rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller) (08/21/90)
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
there is a picture on page 1 of the Chicago Trib today (8/19) of the
aft turret of the Wisconsin going through the Suez (sorry, no bow
pictures to see where the repair was). if the US wants to put a ship in
the Gulf, i'd choose that particular one in a second. very self
sufficient, very resistant to anything that Iraq can throw at it (i
remember a quote from this group a while back about how you just sweep
the decks of a BB to get rid of the junk after a cruise missile attack),
and with 8 inch guided weapons fired with sabots from the 16 inch guns,
they can reach out 30-50 miles.
news sources have been quoting the Air Force as saying there are at
least 20 F-117a's in Saudi Arabia, airlifted in by C-5s (3 or 4 to a
C-5). there are also at least 5 AWACs airplanes in Saudi, does anyone
know if they belong to Saudi or are they US? in any case, it should be
obvious where all of the USAF airlifters and tankers are at the moment.
use the 117s at night on Iraqi airfields, followed immediately by Varks
and Tornados on the poison gas plants maybe? a scenario that probably
has disturbed a lot of sleep within the Iraqi Air Force recently.
saying that a Soviet Udaloy is an anti sub weapon and hence is not
suitable is silly, seeing as the Frigates of the US Navy are ALSO ASW
and they are IN the Gulf, not just out with the fleet. remember the
Iranian oil rigs that were blown out a couple of years ago? those were
frigates and destroyers that did most of that (one rig got hit by aircraft,
but if i remember right, that one was also finished off by a frigate).
they carry guns, missiles being pretty useless against even surfaced
submarines because of the low draft and the heavy hull. and they are fast
to deal with all of the "little things" that will be needed.
and why in the world does everyone want to put a supercarrier IN the
Gulf between Iraq with its heavy missiles and Iran, which still isn't on
real good terms with anyone? the combat patrol circle around a big
carrier in open ocean is about 500 miles. in the Gulf you don't have
enough width to even think about that. air operations require 30+ knots
for the formation, at a minimum they would be diverting every tanker in
the sea lane, to say nothing of the oil rigs. sure, you cut the range
for an attack by the carrier air group, but the carrier has to still be
there when they get back!
i really hope the weapons don't get used in anger, but they are ready.
Rich Miller
Interactive Systems
rmiller@i88.isc.com
{sun, amdahl, att (maybe)}!laidbak!rmillerbrian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) (08/24/90)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) In article <1990Aug21.025023.1652@cbnews.att.com> Richard Miller writes: > >news sources have been quoting the Air Force as saying there are at >least 20 F-117a's in Saudi Arabia, airlifted in by C-5s (3 or 4 to a >C-5). there are also at least 5 AWACs airplanes in Saudi, does anyone >know if they belong to Saudi or are they US? The 117s flew over. The Air Force made a point of supplying the media with plenty of pictures, especially refuelling opertions. Might they be trying to make a point? I guess they want Saddam to know we are taking this all VERY seriously. The AWACS, I could be wrong, are owned by the Saudis, but can only be operated by U.S. personnel. That is, only Americans are allowed to run the things due to the sophiscated equipment. The one that is stationed at Nellis is supposed to have left recently, but haven't had a chance to check. --- "I speak only for myself, until they take my semi-auto rifle from my cold, dead hands." Brian Douglass uunet!edat!brian
adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (08/29/90)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1990Aug24.034455.1686@cbnews.att.com> edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) writes: >The 117s flew over. The Air Force made a point of supplying the media >with plenty of pictures, especially refuelling opertions. Very kind of them too, as I had just bought a model of the aircraft! :-) >The AWACS, I could be wrong, are owned by the Saudis, but can only >be operated by U.S. personnel. That is, only Americans are allowed >to run the things due to the sophiscated equipment. The one that >is stationed at Nellis is supposed to have left recently, but >haven't had a chance to check. There is definitiely at least one U.S. E-3 Sentry AWACS plane there because it was on our news last night. The journalists were allowed to go with it on a patrol, complete with TV cameras, and we were able to see the radar screen as a couple of Iraqi fighters were being tracked. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk