sci.military.naval
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en

sci.military.naval@goog...

Today's topics:

* the 99% - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/5585382658494859?hl=en
* The Chinese Navy visit Cuba (was: Af/Pak & Libya News (10/26/2011)) - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/9a1bb6f2b5ee5fa4?hl=en
* Iran's Naval Strategy Today - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/846ae29df7d84b5b?hl=en
* India/Pakistan Tactical Nukes (WAS: ASW carrier vs. SSGN (UK defence
minister's view in 1981) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/09f780733967292d?hl=en
* Tom Clancy is back..... - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/ff0438011c21a184?hl=en
* British BB post WW1 - 6 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/2d3a9d218fd95f74?hl=en
* perhaps lies here... - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/c4909e078f465b28?hl=en
* now, what to do ? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/e37a7bbe44ddc5e0?hl=en
* Most powerful U.S. nuclear bomb in stockpiles being dismantled - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/c1c362a18e587b6d?hl=en
* Steam Turbines - Cruise power - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/9d4376f5e518e903?hl=en
* There are times... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/63b31ce968823dd0?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the 99%
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/5585382658494859?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 1:11 pm
From: Lawyerkill  


On Oct 26, 3:32 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
wrote:
> Jim H. wrote:
> >>>Truth will set you free John 8:32
>
> >>Wonderful quote from one of the least truthful of the gospel writers.
>
> Least truthful?  They were all truthful...Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
>
> from God to them to us
> ;-)

Nonsense, we don't even know who wrote the books and the earliest
copies of Mark stop at 16:8 with the women running away.




== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 1:50 pm
From: "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."  


Lawyerkill wrote:
> On Oct 26, 3:32 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
> wrote:
>
>>Jim H. wrote:
>>
>>>>>Truth will set you free John 8:32
>>
>>>>Wonderful quote from one of the least truthful of the gospel writers.
>>
>>Least truthful?  They were all truthful...Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
>>
>>from God to them to us
>>;-)
>
>
> Nonsense, we don't even know who wrote the books

Luke wrote Luke.

now you know
;-)




== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 1:58 pm
From: Hope Simmers  


On Oct 26, 1:32 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
wrote:
> Jim H. wrote:
> >>>Truth will set you free John 8:32
>
> >>Wonderful quote from one of the least truthful of the gospel writers.
>
> Least truthful?  They were all truthful...Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
>
> from God to them to us
> ;-)


Thank you for including the "winky" at the end.  For a moment, I
thought you were serious with that swill!

Emoticonically yours,
Hope Simmers




== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:16 pm
From: Lawyerkill  


On Oct 26, 4:50 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
wrote:
> Lawyerkill wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 3:32 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Jim H. wrote:
>
> >>>>>Truth will set you free John 8:32
>
> >>>>Wonderful quote from one of the least truthful of the gospel writers.
>
> >>Least truthful?  They were all truthful...Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
>
> >>from God to them to us
> >>;-)
>
> > Nonsense, we don't even know who wrote the books
>
> Luke wrote Luke.
>
> now you know
> ;-)

Why don't you forward your evidence to Biblical Archaeology Review and
Biblical Review if you have information on who the gospel were. Maybe
copy it to James Charlesworth I'm sure he would be very interested. I
think he's still at Princeton Theological Seminary.

If you believe your statements on faith, that's fine with me.




== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:48 pm
From: Uncle Vic  


On Oct 26, 1:50 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
wrote:
> Lawyerkill wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 3:32 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Jim H. wrote:
>
> >>>>>Truth will set you free John 8:32
>
> >>>>Wonderful quote from one of the least truthful of the gospel writers.
>
> >>Least truthful?  They were all truthful...Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
>
> >>from God to them to us
> >>;-)
>
> > Nonsense, we don't even know who wrote the books
>
> Luke wrote Luke.
>
> now you know
> ;-)

Luke who?

--
Uncle Vic





==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Chinese Navy visit Cuba (was: Af/Pak & Libya News (10/26/2011))
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/9a1bb6f2b5ee5fa4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 1:19 pm
From: Dennis  


Andrew Swallow wrote:

> On 26/10/2011 18:11, l.com wrote:
>> China: Deny Everything And Hope For The Best:
>>
>> http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/20111026.aspx
>
> A secondary story
> [quote]
> October 21, 2011: The first Chinese Navy ship to ever visit Cuba docked
> there today. It was a Hospital Ship, making a world tour of places that
> need some modern medicine. Cuba has plenty of doctors, but much less
> medicine and medical technology. So the Chinese ship's visit is
> appreciated. With the disappearance of Russia as an ally two decades,
> Cuban communists are also happy to see another communist superpower
> coming to their aid, and sticking it to the United States.
>
> [/quote]
>
> This is going to make life more interesting.

Hmmmmm...  I wonder if this has anything to do with Hugo Chavez' getting
cancer treatment there?  If Cuba is so backward medically, what does that
tell you about Venezuela?  

I've read that Venezolanas often have a certain surgical procedure done in
lieu of a quinceanera.  Hint: Venezolanas win a lot of beauty contests!  

Dennis





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Iran's Naval Strategy Today
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/846ae29df7d84b5b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 1:43 pm
From: "vaughn"  



"William Black" <blackusenet@gmai...> wrote in message
news:j89pdg$i7$1@dont......
>> Well they can't use the "Sverdlovsk cruiser threat" anymore.
>> one wonders how these "swarms" of boats do in the face of straffing runs by
>> fighters.
>>
>>
> I imagine they'd use helicopters.
>
> It's cheaper and probably faster if you want to make sure you hit everything.
>
> What does the US Navy use instead of Sea Skua?
>
> They used to have some Penguins but I think they'll be over by now.

Phalanx?






== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:04 pm
From: William Black  


On 26/10/11 21:43, vaughn wrote:
> "William Black"<blackusenet@gmai...>  wrote in message
> news:j89pdg$i7$1@dont......
>>> Well they can't use the "Sverdlovsk cruiser threat" anymore.
>>> one wonders how these "swarms" of boats do in the face of straffing runs by
>>> fighters.
>>>
>>>
>> I imagine they'd use helicopters.
>>
>> It's cheaper and probably faster if you want to make sure you hit everything.
>>
>> What does the US Navy use instead of Sea Skua?
>>
>> They used to have some Penguins but I think they'll be over by now.
>
> Phalanx?
>
>
Not enough range.

Even those old Chinese 'Osa' class boats carry something that'll carry
about fifty miles.

You need to reach out and touch them...

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...




== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:32 pm
From: "Paul J. Adam"  


On 26/10/2011 21:09, William Black wrote:
> I imagine they'd use helicopters.
>
> It's cheaper and probably faster if you want to make sure you hit
> everything.
>
> What does the US Navy use instead of Sea Skua?
>
> They used to have some Penguins but I think they'll be over by now.

Hellfire quad-packs seem to be quite popular on USN Seahawks in surface
mode.

A bit small for something like a Nanuchka (the original design driver
for Skua, setting warhead size and standoff range) but practically ideal
for Boghammars and the like.


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.




== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 3:36 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 26/10/2011 21:58, vaughn ha scritto:
> "dott.Piergiorgio"<chiedetelo@ask....>  wrote in message
> news:3gYpq.90168$GZ3.66876@torn......
>> and the avg. Cuban in Cuba is more or less sympathetic with the Cuban regime.
>
> I'll admit that I've never had the chance to meet a Cuban "in Cuba".  That said,
> I've known many Cubans here in the USA, known them good enough for them to speak
> freely to me.  None was even a tiny bit sympathetic with the Cuban regime.
>
> I think the average Cuban "in Cuba" is not political.  They just want a better
> life and are very busy trying to make a living under nearly impossible
> circumstances.   Also, remember that over the last several decades, the
> smartest, the hardest working, and the most resourceful of the Cuban population
> have left.  What does that say for those that remain?.

It's more or less the same issue Italy has; in the last 30 or so years
here in Italy happens a large emigration of brains, whose have led
ultimately to the current sore state and extremely serious issues here,
and not only here.....

the Italian variant is more serious because even after the inevitable
bringing down of the dwarf, said best and brightest people hardly will
return back, when I'm confident that Cuban emigres will have all
motivations, not only ideological, to return to sort out the issues in
their home country.

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: India/Pakistan Tactical Nukes (WAS: ASW carrier vs. SSGN (UK defence
minister's view in 1981)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/09f780733967292d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 1:51 pm
From: William Black  


On 26/10/11 21:05, Dennis wrote:
> I too am very grateful this was never put to the test!
>
> However, we have a present-day situation which is worrisome: India and
> Pakistan.
>
> What do their respective military doctrines appear to be regarding the use
> of nukes in another India/Pakistan faceoff?  And what are C&C arrangements?

India has a formal system of control through a special section of the
Nuclear Command Authority which answers to,  and accepts launch orders,
  only from a cabinet committee headed by the Prime Minister.

In other words much the same as the UK except it's the Indian air-force
rather than the navy.

India is committed to a declared policy of 'No First Use'

Pakistan...

Well...

Nobody really knows.

They have a theoretical chart (
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/Nuclear&Missiles/nca.htm ) which seems
to imply that everyone has control.

They also have an organisation called 'Army Strategic Forces Command'
which may or may not actually hold or control the weapons,  but they're
not saying,  and neither are they saying who gives them orders.

There is also a Pakistani 'Naval Strategic Forces Command' and an 'Air
Force Strategic Command' who may or may not be under the control of the
'Army Strategic Forces Command'.

Anyway,  a Pakistani politician,  in the context of nuclear weapons use,
has said that 'We will not lose one square inch...".

As the USA didn't get attacked after they bumped off Osama we can
reasonably assume that this is just words...

The US government has given Pakistan a lot of money,  in the range of
tens of millions of dollars, to ensure that their weapons are securely
stored.

One must assume that at least a couple of hundred dollars hasn't be
stolen...

So the blokes guarding them will at least have a pistol between them,
possibly,  but we don't actually know...

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tom Clancy is back.....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/ff0438011c21a184?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:05 pm
From: Loren Pechtel  


On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:45:26 +0100, William Black
<blackusenet@gmai...> wrote:

>On 26/10/11 00:25, Loren Pechtel wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2011 03:41:54 GMT, Dennis<tsalagi18NOSPAM@hotm...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I must note, though.  When I read his WWIII scenario, 'Red Storn
>>>>> Rising', I
>>>>> compared it to the NATO generals' version, 'The Third World War' and
>>>>> its sequel.  Not only was Clancey's storytelling vastly better - but
>>>>> his scenario seemed a whole lot more realistic than the NATO
>>>>> generals!!!!! Scary, that!
>>>>
>>>> I assume you mean Sir John Hackett and the point of his book was to
>>>> scare politicians into more spending on weapons.
>>>
>>> Yes, though Clancey's book could just as well have served the same purpose.
>>> It was a very near thing in his book too.
>>
>> And the only reason we won in RSR is the Russians didn't have enough
>> oil.  They had the firepower to win, just not the oil to get it to
>> battle.
>
>Never having read the book, how on earth does he make that one stick?
>
>Soviet Motor Rifle and Armoured Divisions carried a lot of fuel and the
>USSR had lots of oil.

The whole driving force behind the war in the first place was sabotage
that took out a major drilling complex/refinery.  When we finally
found out what was up and directed our bombers at their fuel depots &
fuel transport in the battle zone they quickly reached the point where
they didn't have enough fuel in the battle zone to operate.




== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:05 pm
From: Loren Pechtel  


On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:00:02 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<paul.j.adam@gmai...> wrote:

>All produced from One Huge Facility in Clancy's book, which a group of
>Islamic extremists comprehensively destroyed: very convenient for the
>"but why would they do this?". The Red plan was to eliminate NATO as a
>military force in a short, decisive war before striking south to seize
>the oil fields of the Middle East (I'd have thought they'd want Iran but
>Clancy decided the Soviets would go for Saudi Arabia, from memory)

For a quick victory the Saudis are the better target.  It's flat and
open and the terrain is inhospitable enough that resistance in the
hills isn't much of an option.


Anyway, it wasn't *ALL* from the facility, it was that the loss of the
facility lost enough of their production that they went from having
enough to major shortages.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: British BB post WW1
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/2d3a9d218fd95f74?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:24 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 26/10/2011 16:36, kenney@cix.... ha scritto:
>   Unlike other navies the RN refitted all the 15 inch ships after 1918
> except for Hood. The RS and QE classes got bulges, improved deck armour
> and increased AA. Renown and Repulse got increased belt armour and the
> other improvements. Some weight compensation was achieved by reducing
> secondary armament.
>
>    Bulging greatly improved torpedo protection and increased buoyancy
> which helped with the other changes. On all ships main deck armour was
> increased to 3 inches plus.
>
>    While these ships were obviously inferior to the complete rebuilds
> done later and those ships rebuilt by other navies I would argue that
> they were far less of a death trap than some other WW1 ships that saw
> service in WW2

I would also point that, as seems (because the final mod design was
still not fully defined by sep,39) the Hood modernization will have as
result a ship comparable to HMS Vanguard (or, put in other terms, HMS
Vanguard was the Hood replacement)

and I don't consider "obviously inferior" the QE re. Italian Cs and Ds,
they at worst are on par, range being the same, and superior hitting
power definitively compensating the inferior speed (actually
battle-tested, at Punta Stilo/Off Calabria)

what mod British Battleship was indeed obviously inferior are the Rs,
whose Med performance is rather unsatisfactory, too often ending left
behind during engagements  by everyone else, italian and British, but at
least there have done an excellent service with Atlantic Convoys,
covering the central atlantic gap against raiders, until there was
enough radars to give EW to the escorts (many having traded the
torpedoes for more ASW weaponry, or even lacking torps)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.




== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:28 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 26/10/2011 17:20, Andy Breen ha scritto:

> "Royal Oak had a two-year refit starting in June 1934 in which she was
> given 900 tons of armour, 4in NC over the magazines and 2.5in over the
> engine rooms; in both cases over existing 1in plate. She had the usual
> package of four twin 4in AA and pompoms with a catapult on X turret. The
> other four Royal Sovereigns had enhanced AA armament but no extra armour
> before the war"
>
> It sounds like the RO rebuild was not considered worth repeating, and the
> plan switched to more radical upgrades for the QEs and scrapping for the
> RS class as the KG5s arrived.

off my hat, I don't remember if RO's improved deck armour was also at
the cost of a reduction in bulge protection, was so or not ? (a poignant
question, I fear...)

Best regards from Italy




== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:33 pm
From: Andy Breen  


On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:28:02 +0200, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

> Il 26/10/2011 17:20, Andy Breen ha scritto:
>
>> "Royal Oak had a two-year refit starting in June 1934 in which she was
>> given 900 tons of armour, 4in NC over the magazines and 2.5in over the
>> engine rooms; in both cases over existing 1in plate. She had the usual
>> package of four twin 4in AA and pompoms with a catapult on X turret.
>> The other four Royal Sovereigns had enhanced AA armament but no extra
>> armour before the war"
>>
>> It sounds like the RO rebuild was not considered worth repeating, and
>> the plan switched to more radical upgrades for the QEs and scrapping
>> for the RS class as the KG5s arrived.
>
> off my hat, I don't remember if RO's improved deck armour was also at
> the cost of a reduction in bulge protection, was so or not ? (a poignant
> question, I fear...)

Not mentioned by Brown, and I think that he would have had it had an
impact on her loss.

--
Speaking only for myself




== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:42 pm
From: Andy Breen  


On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:24:32 +0200, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

> Il 26/10/2011 16:36, kenney@cix.... ha scritto:
>>   Unlike other navies the RN refitted all the 15 inch ships after 1918
>> except for Hood. The RS and QE classes got bulges, improved deck armour
>> and increased AA. Renown and Repulse got increased belt armour and the
>> other improvements. Some weight compensation was achieved by reducing
>> secondary armament.
>>
>>    Bulging greatly improved torpedo protection and increased buoyancy
>> which helped with the other changes. On all ships main deck armour was
>> increased to 3 inches plus.
>>
>>    While these ships were obviously inferior to the complete rebuilds
>> done later and those ships rebuilt by other navies I would argue that
>> they were far less of a death trap than some other WW1 ships that saw
>> service in WW2
>
> I would also point that, as seems (because the final mod design was
> still not fully defined by sep,39) the Hood modernization will have as
> result a ship comparable to HMS Vanguard (or, put in other terms, HMS
> Vanguard was the Hood replacement)

As the Vanguard design began life as a "battlecruiser"[1] (and was still
occasionally referred to as such as she approached completion), there's a
lot of truth there - though more in role than as a direct replacement.

The Vanguard design was begun in 1937, after studies had shown that a
viable 35000t design could be produced to carry the ex-Wierd Sisters 15"
mountings. She grew a bit after it was decided to use the same machinery
as the Lion class (Brown, N to V, p.37)

> and I don't consider "obviously inferior" the QE re. Italian Cs and Ds,
> they at worst are on par, range being the same, and superior hitting
> power definitively compensating the inferior speed (actually
> battle-tested, at Punta Stilo/Off Calabria)

The Cs and Ds went through a /very/ radical reconstruction, more so than
the most ambitious RN rebuilds (Valiant, QE, Renown). I was thinking of
the ships as they were in the middle 1920s

> what mod British Battleship was indeed obviously inferior are the Rs,
> whose Med performance is rather unsatisfactory, too often ending left
> behind during engagements  by everyone else, italian and British, but at
> least there have done an excellent service with Atlantic Convoys,
> covering the central atlantic gap against raiders, until there was
> enough radars to give EW to the escorts (many having traded the
> torpedoes for more ASW weaponry, or even lacking torps)

The Rs were really coming to the end of their useful lives[2] with the
1930s, and another few years of peace would have seen them gone. Like
other obsolete ships in other wars, they saw a lot of useful service in
alternative roles.

[1] Even though the original design had a thicker - though shallower -
belt than the final ship

[2] In particular, they were maxed out on topweight and their machinery
was right at the end of its teather, as witness their woeful sea speeds.

--
Speaking only for myself




== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 3:06 pm
From: Andy Breen  


On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:24:32 +0200, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

> what mod British Battleship was indeed obviously inferior are the Rs,
> whose Med performance is rather unsatisfactory,

The RN was not unaware of their deficiences, even pre-war: Brown, N to V,
p.151 gives the footnote:

Goodall, 14 Mar 1939. '1st Sea Lord sent for me re Royal Sovereigns. I
said to send them to fight up to date capital ships would be murder. He
agreed'


--
Speaking only for myself




== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 3:25 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 26/10/2011 23:42, Andy Breen ha scritto:

> [1] Even though the original design had a thicker - though shallower -
> belt than the final ship

Interesting ! sadly the browns are hard to find here....

> [2] In particular, they were maxed out on topweight and their machinery
> was right at the end of its teather, as witness their woeful sea speeds.

toward the end of WW2 I can guess was so, but AFAIK in 1939-40 all Rs
save the Revenge (max speed 19kts) was still capable of doing 20-21 kts
(Revenge never served in Med during 1940-3, AFAICT....)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: perhaps lies here...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/c4909e078f465b28?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:35 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 25/10/2011 22:11, Dennis ha scritto:

>>> the oft ridiculed security coloe code went out the Chimpler.
>>> It's main function was to try to scare people and divert attention
>>> from his myriad failures and whenever there was an election a terror
>>> plot would be thwarted and the color raised.
>>> only the weak minded republican faithful were fooled.
>>
>> well, I still prefer the "DEFCON countdown".... but I'm trying to look
>> outside the usage as smokescreen and find the (ir)rationale behind
>> this chromatic mess instead of the orthogonality and clearness of
>> one-digit integer numbers, DEFCON 5: all quiet, let's go picnic,
>> DEFCON 3: Return to barracks or aboard, DEFCON 1: grab arms, grind
>> teeth and start to pray, DEFCON 0: push the Big Red Evil Button and
>> hope for the best.....
>
> I agree.
>
> I was wondering what the blue light on 'alert status' was.  Maybe it's the
> predecessor of the Blue Screen of Death?  :-)

indeed an orange instead of blue will be saner, in this case the
sequence is white/yellow/orange/red whose can make sense, white being
"all quiet" (aside the obvious joke on French Nikes, if actually
existed..) and red being "hair-trigger alert"

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.




== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:39 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 26/10/2011 02:57, Dalesql ha scritto:

> I think that the alert color codes owe more to Star Trek than the Nike
> missile program.

Attribuiting to a member of the former US admin the same level of
creativity and/or ingenuity of the Big Bird of the Galaxy is an huge
blasphemy for every trekkie, I fear..... ;)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.





== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:43 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 26/10/2011 13:31, Dalesql ha scritto:

> True. But I think a lot more of the politicians and political hangers-on
> who were active in devising the system watched Star Trek than were in
> the military, let alone in the army.

Sincerely, I highly doubt that an republican politician or official can
actually like Star Trek, whose core ideology are rather opposite to the
republican/neocon/New american century ideology.....

(aside the rumored qui pro quo between Jeffries and some unnamed
politicos during the roll-out of the Enterprise shuttle...)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.






==============================================================================
TOPIC: now, what to do ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/e37a7bbe44ddc5e0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 2:45 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 26/10/2011 10:04, Paul J. Adam ha scritto:

>> The army remains an army of the parliament.
>
> The Army attestation is to the sovereign, but Parliament pay the wages
> and give the orders on her behalf. It's a nicely nuanced situation.
>
> (The Navy, on the other hand, is rather offended at the idea of having
> to swear allegiance to anybody)

and in the end UK has a Royal Navy and a Royal Air force, but a British
Army....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.






==============================================================================
TOPIC: Most powerful U.S. nuclear bomb in stockpiles being dismantled
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/c1c362a18e587b6d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 3:03 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 26/10/2011 05:15, George ha scritto:
> The primaries were apparently transferred to Y 12 (Oak Ridge),
> which seems to have had similar problems similar problems.
> http://www.y12.doe.gov/news/release.php?id=251
>
> "Y-12 also successfully initiated dismantlement of the B53 and
> B83 systems, both of which present challenges because of their
> size and the materials used."

is rather interesting that with a classified budget and an actual and
truly motivated high security costs and needs they manage to get the
work more than done without overspendending, even alleging cost savings.

But can be explained because they do the opposite work of procurement ;)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Steam Turbines - Cruise power
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/9d4376f5e518e903?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 3:14 pm
From: "dott.Piergiorgio"  


Il 25/10/2011 21:46, Dennis ha scritto:
> Harry Bennett wrote:
>
>>> I've been having a hard think about the installation we had and for
>>> the life of me I cannot recall whether the admiralty 3 drum boiler
>>> that was used had superheat.  If I am correct then the triple
>>> expansion engine ran on saturated steam.  This would make for some
>>> weight saving in the boiler - but lower thermal efficiency.  I know
>>> the same boiler on our W class destroyers and type 15 frigate had
>>> superheat - of course it was providing steam for turbines.
>>
>> Turbines don't have to have superheated steam - they may like it but
>> they run quite well without it otherwise SSN's would have a problem.
>
> Reciprocating engines also get better efficiency with superheated steam.  A
> few years back, I saw curves of tests of an old diesel engine that had been
> converted to a recip 600 psig steam engine.  The effect of superheat on
> efficiency was quite dramatic!

huh ?

is actually possible to convert a diesel engine in an uniflow
reciprocating engine ?

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: There are times...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/63b31ce968823dd0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 26 2011 3:33 pm
From: Andrew Swallow  


On 26/10/2011 20:26, george152 wrote:
> On 26/10/2011 10:32 p.m., William Black wrote:
>> On 26/10/11 06:03, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2011 21:32, William Black wrote:
>>>> On 25/10/11 18:53, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>> On 25/10/2011 00:57, William Black wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/10/11 00:16, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>>>> "William Black"<blackusenet@gmai...> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:j81dvi$s7j$1@dont......
>>>>>>>> ...when I worry about America...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/police-pepper-spray-haka-utah_n_1026963.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Polynesian dance? But what about our customs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Organized 'taunts' at a sporting event are considered
>>>>>>> unsportsmanlike
>>>>>>> at best, and at worst trying to incite a riot. If that had been
>>>>>>> London
>>>>>>> they'd be lucky to be alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or possibly not...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgDngaNFIcY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ghs1ifLFWY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, famously, performed at Buckingham Palace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la2ew0p9AfE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your problem is that you don't understand the responsibilities of the
>>>>>> former colonial power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of which is to smile at the curious rituals performed by
>>>>>> citizens of
>>>>>> ones former colonies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Haka has been performed by the All Blacks (the New Zealand rugby
>>>>>> team) when touring the UK since about 1920.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is time that the English gave a proper reply. A Morris
>>>>> Dance.
>>>>> Using swords not sticks of course.
>>>>
>>>> Like they do around here on Boxing Day...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d_dnv2nggw
>>>>
>>>> This is the real Flamborough fishermen doing the dancing, not some
>>>> dance
>>>> group and now you all know where the EFDSS got it's symbol from.
>>>>
>>>> It's still a fertility right and not a war dance...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fertility rites work best when half the percipients are female.
>>
>> While the boys are dancing the girls are undressing...
>>
>>
> Isn't a dance a vertical indication of a horizontal desire ?

With French dances certainly, but Morris dancing looks like military
drill.  Although thinking about it when killing people normally makes
them go horizontal.

Andrew Swallow




==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.military.naval"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.military.naval+unsubscribe@goog...

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@goog...

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en