>> five years'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until 1932-3 there was no credible European threat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As soon as there was a credible threat the British started
>>>>>> designing and building suitable weapons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And it almost cost them the war then (and it apparently didn't
>>>>> apply to the RN, else they wouldn't have had all those ships).
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> It was dead on target.
>>>
>>> The only way they could have lost the war was by some political
>>> poltroon hanging out a white flag.
>>
>> why you replied to me (whose concur with your analysis) instead to
>> Fred, whose originates our opinion ?
>>
>

> Because he has me killfiled but can't stop himself from replying. I
> gather self-control is the first mental faculty to go among the
> aged...

Would you like a list of the number of people you've been unable to stop
yourself from replying to, through _your_ killfile. Fredfreaka ? Better yet,
would you like to see some of your posts illustrating your sniping ? I can
do that for you if you like.

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> Ah, and there's Skipshite, with his usual hypocrisy and interjecting
> himself where he's not wanted (which is, to be blunt, pretty much
> everywhere).

Oh poor, Fredfeces, did you believe you were engaging in email and _not_
USENET, perhaps ?

> <yawn>

You didn't answer me, did you want me to refresh your memory, Fredfeces ?

<chuckle>

> Poor Skipshite.

Poor Fredfeces. He loves to have his double standards, except when someone
else points them out to everybody.

>I mostly ignore him and he just can't stand it....

Ah, like how you're ignoring me now, do you mean ?

cheers....Jeff

[Dean Markley]

Need it be pointed out that for all your complaining, you are not exactly ignoring him either.

[Jim H.]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:58:59 AM UTC-4, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:

So you 'people' are what.... 12? 13? That's about the level you're displaying here. The few on-topic threads in SMN get wrecked by your childish name calling and bickering. "You suck!" "Oh, yeah? Well you suck worse!!!" Gawds, grow up, or take it to email. Stop inflicting it on the rest of us.

Jim H.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Dean, I had no intent of ignore him, I was pointing out HIS doublestandards,
or did you somehow miss that salient little factoid ?

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

I added my voice to his, Jim, did you somehow manage to miss the original
posts of Fredfreaka's ?

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, and there's Skipshite, with his usual hypocrisy and interjecting
>>> himself where he's not wanted (which is, to be blunt, pretty much
>>> everywhere).
>>
>> Oh poor, Fredfeces, did you believe you were engaging in email and
>> _not_ USENET, perhaps ?
>>
>

> Merely noting your constant hypocrisy, Skipshite.

You do hate it when you get caught out by your own words, don't you, eh
Freak ?

You love to dish it out, but you can't take it ! !

Nice creative snippage by the way, Fredfeces...

You still didn't answer me, Freak, did you want to see some of your your
posts when you were caught *_snipping_* ?

cheers....Jeff

[David E. Powell]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:36:48 PM UTC-4, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 25/09/2012 19:07, Keith W wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The last great all biplane air battles happened during the Iraqi
>
> > revolt of 1941 when the Gloster Gladiators and Hawker biplane
>
> > bombers at RAF Habbaniyah took on the biplanes of the
>
> > Iraqi air force and Italian CR-42's and managed to gain
>
> > control of the air and repulse the ground attack by using training
>
> > aircraft with jury rigged bomb racks.
>
> >
>
> > Keith
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> The way the VTVL aircraft are going we will have to convert helicopters
>
> into fighters and bombers.
>
>
>
> For sea defence fighter which type of helicopter and which missiles?

SH-60 with whatever they can hang on her. If they can use the special ops type stealthy modifications that could be quite interesting.

> For bombers which type of helicopter and what sort of bomb?
>
> Or will it have to be ship launched missiles?

Skycranes with Tallboys :)

> Andrew Swallow

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 30/09/2012 06:29, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

> I hate to disillusion you, Skipshite, but where I'm going to take a
> piss next is infinitely more important than anything you might have to
> say.

there's paucity of toilets in United States ? O_o ;)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[David E. Powell]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:58:17 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:41:44 +0100, "Keith W"
>
> ><keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>Bill wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>The Spitfire and Hurricane were excellent aircraft and were the
>
> >>first results of a serious rearmament program that kicked
>
> >>off in the early 1930's when the Government finally woke
>
> >>up to the fact that their was an air threat beyond that of
>
> >>a tribesman with a Jezail.
>
> >
>

> >In reality British arms procurement was and remains based on a system
>
> >known as ' Is there a 'credible threat within the next five years'.
>
> >
>
> >Until 1932-3 there was no credible European threat.
>
> >
>
> >As soon as there was a credible threat the British started designing
>
> >and building suitable weapons.
>
>
> And it almost cost them the war then (and it apparently didn't apply
>
> to the RN, else they wouldn't have had all those ships).

To be fair it took the US about the same amount of time to get up and running ourselves, the combination of war-weariness and bad economies in the West was a brutal one for defense preparedness.

On ships, the Naval Treaties and reductions of the 1920s and 1930s hit the RN hard, though it helped them when they got around some of them by converting would-be battlecruisers to carriers. (Like the US did with Lexington and Saratoga.)

> --
>
> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
>
> -- Charles Pinckney

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 30/09/2012 17:00, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

>>> I hate to disillusion you, Skipshite, but where I'm going to take a
>>> piss next is infinitely more important than anything you might have to
>>> say.
>>
>> there's paucity of toilets in United States ? O_o ;)
>>
>

> No, and that's sort of my point.

I don't get heads nor tails, but anyway....

[Andrew Swallow]

That list should provide air power needed by the new aircraft carriers
during the decade the F-35 is taking to debug.

Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_SH-60_Seahawk>

Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skycrane>
or its military version
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-54_Tarhe>
which was replaced by the Boeing CH-47 Chinook
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-47_Chinook>

The Tallboy, that is a WW2 weapon used by the dam-busters against
submarine pens and bridges.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb>

Andrew Swallow

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> To be fair it took the US about the same amount of time to get up
>> and running ourselves, the combination of war-weariness and bad
>> economies in the West was a brutal one for defense preparedness.
>>
>

> 'Fair'? No, it was a totally different thing. We were officially
> isolationist and neutral. We'd have probably stayed out of WWII
> entirely if FDR hadn't gone warmongering in China.

You mean it was the US marines despoiling Nanking not forces of
the Empire of Japan as history books say ?

Dont tell me let me guess, the US Gunboat Panay launched
an unprovoked attack on the Japanese air force by cunningly
using its hull to set off their bombs right ?

Keith

[dott.Piergiorgio]

>>>>> I hate to disillusion you, Skipshite, but where I'm going to take a
>>>>> piss next is infinitely more important than anything you might have to
>>>>> say.
>>>>
>>>> there's paucity of toilets in United States ? O_o ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, and that's sort of my point.
>>
>> I don't get heads nor tails, but anyway....
>>
>

> Where I take my next piss is of pretty much supreme unimportance to
> everyone, including me (given that places to do so are ubiquitous).
> Skipshite is infinitely less important to anyone and anything than
> that.

actually was an attempt to joke (heads in Naval parlance....) but seems
that don't work in English... :|

[David E. Powell]

He may have meant the AVG and the US' cutting off oil and metal shipments to Japan. Though the Japanese would probably have moved anyway, the European possession were tempting to them and the US was in the way as they saw it. They also had failed in their testing of the Russians when Zhukov beat back their Siberia incursion, so moving elsewhere was their only option. In short, even without FDR cutting off those exports, Japan was going to move eventually.

Plus with their bombing the Panay and the intensity of the Japanese invasion of China, the US cutting off sales of oil and other materials isn't a big surprise.

One thing I wonder about is Hitler allying with Japan, as before the 1930s China and Germany had very good relations.

[Keith W]

David E. Powell wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 4:44:11 AM UTC-4, Keith W wrote:
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>>> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> To be fair it took the US about the same amount of time to get up
>>
>>>> and running ourselves, the combination of war-weariness and bad
>>
>>>> economies in the West was a brutal one for defense preparedness.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 'Fair'? No, it was a totally different thing. We were officially
>>
>>> isolationist and neutral. We'd have probably stayed out of WWII
>>
>>> entirely if FDR hadn't gone warmongering in China.
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean it was the US marines despoiling Nanking not forces of
>>
>> the Empire of Japan as history books say ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Dont tell me let me guess, the US Gunboat Panay launched
>>
>> an unprovoked attack on the Japanese air force by cunningly
>>
>> using its hull to set off their bombs right ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Keith
>
> He may have meant the AVG and the US' cutting off oil and metal
> shipments to Japan.

There are many definitions of warmongering but last time I checked
none involved refusing to to sell the necessary materials of war to the
aggressor.

The AVG was no more an act of war than the presence of
American recruits in the French Foreign Legion or the
International Brigade in France

> Though the Japanese would probably have moved
> anyway, the European possession were tempting to them and the US was
> in the way as they saw it.

Give the man a cigar.

Keith

[cman...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:15:20 PM UTC-4, David E. Powell wrote:
> He may have meant the AVG and the US' cutting off oil and metal shipments to >Japan.

The AVG first saw combat on December 20th, 1941. They were still assembling and training in Burma when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

As for an embargo, that is not a casus belli- otherwise we would have been at war with Cuba for the last five decades.

Chris Manteuffel

[Andrew Swallow]

On 01/10/2012 17:15, David E. Powell wrote:
>
> He may have meant the AVG and the US' cutting off oil and metal shipments to Japan. Though the Japanese would probably have moved anyway, the European possession were tempting to them and the US was in the way as they saw it. They also had failed in their testing of the Russians when Zhukov beat back their Siberia incursion, so moving elsewhere was their only option. In short, even without FDR cutting off those exports, Japan was going to move eventually.
>

The Japanese learnt an old school boy lesson. When the teacher has his
back to you you may be able to misbehave but when he turns round you are
going to be punished.

> Plus with their bombing the Panay and the intensity of the Japanese invasion of China, the US cutting off sales of oil and other materials isn't a big surprise.
>
> One thing I wonder about is Hitler allying with Japan, as before the 1930s China and Germany had very good relations.
>

Hitler is a racist, he would not have liked the Chinese. A Japanese
attack on East USSR would weaken the Russian forces in West USSR. Same
strategy as used against Poland.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

wrote in message
news:44f2226b-3bbb-4984...@googlegroups.com...

A casus belli is not an act of war, it is an act that
justifies going to war. These days there are only two:
defending yourself against territorial aggression, and
obedience to a security council resolution (hence all the
Shrub's lying blather about Saddam and the US resolutions).
Before 1946, there were many more. In reality, the list is
impractically short now.

The offended party does not have to go to war.

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> There are many definitions of warmongering but last time I checked
>> none involved refusing to to sell the necessary materials of war to
>> the aggressor.
>>
>

> Selling weapons and war material (or giving it) to one side only is
> usually sufficient to qualify one as a combatant.
>

Well no as I recall the only aid that reached China before the
Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour was in the form of trucks
and rail road equipment to open the Burma road. The first
weapons were not shipped until Feb 1942

>>
>> The AVG was no more an act of war than the presence of
>> American recruits in the French Foreign Legion or the
>> International Brigade in France
>>
>

> The AVG were ACTIVE DUTY US MILITARY PILOTS. Of course, you won't see
> any difference.

On Dec 7 1941 the AVG was training in Burma and first saw combat 2 weeks
AFTER the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and of course the
pilots while recruited from the US military were actually paid
through what would these days be called a military contractor.

No Casus Belli in either case in fact.

Keith

[cman...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:42:38 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> So you presumably also buy into the fantasy put forward by China
> during the Korean War that the several hundred thousand Chinese troops
> who crossed the border into Korea and got involved were all
> 'volunteers' and had nothing at all to do with the Chinese army?

If the US response to Kunu-ri and Chosin Reservoir included a massive US attack on Manchuria and the Soviet Union, then your analogy would have been perfect. But the US response instead was to take great care to keep from attacking Chinese territory. It actually seems to me that your example strengthens Keith's point, not yours.

The Division Azul of Spanish 'volunteers'- about half of them directly from the Spanish military- actually invaded Soviet territory, without the Soviets declaring war on Spain. That was largely paying the Germans back for the assistance of the Condor Legion of 'volunteers' on Franco's side in the Spanish Civil War, and the Italians and Soviets had also sent large scale 'volunteer' units, and other countries sent smaller contributions of volunteers.

While the US eventually became involved in both wars, in World War One the Lafayette Flying Corps of 80-odd American pilots was not seen by the Germans as sufficient justification to declare war on the US (the US ended up declaring war on Germany instead). Hitler did declare war on the US in December 1941, but if you read the speech he gave to the Reichstag explaining himself, you will observe that the Eagle Squadron is barely mentioned- 14 words out of the almost 10,000 he spoke that day. He gives much more attention to the naval side of things- trying to sink U-boats on sight in the 'Neutrality Patrols,' interning German merchant ships intercepted on the high seas, etc.

No Japanese official gave such an explanatory speech at the time, but the Japanese Monographs, written by surviving Japanese participants after the war, do not mention the Flying Tigers at all. Even Tojo, in his testimony at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, while he trying to put the US in the worst light he could, never cited the AVG as a possible justification for war; he claimed that the US was committed to going to war with Japan soon, but he meant the US Navy and Army Air Force, not <100 pilots still travelling half-way around the world.

So no, the presence of 'volunteers'- even if they just left their active military, has in no case that I'm aware of ever led to war. Are there any cases where it did happen?

Chris Manteuffel

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:7hkl68ts1v4ghagr8...@4ax.com...

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are many definitions of warmongering but last time
>>> I checked
>>> none involved refusing to to sell the necessary
>>> materials of war to
>>> the aggressor.
>>>
>>
>> Selling weapons and war material (or giving it) to one
>> side only is
>> usually sufficient to qualify one as a combatant.
>>
>
>Well no as I recall the only aid that reached China before
>the
>Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour was in the form of trucks
>and rail road equipment to open the Burma road. The first
>weapons were not shipped until Feb 1942
>

>Lend Lease for China started in April of 1941. This ended
>all
pretense of US neutrality.

That, of course, is arrant nonsense. The first deliveries
were in early 1942.

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Try reading the words I wrote again, Keith, instead of what you want
> them to have been.
>

That ws Peter old boy - try reading the words written instead of
what you want them to be.

> LEND LEASE FOR CHINA STARTED IN APRIL OF 1941.
>

Try actually reading the initial act old son - there is no mention of China
It simply enables the President to extend Lend Lease in the defense
of the United States and also requires that the beneficiary arrange
transportation
into the war zone.

While $115 million was earmarked for China the initial batch of approved
equipment consisted of

4,000 trucks
150 tractors
300 passenger cars

3 million blankets
5 million gallons of gasoline
10 million yards of grey sheeting
2500 tons of lubricating oil
5000 tons of diesel oil

This to be shipped to Burma and be collected by the Chinese

The only miltary aid approved before the Japanese attack was the
formation of theAVG.


> Or do you think the Japanese were too stupid to know about something
> that was in all the papers at the time?

I yield to your expertise regarding stupidity,

Keith

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:pthn68tgkoh1q33qe...@4ax.com...

>Try reading the words I wrote again, Keith, instead of what
>you want
them to have been.

I wrote that Fred. You are in no position to blather about
not reading.

>LEND LEASE FOR CHINA STARTED IN APRIL OF 1941.

Not true.

>Or do you think the Japanese were too stupid to know about
>something
that was in all the papers at the time?

The passage of an act allowing an action is not the action.
As I said, the first deliveries were in early 1942.

(They were .30 American knock-offs of Enfields that would
take reworking to .303 before they were useful. First
delivery to the soldiers was somewhat later.)
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such
unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Andrew Swallow]

Introduction of a bill into Congress is an action. One that is in all
the papers.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:geko68lg1s64qd6cm...@4ax.com...

>Nothing to do with content, although I should have
>recognized a
stupider source when it presented itself.

Attacking the truth doesn't change it.

>>LEND LEASE FOR CHINA STARTED IN APRIL OF 1941.
>
>Not true.
>

>Quite true.

Nope, the historical record is very clear

>>Or do you think the Japanese were too stupid to know about
>>something
>that was in all the papers at the time?
>
>The passage of an act allowing an action is not the action.
>As I said, the first deliveries were in early 1942.
>

>Which is not the same as when it started.

Well, actually, it is.

>If I stand in front of you, point a gun at your head, and
>tell you I
am going to shoot you, do you wait until I deliver a bullet
to react?

Nope, but your ownership of the weapon is not the same thing
as its use. The USG has all kinds of powers it can use on
all kinds of people that it does not.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
news:TPidnXWEw95iw_HN...@bt.com...

Yes, it makes actions possible. THat is not the same thing
as performing them.

[Andrew Swallow]

No. Introducing and passing a law is an action.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

news:df6dnTrVTqGNGfHN...@bt.com...

OFCS, of course it's an action, I said so directly. An
action is not necessarily an act justifying war