F15E/1941

[Bob Urz]

I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.

Question 1#
given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
(even some that may not be normally used)
what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
and taking fuel out of the equation.

Question #2
Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)

Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[JDupre5762]

>But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.

>what would your weapon load be?

Not really sure what the weapons load out of an F-15E can be but I would load
enough air to surface missiles to put two killing shots into every carrier from
a distance that leaves me invulnerable to AAA return fire. If I can still carry
air to air missiles then as many of them as possible.

>Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>as possible from reaching Pearl.

I would kill every carrier before they can finish launching the first wave
strikes. Then I would go warp 9 till I caught the strike group and start
killing the leaders with Sparrows or Sidewinders. (Assuming the Sidewinder can
pick up a heat signature from an early 20th century recip aircraft.) Then use
my Vulcan 20mm using as short a burst as possible in order to kill as many of
the survivors as possible.

>But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?

High speed passes with pull ups in full burner that will swat the Japanese
aircraft out of the air. The Isralis used this tactic against helicopters in
1973.

At the same time I am screaming as loudly as possible to the Army and Navy
commands on Oahu that the Japanese are coming.

John Dupre'

[John Mullen]

"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...

(snip)

> At the same time I am screaming as loudly as possible to the Army and Navy
> commands on Oahu that the Japanese are coming.

Didn't they know that anyway, but could not be bothered getting out of bed?

It was a Sunday after all!

John

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>
> Question 1#
> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
> (even some that may not be normally used)
> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
> and taking fuel out of the equation.
>

Mk/B61 Nuclear weapons

> Question #2
> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>

Throw em a coupla buckets o instant sunshine

Keith

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:31:01 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
>> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
>> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>>
>> Question 1#
>> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
>> (even some that may not be normally used)
>> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
>> and taking fuel out of the equation.
>>
>
>Mk/B61 Nuclear weapons
>
>> Question #2
>> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>>
>
>Throw em a coupla buckets o instant sunshine
>
>Keith
>


You know it. You could carry five at the *least*. Come to think of
it you could probably put a B83 (more bang) on the centerline, one on
each CFT and one under each wing. Five 1-2 MT bombs (ten I guess if
you're using two Eagles) ought to do the trick :-)

[Scott Ferrin]

On 31 May 2004 00:00:08 GMT, (JDupre5762) wrote:

>>But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>>Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>>about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>
>>what would your weapon load be?
>
>Not really sure what the weapons load out of an F-15E can be but I would load
>enough air to surface missiles to put two killing shots into every carrier from
>a distance that leaves me invulnerable to AAA return fire. If I can still carry
>air to air missiles then as many of them as possible.


I doubt it could carry that many missiles. I'd think the best bet
would be seven 2000lb LGBs (don't know if it's a loadout they ever use
but it should be possible). Four on the CFTs, one on the centerline
and one under each wing and still have room for four AIM-9s.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>
> Question 1#
> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
> (even some that may not be normally used)
> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
> and taking fuel out of the equation.
>
> Question #2
> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>
> Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
> from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
> left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
> But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
>
> Bob

I carry 4x cluster bombs per aircraft (just in case I miss with one or two),
and all the sidewinders and 20mm the F-15 will haul. I'm hitting the
carriers with cluster bombs, which ought to do a number on any aircraft and
people on deck. The secondaries from the Japanese munitions will finish the
job on the carriers. Once the carriers are lit up like the 4th of July, I
take out bombers and torpedo planes until I exhaust my supply of
sidewinders. Following that, I go plinking with 20 mm. I don't waste my
time shooting up Zero's unless there is nothing else to shoot at.

KB

[Pete]

"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>
> Question 1#
> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
> (even some that may not be normally used)
> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
> and taking fuel out of the equation.

B61's, and as many AIM-9/AIM-120's we could carry.

>
> Question #2
> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)

Vaporize the carriers, then chase down and destroy as many of the already
launched planes as we have missiles/20MM for.

>
> Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
> from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
> left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
> But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?

Full AB to Pearl, land, taxi to the HQ building. A couple of full AB runups
should get the duty officers attention.

Pete

[Bob Urz]

Pete wrote:

> "Bob Urz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
>>But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>>Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>>about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>>
>>Question 1#
>>given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
>>(even some that may not be normally used)
>>what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
>>and taking fuel out of the equation.
>
>
> B61's, and as many AIM-9/AIM-120's we could carry.
>
>
>>Question #2
>>Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>>maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>>as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>
>
> Vaporize the carriers, then chase down and destroy as many of the already
> launched planes as we have missiles/20MM for.
>
>
>>Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
>>from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
>>left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
>>But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
>
>
> Full AB to Pearl, land, taxi to the HQ building. A couple of full AB runups
> should get the duty officers attention.
>
> Pete
>
>
Although i agree the nukes are a "finisher", i was thinking more along
the lines of conventional weapons to make it more interesting.
Would a agm-65 be usable in this situation? laser guided bombs
certainly would.
Someone suggested a cluster bomb, but how would you target it on a
moving target?

And i believe the gun has 450 rounds capacity? That would not allow much
of a squirt per zero. And given the zero has superior low speed
maneuverability, how would you approach the gun shots?

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Pete]

"Bob Urz" > wrote
> >
> Although i agree the nukes are a "finisher", i was thinking more along
> the lines of conventional weapons to make it more interesting.
> Would a agm-65 be usable in this situation? laser guided bombs
> certainly would.

At this point, all we need to do is kill the flight deck, and disable as
many unlaunched planes as we can.
AGM-65 is probably too small to be effective.
F-15E can carry 8x500 lb (GBU-12 or MK-82). Use those. 2 ea holes in the
flight deck would take it out of action.

> Someone suggested a cluster bomb, but how would you target it on a
> moving target?

It's not moving that fast. Targeting wouldn't be that hard (lead it a
little)
The bomblets would be enough to disable some/most of the aircraft on deck,
but maybe not enough to take the flight deck out of operation.

>
> And i believe the gun has 450 rounds capacity? That would not allow much
> of a squirt per zero. And given the zero has superior low speed
> maneuverability, how would you approach the gun shots?

From behind. Pick them off one by one. If you're lucky, you'll get a few
before the guys in front notice. Once they DO notice, leave and call the
cavalry. You're vastly outnumbered. Notification is more important than
trying to get "just one more".

Pete
Knowing what we know now, I still maintain that with an unrestricted weapons
load, B61 is the only way to go.

[B2431]

>From: Bob Urz
>Date: 5/30/2004 6:32 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
>But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>
>Question 1#
>given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
>(even some that may not be normally used)
>what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
>and taking fuel out of the equation.
>
>Question #2
>Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>
>Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
>from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
>left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
>But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Nuke the task force into oblivion. The shock wave and heat flash will knock
down or toast the 1/2 wave that has launched and is formating in the area. If
the fleet vanished it would confuse the hell out of the Japanese and Pearl
would be safe.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dave Kearton]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
|
|| >-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
| Nuke the task force into oblivion. The shock wave and heat flash will
knock
| down or toast the 1/2 wave that has launched and is formating in the area.
If
| the fleet vanished it would confuse the hell out of the Japanese and Pearl
| would be safe.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

--

The temptation would always be to nuke the task force - then nuke the ashes.

Personally, I'd lob a single nuke into the middle of the battle group,
bend all the carriers double and sunburn the crews. Hopefully, there's
be a destroyer or an oiler that will limp back to port with an unbelievable
'pika don' story.


Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(JDupre5762) wrote:

>
> At the same time I am screaming as loudly as possible to the Army and
> Navy
> commands on Oahu that the Japanese are coming.

On what common frequency and modulation?

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Bob Urz
> writes
>I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
>But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>
>Question 1#
>given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
>(even some that may not be normally used)
>what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
>and taking fuel out of the equation.

If you're not counting nukes, then I'd go for laser-guided bombs. Don't
know what the options are for type and number of LGBs on a F-15E, but
they're probably the best option for doing maximum damage off limited
pylons against moving targets.

Air-to-air weapons are pretty much irrelevant - you'll get maybe eight
Sidewinders and 900 rounds of 20mm for two planes, so a dozen kills.
Won't hurt to shoot off the AIM-9s on egress, but the priority is
killing the carriers.

>Question #2
>Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)

Lofted LGBs from standoff and altitude, with one aircraft designating
and the other dropping: as the weapons fly, the dropper keeps an eye for
any Japanese fighters trying to claw up to engage and lets them have a
Sidewinder or two in the face to dissuade them.

If fuel's not a problem, then hit the carriers with one LGB at a time,
from ahead or astern and targetting elevators for maximum disruption.
That should rapidly eliminate their flying capabilities and give a good
chance of causing catastrophic damage.

Resist the temptation to come in and strafe afterwards: they'll still
have a lot of barrage AAA and you can't do enough damage to justify the
risk.

Warning Pearl might be a problem by radio, but a few high-speed flypasts
and some strafing runs shooting up the water off Battleship Row should
alert Oahu that *something* is unusual and heightened alert would be
wise. If you want to go air-to-air with the attackers, waiting until
they're nearly at Pearl might be the best idea in order to disrupt and
confuse their attack even if you can't kill many of them.

>Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
>from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
>left the carrier.

Kill the carriers: with the carriers gone, so is the strike force and
its irreplaceable pilots.


>Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
>But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?

Get on the ground, and prepare to be *very* persuasive - your knowledge
of history is a vital weapon if you can persuade anyone to believe you
:)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:36:23 -0400, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

>
>"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
>> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
>> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>>
>> Question 1#
>> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
>> (even some that may not be normally used)
>> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
>> and taking fuel out of the equation.
>>
>> Question #2
>> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>>
>> Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
>> from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
>> left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
>> But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
>>
>> Bob
>
>I carry 4x cluster bombs per aircraft (just in case I miss with one or two),
>and all the sidewinders and 20mm the F-15 will haul. I'm hitting the
>carriers with cluster bombs, which ought to do a number on any aircraft and
>people on deck. The secondaries from the Japanese munitions will finish the
>job on the carriers. Once the carriers are lit up like the 4th of July, I
>take out bombers and torpedo planes until I exhaust my supply of
>sidewinders. Following that, I go plinking with 20 mm. I don't waste my
>time shooting up Zero's unless there is nothing else to shoot at.
>
>KB
>
AIM 9s at recips?? I doubt if you would ever get a tone.

Al Minyard

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > writes:
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:36:23 -0400, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
>>> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
>>> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>>> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>>> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>>>
>>> Question 1#
>>> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
>>> (even some that may not be normally used)
>>> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
>>> and taking fuel out of the equation.
>>>
>>> Question #2
>>> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>>> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>>> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>>>
>>> Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
>>> from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
>>> left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
>>> But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>I carry 4x cluster bombs per aircraft (just in case I miss with one or two),
>>and all the sidewinders and 20mm the F-15 will haul. I'm hitting the
>>carriers with cluster bombs, which ought to do a number on any aircraft and
>>people on deck. The secondaries from the Japanese munitions will finish the
>>job on the carriers. Once the carriers are lit up like the 4th of July, I
>>take out bombers and torpedo planes until I exhaust my supply of
>>sidewinders. Following that, I go plinking with 20 mm. I don't waste my
>>time shooting up Zero's unless there is nothing else to shoot at.
>>
>>KB
>>
> AIM 9s at recips?? I doubt if you would ever get a tone.

They do, and quite nicely. Recip exhaust gas is very hot. Teh
volume's lower, but that doesn't really matter - a Sidewinder's seeker
is looking at temperature, not volume.
Remember - the seekers these days are able to see the aerodynamic
heating on the leading edges of a subsonic airplane - that's not very
much.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kyle Boatright]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:36:23 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
> >> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
> >> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
> >> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
> >>
> >> Question 1#
> >> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
> >> (even some that may not be normally used)
> >> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
> >> and taking fuel out of the equation.
> >>
> >> Question #2
> >> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
> >> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
> >> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
> >>
> >> Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
> >> from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
> >> left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
> >> But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> >I carry 4x cluster bombs per aircraft (just in case I miss with one or
two),
> >and all the sidewinders and 20mm the F-15 will haul. I'm hitting the
> >carriers with cluster bombs, which ought to do a number on any aircraft
and
> >people on deck. The secondaries from the Japanese munitions will finish
the
> >job on the carriers. Once the carriers are lit up like the 4th of July,
I
> >take out bombers and torpedo planes until I exhaust my supply of
> >sidewinders. Following that, I go plinking with 20 mm. I don't waste my
> >time shooting up Zero's unless there is nothing else to shoot at.
> >
> >KB
> >
> AIM 9s at recips?? I doubt if you would ever get a tone.
>
> Al Minyard

If they can get head on shots at jets based on airframe heating, I presume
they can see hot exhaust stacks and other hot spots on recips. I don't
claim to be particularly knowledgable about IR missiles (or any missiles,
for that matter), so it would be great if someone more knowledgable could
jump in...

KB

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>
> Question 1#
> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
> (even some that may not be normally used)
> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
> and taking fuel out of the equation.
>
Just anti-air. Winders and AMRAAM would do the trick nicely.
And no, that's not enough to take out half the force that took on the Pearl
but read on.

> Question #2
> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>
Nothing at all. After all, the US doesn't want to start a war by attacking
the Japanese fleet unprovoked!
Instead, shadow them and report a warning back to Pearl so they can launch
fighters to protect the installations there against a POSSIBLE Japanese
attack.
Only after the Japanese show definite hostile intent shoot down as many as
possible and provide guidance for a retaliatory strike of B-17s and B-25s
against the Japanese carriers.

> Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
> from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
> left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
> But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
>
Read above, observe and report.
And when things get hot run like hell so you can live to fight another day.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>AIM 9s at recips?? I doubt if you would ever get a tone.

Certainly would. Even the original seeker (uncooled lead sulphide,
really basic) would track a flashlight or a lit cigarette, and the
exhausts and propellers of 900hp recips are *hot*. By the time you're up
to AIM-9L or thereabouts, you should be able to get a workable
acquisition on a reciprocating engine unless the background clutter's
hateful (and this would be over ocean, in good weather, with the
attacker choosing altitude and aspect at leisure)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Ian MacLure]

"Jeroen Wenting" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Nothing at all. After all, the US doesn't want to start a war by
> attacking the Japanese fleet unprovoked!

Unprovoked?
Half the IJN sitting witihn striking range of Pearl Harbo(u)r
isn't a provocation in and of itself?
Air wings bonbed up with props turning and you're worried about
possibly provoking them?
Are you Spanish? Oh wait, .NL, Jeez if it had been guys like you
in charge way back when instead of Wilhelmus van Nassau you'd be
Spanish.

Admittedly the Japanese might be out there whale watching but I
kinda doubt it and I think the Army and Navy Departments would have
disagreed.

Its interesting to consider what might have happened had a US sub
undetected by the Japanese been able to give 24hrs notice and been
believed. The fleet would probably have sortied although to what
end is not certain and the US carriers might have been able to lay
their own ambush. It would be too much to hope for an early Midway
but who knows. In the best of all possible worlds the Battleships
would have snuck up to within gun range of the Jap task force and
done a successful Leyte on their ass. Oh the look on Yamamotos face
as dawn broke to a horizon lined with US BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, etc
just as they opened fire and the lookouts spotted inbound torpedoes.

> Instead, shadow them and report a warning back to Pearl so they can
> launch fighters to protect the installations there against a POSSIBLE
> Japanese attack.

How? Think modern military have problems interoperating?
I very much suspect you'd have no frequencies or modulation in
common. Wasn't most military traffic by Morse anyhow?

> Only after the Japanese show definite hostile intent shoot down as
> many as possible and provide guidance for a retaliatory strike of
> B-17s and B-25s against the Japanese carriers.

Which, at that point in the war would accomplish precisely nothing.

Hang max load of 500lb LGBs on the Eagles, screw the AAMs and 20mm.
You're faster than anything they could possibly get to you and
you don't need to get near the carriers to do them dirt.
As has been pointed out, if you catch them at the right time, one
bomb might do it for each carrier and if not you have plenty
in reserve.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Leadfoot]

"Jeroen Wenting" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Urz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
> > But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
> > Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
> > about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
> >
> > Question 1#
> > given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
> > (even some that may not be normally used)
> > what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
> > and taking fuel out of the equation.
> >
> Just anti-air. Winders and AMRAAM would do the trick nicely.
> And no, that's not enough to take out half the force that took on the
Pearl
> but read on.

Too bad nuclear armed AIM-4's aren't in the inventory. Just shoot that into
the Japanese formation and no jap airplane makes it to Pearl. Then use one
or two B-61's against the Jap fleet. Then island hop (unless you give me a
KC-10) to the Phillipines and stop McArthur from screwing up. Maybe even
save PoW and Repulse.

How long will an eagles engine last on avgas?


>
> > Question #2
> > Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
> > maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
> > as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
> >
> Nothing at all. After all, the US doesn't want to start a war by attacking
> the Japanese fleet unprovoked!
> Instead, shadow them and report a warning back to Pearl so they can launch
> fighters to protect the installations there against a POSSIBLE Japanese
> attack.
> Only after the Japanese show definite hostile intent shoot down as many as
> possible and provide guidance for a retaliatory strike of B-17s and B-25s
> against the Japanese carriers.

Simply by being where they were they showed hostile intent. If by sheer
luck we could have had a fleet led by Halsey to intercept them no orders
from above would have been necessary.

>
> > Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
> > from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
> > left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
> > But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
> >
> Read above, observe and report.
> And when things get hot run like hell so you can live to fight another
day.
>
>

[Paul F Austin]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Urz" > wrote
> > >
> > Although i agree the nukes are a "finisher", i was thinking more along
> > the lines of conventional weapons to make it more interesting.
> > Would a agm-65 be usable in this situation? laser guided bombs
> > certainly would.
>
> At this point, all we need to do is kill the flight deck, and disable as
> many unlaunched planes as we can.
> AGM-65 is probably too small to be effective.
> F-15E can carry 8x500 lb (GBU-12 or MK-82). Use those. 2 ea holes in the
> flight deck would take it out of action.
>

Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs. Otherwise,
a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation. At the
worst, all six would be back in business for the battles of 1942. Since the
Japanese CVs weren't armored to speak of, a GBU-10 with a Mk-84 warhead
should be the basic CV ship-killer. Two F-15Es should nail all six CVs with
one bomb per and an extra pair as backup and coup d'gras. I'd nail all CVs
and then pull back to maximum endurance loiter and observe Japanese damage
control efforts. At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try and
talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go back
and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.

This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
ship. If the magazines were the aimpoint (with Google handy so that the WSO
could look it up for each ship) then the chances of sinking with a single
bomb goes up. Otherwise, a hit aft could put all four screws and possibly
rudders out of service. The ships killed at Midway were caught with all
manner of munitions and avgas available to help things along because of the
conflict between finishing off the Midway garrison and killing the US
carriers. It's unlikely that the Pearl Harbor strike would be that sloppy.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jeroen Wenting" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Urz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
> > But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
> > Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
> > about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
> >
> > Question 1#
> > given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
> > (even some that may not be normally used)
> > what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
> > and taking fuel out of the equation.
> >
> Just anti-air. Winders and AMRAAM would do the trick nicely.
> And no, that's not enough to take out half the force that took on the
Pearl
> but read on.
>
> > Question #2
> > Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
> > maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
> > as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
> >
> Nothing at all. After all, the US doesn't want to start a war by attacking
> the Japanese fleet unprovoked!
> Instead, shadow them and report a warning back to Pearl so they can launch
> fighters to protect the installations there against a POSSIBLE Japanese
> attack.

Unnecessary, the Japanese were launching simultaneous attacks
across the PTO, the Phillipines and Wake were both hit
around the same time as Pearl Harbor

In any event launching a strike force that close to Hawaii
wasnt exactly a peaceful act.

Keith

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:15:50 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
>ship. If the magazines were the aimpoint (with Google handy so that the WSO
>could look it up for each ship) then the chances of sinking with a single
>bomb goes up. Otherwise, a hit aft could put all four screws and possibly
>rudders out of service. The ships killed at Midway were caught with all
>manner of munitions and avgas available to help things along because of the
>conflict between finishing off the Midway garrison and killing the US
>carriers. It's unlikely that the Pearl Harbor strike would be that sloppy.

I'd put the initial LGB hit aft, so that it takes out the landing area
- almost as good as killing the CVs would be killing most of the Kido
Butai. After all the Japanese were distinctly average after their
seasoned pilots were lost.

Peter Kemp

[Bob Urz]

Leadfoot wrote:

> "Jeroen Wenting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
>>>But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>>>Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>>>about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>>>
>>>Question 1#
>>>given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
>>>(even some that may not be normally used)
>>>what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
>>>and taking fuel out of the equation.
>>>
>>
>>Just anti-air. Winders and AMRAAM would do the trick nicely.
>>And no, that's not enough to take out half the force that took on the
>
> Pearl
>
>>but read on.
>
>
> Too bad nuclear armed AIM-4's aren't in the inventory. Just shoot that into
> the Japanese formation and no jap airplane makes it to Pearl. Then use one
> or two B-61's against the Jap fleet. Then island hop (unless you give me a
> KC-10) to the Phillipines and stop McArthur from screwing up. Maybe even
> save PoW and Repulse.
>
> How long will an eagles engine last on avgas?
>
>
>
>>>Question #2
>>>Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>>>maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>>>as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>>>
>>
>>Nothing at all. After all, the US doesn't want to start a war by attacking
>>the Japanese fleet unprovoked!
>>Instead, shadow them and report a warning back to Pearl so they can launch
>>fighters to protect the installations there against a POSSIBLE Japanese
>>attack.
>>Only after the Japanese show definite hostile intent shoot down as many as
>>possible and provide guidance for a retaliatory strike of B-17s and B-25s
>>against the Japanese carriers.
>
>
> Simply by being where they were they showed hostile intent. If by sheer
> luck we could have had a fleet led by Halsey to intercept them no orders
> from above would have been necessary.
>
You would have to stick with 1941 weapons, tactics, and knowledge base.
There were hard lessons learned early in the pacific on how to
deal with a zero.

Now, if you emptied the harbor of capital ships for a strike force the
Japanese spies would have relayed the information back and the jap fleet
may have turned back. Or set up for attack.

The carriers that were not in in harbor and subs would have made a sneak
strike force. But considering the skills of the carrier pilots at that
stage of the game, we might have got a jap carrier or two on surprise,
but maybe lost all of the US carrier force we had. And i doubt that
sending a bunch or B17's would have been effective except to draw flack
fire. Losing those carriers at that stage of the war may have been worse
than the pearl attack. It's not like the decks were full of
F4U's and F4F's at that time.

Even if you would have emptied the harbor and used every available asset
on short notice and went head to head with the whole Japanese fleet,
what do you think the result would be? My guess is a lot of those
antiques in the harbor were not ready to sail on a moments notice
into battle. So 6 carriers, 2 battle ships, 2 heavy cruisers, 9
destroyers, and up to 30 jap subs were in the area if this page is correct:

http://www.ww2pacific.com/pearljp.html

The end result may have been about the same only with US carrier loses.
It would have been the biggest naval battle of the war possibly if
if happened. With that many subs in the area and possible Japanese
air recon, i doubt that total surprise could have been achieved.
It would have made a good Ben Aflack Movie though.

Bob






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bill Shatzer]

On Mon, 31 May 2004, Jeroen Wenting wrote:

> Only after the Japanese show definite hostile intent shoot down as many as
> possible and provide guidance for a retaliatory strike of B-17s and B-25s
> against the Japanese carriers.

There weren't any B-25s on Oahu[1] and the only B-17s were the
one squadron which was ferrying in from California (without
guns!) and which was caught the landing pattern just as
the Japanese attack was reaching it's zenith.

B-17s, in any case, displayed a remarkable inability to
hit manuevering warships at sea. Even assuming the squadron
from California could have landed at Hickham intact and undamaged,
and even assuming that a B-17 counterstrike could have been
armed and launched, there's little reason to believe that
they would have hit any thing at all except, possibly, the
pacific ocean.

[1] There was a squadron of obsolescent B-18s at Hickham.
There's no reason to suppose the B-18s would have
been any more effective or accurate than the B-17s later
proved to be.

Cheers and all,

[Bill Shatzer]

On Mon, 31 May 2004, Paul J. Adam wrote:

-snips-

> Get on the ground, and prepare to be *very* persuasive - your knowledge
> of history is a vital weapon if you can persuade anyone to believe you
> :)

I would think two F-15s sitting on the tarmack at HIckham would lend
a certain credibility.

Cheers and all,

[Bill Shatzer]

On Mon, 31 May 2004, Jeroen Wenting wrote:

> Just anti-air. Winders and AMRAAM would do the trick nicely.
> And no, that's not enough to take out half the force that took on the Pearl
> but read on.

What would be the effect of the sonic boom generated by two
F-15s passing at Mach 1.4 at a distance of, say, 200 meters
on a flight of B5Ns?

Is air-to-air ordinance necessary at all?

Cheers and all,

[Bob Urz]

Bill Shatzer wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2004, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> -snips-
>
>
>>Get on the ground, and prepare to be *very* persuasive - your knowledge
>>of history is a vital weapon if you can persuade anyone to believe you
>>:)
>
>
> I would think two F-15s sitting on the tarmack at HIckham would lend
> a certain credibility.
>
> Cheers and all,
>
I think two F-15's at hickham in 1941 would have been the equivalent of
seeing aliens at roswell....... ;)

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Pete]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote
>
> Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs.
Otherwise,
> a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation.

A few hours later, you have gone to Pearl, and notified HQ of the deal.

> At the
> worst, all six would be back in business for the battles of 1942. Since
the
> Japanese CVs weren't armored to speak of, a GBU-10 with a Mk-84 warhead
> should be the basic CV ship-killer. Two F-15Es should nail all six CVs
with
> one bomb per and an extra pair as backup and coup d'gras. I'd nail all CVs
> and then pull back to maximum endurance loiter and observe Japanese damage
> control efforts.

Remember, 1/2 the attack force is already on the way. You need to slow them
down as much as possible.

> At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
> in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try and
> talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go back
> and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.
>
> This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
> ship.

Which is why I thought 16 MK-82 vs 8 MK-84. Smaller warhead, yes, but more
hits.

The real question is, can 2 Strike Eagles sink all 6 carriers? Maybe, maybe
not. There are only two of you, with limited ordnance. Slow them down as
much as possible until you can shake things up at Pearl.

Pete

[Ian MacLure]

Bill Shatzer > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 31 May 2004, Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>
>> Just anti-air. Winders and AMRAAM would do the trick nicely.
>> And no, that's not enough to take out half the force that took on the
>> Pearl but read on.
>
> What would be the effect of the sonic boom generated by two
> F-15s passing at Mach 1.4 at a distance of, say, 200 meters
> on a flight of B5Ns?

Might shake them up a tiny bit but do no harm I'm thinking.
Aside from a certain of amount of "Did you see what I think
I saw" or the Japanese equivalent.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Paul F Austin]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul F Austin" > wrote
> >
> > Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs.
> Otherwise,
> > a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation.
>
> A few hours later, you have gone to Pearl, and notified HQ of the deal.
>
> > At the
> > worst, all six would be back in business for the battles of 1942. Since
> the
> > Japanese CVs weren't armored to speak of, a GBU-10 with a Mk-84 warhead
> > should be the basic CV ship-killer. Two F-15Es should nail all six CVs
> with
> > one bomb per and an extra pair as backup and coup d'gras. I'd nail all
CVs
> > and then pull back to maximum endurance loiter and observe Japanese
damage
> > control efforts.
>
> Remember, 1/2 the attack force is already on the way. You need to slow
them
> down as much as possible.
>
> > At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
> > in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try
and
> > talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go
back
> > and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.
> >
> > This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
> > ship.
>
> Which is why I thought 16 MK-82 vs 8 MK-84. Smaller warhead, yes, but more
> hits.
>
> The real question is, can 2 Strike Eagles sink all 6 carriers? Maybe,
maybe
> not. There are only two of you, with limited ordnance. Slow them down as
> much as possible until you can shake things up at Pearl.

Let's be clear. Pearl is out of the picture. There's nothing two USAF
"rocket planes" can do to change the outcome there. You aren't going to
divert the first strike and you aren't going to go up through the duty
officer chain and back down in time to set Condition Zebra. You can stop the
launch of the second strike, prevent recovery of any of the aircraft already
lauched and possibly destroy the Japanese carrier force on the first day of
the war. That's worth shooting for even if you exchange the antique
battleline in Pearl to do it.

500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound bombs
may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to go off
after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of attacking large
ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and there's a fair
chance of breaking the ship's back.

[Ragnar]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
.. .
>At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
> in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try and
> talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go back
> and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.

Would a 1941-era fuel truck be able to get gas into a F-15E?

[Ragnar]

"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...

> Now, if you emptied the harbor of capital ships for a strike force the
> Japanese spies would have relayed the information back and the jap fleet
> may have turned back. Or set up for attack.

Umm, then how come the Japanese spies didn't tell the fleet that the
carriers were gone? As far as I know, right up to when the Japanese were
over Oahu they thought the carriers were there.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Paul F Austin
> writes
>500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound bombs
>may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to go off
>after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of attacking large
>ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and there's a fair
>chance of breaking the ship's back.

21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Vicente Vazquez]

I guess the simple sight of "birds" like a pair of F-15E's with U.S.
markings would:

1) Surely make the Japs realize that surprise had been lost. No "Tora
Tora Tora".

2) Probably make the Jap CO think that there were others "birds like
that" at Pearl and that he better call his planes back. Hehe. Who
would wnat to go to war, in 1941, with a country that had weapons like
the Strike Eagle? :-)

1 + 2 = No need to strike the carriers. Just the sight of those Eagles
would
be enough to make the Japs **** in their pants and sail back to Japan
as
fast as they could. :-)

[Keith Willshaw]

"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
om...
> I guess the simple sight of "birds" like a pair of F-15E's with U.S.
> markings would:
>
> 1) Surely make the Japs realize that surprise had been lost. No "Tora
> Tora Tora".
>
> 2) Probably make the Jap CO think that there were others "birds like
> that" at Pearl and that he better call his planes back. Hehe. Who
> would wnat to go to war, in 1941, with a country that had weapons like
> the Strike Eagle? :-)
>
> 1 + 2 = No need to strike the carriers. Just the sight of those Eagles
> would
> be enough to make the Japs **** in their pants and sail back to Japan
> as
> fast as they could. :-)

Thats not the Japanese way.

Aggressive and brutal as they were they never hesitated
to attack even when the odds were stacked against them.
You can criticise their morality and judgement but they
were supremely courageous.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Willshaw]

"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
om...
> I guess the simple sight of "birds" like a pair of F-15E's with U.S.
> markings would:
>
> 1) Surely make the Japs realize that surprise had been lost. No "Tora
> Tora Tora".
>
> 2) Probably make the Jap CO think that there were others "birds like
> that" at Pearl and that he better call his planes back. Hehe. Who
> would wnat to go to war, in 1941, with a country that had weapons like
> the Strike Eagle? :-)
>
> 1 + 2 = No need to strike the carriers. Just the sight of those Eagles
> would
> be enough to make the Japs **** in their pants and sail back to Japan
> as
> fast as they could. :-)

Thats not the Japanese way.

Aggressive and brutal as they were they never hesitated
to attack even when the odds were stacked against them.
You can criticise their morality and judgement but they
were supremely courageous.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Vicente Vazquez) wrote:

> I guess the simple sight of "birds" like a pair of F-15E's with U.S.
> markings would:

There is the minor detail that US markings were different in 1941. Yes,
they might see USAF. "What's that?"
>
> 1) Surely make the Japs realize that surprise had been lost. No "Tora
> Tora Tora".
> 2) Probably make the Jap CO think that there were others "birds like
> that" at Pearl and that he better call his planes back. Hehe. Who
> would wnat to go to war, in 1941, with a country that had weapons like
> the Strike Eagle? :-)

Just seeing them doesn't really give any idea of their capabilities,
other than they are FAST.

>
> 1 + 2 = No need to strike the carriers. Just the sight of those Eagles
> would
> be enough to make the Japs **** in their pants and sail back to Japan
> as
> fast as they could. :-)

[Jeb Hoge]

Bob Urz > wrote in message >...
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 31 May 2004, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >
> > -snips-
> >
> >
> >>Get on the ground, and prepare to be *very* persuasive - your knowledge
> >>of history is a vital weapon if you can persuade anyone to believe you
> >>:)
> >
> >
> > I would think two F-15s sitting on the tarmack at HIckham would lend
> > a certain credibility.
> >
> > Cheers and all,
> >
> I think two F-15's at hickham in 1941 would have been the equivalent of
> seeing aliens at roswell....... ;)

Heh, I was thinking the same thing.

Hey, once you've gone winchester in the Beagles, do you thing the jets
could slice a few of the attacking Japanese planes successfully with
midair passes? :)

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jeb Hoge
> writes
>Hey, once you've gone winchester in the Beagles, do you thing the jets
>could slice a few of the attacking Japanese planes successfully with
>midair passes? :)

Don't think so - and you want those Beagles as intact as you can for as
long as you can. Be a shame to lose half your force to a golden BB by a
determined rear-gunner.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[william cogswell]

> > writes
> >Hey, once you've gone winchester in the Beagles, do you thing the jets
> >could slice a few of the attacking Japanese planes successfully with
> >midair passes? :)
>
> Don't think so - and you want those Beagles as intact as you can for as
> long as you can. Be a shame to lose half your force to a golden BB by a
> determined rear-gunner.
>
> --
>Well if the nukes weren't disallowed you could use a one or two on the
japanese fleet the chase down the the air armada and use one of the
remaining nukes in a airburst close aboard

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article <cb7vc.4394$1L4.671@okepread02>, "william cogswell"
> wrote:

> > > writes
> > >Hey, once you've gone winchester in the Beagles, do you thing the jets
> > >could slice a few of the attacking Japanese planes successfully with
> > >midair passes? :)
> >
> > Don't think so - and you want those Beagles as intact as you can for as
> > long as you can. Be a shame to lose half your force to a golden BB by a
> > determined rear-gunner.
> >
> > --
> >Well if the nukes weren't disallowed you could use a one or two on the
> japanese fleet the chase down the the air armada and use one of the
> remaining nukes in a airburst close aboard
>
>

I may be getting into sensitive areas of the arming system, but it would
sound like a pretty fair navigational challenge to plot the lob-toss
delivery such that it detonates on, or at least in front, or a moving
formation. At what altitude were the Japanese aircraft? Is there a
fusing option for that height?

As long as you get it in front of them, however, even if you don't knock
anything down -- it's very hard for blind pilots to attack or land.

[Paul F Austin]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote
> Paul F Austin writes
> >500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound bombs
> >may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to go off
> >after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of attacking
large
> >ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and there's a fair
> >chance of breaking the ship's back.
>
> 21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
> VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
> BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)
>
> That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
> it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

You're right about the BLU-109 fill. Thanks for the correction. How does a
modern insensitive explosive fill compare to Torpex?

[WaltBJ]

A series of sonic booms would sure as hell wake up Pearl Harbor.
Is a Beagle able to carry Harpoons?
BTW I was one surprised 104 driver when my AIM9B growled nice and loud
at a C47. Coming in from the portside low it had a good look at #1's
exhaust stack. But then it was first conceived as a kamikaze-killer.
Walt BJ

[Scott Ferrin]

On 1 Jun 2004 20:05:13 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>A series of sonic booms would sure as hell wake up Pearl Harbor.
>Is a Beagle able to carry Harpoons?

The Korean ones will carry the SLAM-ER but the impression I get is
that your standard E can't. AFAIK the B-52 is the only USAF aircraft
that can carry them.



>BTW I was one surprised 104 driver when my AIM9B growled nice and loud
>at a C47. Coming in from the portside low it had a good look at #1's
>exhaust stack. But then it was first conceived as a kamikaze-killer.
>Walt BJ

[Ragnar]

"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
om...
> I guess the simple sight of "birds" like a pair of F-15E's with U.S.
> markings would:

I doubt it. The US markings in WW2 don't look like what we have now.

[Marc Reeve]

Ragnar > wrote:
> "Bob Urz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Now, if you emptied the harbor of capital ships for a strike force the
> > Japanese spies would have relayed the information back and the jap fleet
> > may have turned back. Or set up for attack.
>
> Umm, then how come the Japanese spies didn't tell the fleet that the
> carriers were gone? As far as I know, right up to when the Japanese were
> over Oahu they thought the carriers were there.

It's been said that the target ship USS Utah (former BB with turrets
removed and railroad ties lining the upper deck for extra protection
from practice projectiles) may have been mistaken for a carrier.

The Japanese certainly paid it the attention due a carrier, anyway.

If the fleet had been in the open sea the Japanese would have been even
more eager to attack. Less likely that we'd be able to salvage sunken
ships. (Nagumo had hoped to catch the fleet at the training anchorage
near Lahaina - nice, deep water there.)

The Japanese spies were pretty slow to get information out - I seem to
recall reading that the most up-to-date information they had at the time
the attack was launched was a week old.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 12:01:02 -0400, (Peter Stickney) wrote:

>In article >,
> Alan Minyard > writes:
>> On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:36:23 -0400, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
>>>> I know similar scenarios were made into a movie.
>>>> But, if on Dec 1941 you had two strike eagles.
>>>> Only two. Your sortie arrived at the Japanese fleet
>>>> about the time 1/2 of the first wave was launched.
>>>>
>>>> Question 1#
>>>> given the choice of any weaponry available for the F15,
>>>> (even some that may not be normally used)
>>>> what would your weapon load be? This is using all available hard points
>>>> and taking fuel out of the equation.
>>>>
>>>> Question #2
>>>> Given the choice of weapons above, what would your tactics be to
>>>> maximize damage to the carrier fleet and prevent as many planes
>>>> as possible from reaching Pearl. (while saving your own butt)
>>>>
>>>> Now there would have to be a balance between destroying the carriers
>>>> from future use and destroying the attacking planes that have already
>>>> left the carrier. Have it it. Hang as much on the plane as you can.
>>>> But when your out of munitions, what other tactics could you use?
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>>I carry 4x cluster bombs per aircraft (just in case I miss with one or two),
>>>and all the sidewinders and 20mm the F-15 will haul. I'm hitting the
>>>carriers with cluster bombs, which ought to do a number on any aircraft and
>>>people on deck. The secondaries from the Japanese munitions will finish the
>>>job on the carriers. Once the carriers are lit up like the 4th of July, I
>>>take out bombers and torpedo planes until I exhaust my supply of
>>>sidewinders. Following that, I go plinking with 20 mm. I don't waste my
>>>time shooting up Zero's unless there is nothing else to shoot at.
>>>
>>>KB
>>>
>> AIM 9s at recips?? I doubt if you would ever get a tone.
>
>They do, and quite nicely. Recip exhaust gas is very hot. Teh
>volume's lower, but that doesn't really matter - a Sidewinder's seeker
>is looking at temperature, not volume.
>Remember - the seekers these days are able to see the aerodynamic
>heating on the leading edges of a subsonic airplane - that's not very
>much.

Thanks, I have had no experience with the Winder. That is indeed an
amazing capability.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:04:51 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Paul F Austin
> writes
>>500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound bombs
>>may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to go off
>>after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of attacking large
>>ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and there's a fair
>>chance of breaking the ship's back.
>
>21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
>VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
>BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)
>
>That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
>it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

One hit from a US Sub blew the Taiho sky high. The Japanese were
notorious for filling their ships with avgas fumes.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:38:16 -0400, Howard Berkowitz > wrote:

>In article <cb7vc.4394$1L4.671@okepread02>, "william cogswell"
> wrote:
>
>> > > writes
>> > >Hey, once you've gone winchester in the Beagles, do you thing the jets
>> > >could slice a few of the attacking Japanese planes successfully with
>> > >midair passes? :)
>> >
>> > Don't think so - and you want those Beagles as intact as you can for as
>> > long as you can. Be a shame to lose half your force to a golden BB by a
>> > determined rear-gunner.
>> >
>> > --
>> >Well if the nukes weren't disallowed you could use a one or two on the
>> japanese fleet the chase down the the air armada and use one of the
>> remaining nukes in a airburst close aboard
>>
>>
>
>I may be getting into sensitive areas of the arming system, but it would
>sound like a pretty fair navigational challenge to plot the lob-toss
>delivery such that it detonates on, or at least in front, or a moving
>formation. At what altitude were the Japanese aircraft? Is there a
>fusing option for that height?
>
>As long as you get it in front of them, however, even if you don't knock
>anything down -- it's very hard for blind pilots to attack or land.

If you drop a bucket o' sunshine on them before they launch, no problem. If
the attack is already airborne they are now without a home plate. Not good
over the Pacific.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Paul F Austin
> writes
>> 21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
>> VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
>> BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)
>>
>> That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
>> it will *hurt* a ship of that era.
>
>You're right about the BLU-109 fill. Thanks for the correction.

Thanks for being gracious, I hope I'm as polite when corrected :) Just
an area where I had some figures in mind and others to hand.

>How does a
>modern insensitive explosive fill compare to Torpex?

Depends on role (and which 'insensitive fill' you mean). Torpedo
warheads are typically blast weapons, bombs are more interested in
fragmentation, and there are numerous exceptions to both those rules of
thumb.

'Torpex' was IIRC distinguished by its aluminium content to enhance
blast at the expense of brisance. I'm not a warhead expert, and the best
I can do is to suggest that going insensitive cost money but didn't
reduce lethality - and that modern explosive fills are both more
powerful and more stable than Torpex.


I'll stick with my opening gambit - either a 21" torpedo of the period
or a modern 2000lb bomb exploding under the keel of a 1941 carrier puts
into in that delightful Americanism, "a world of hurt".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[B2431]

>From: "Ragnar"
>
>
>"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
om...
>> I guess the simple sight of "birds" like a pair of F-15E's with U.S.
>> markings would:
>
>I doubt it. The US markings in WW2 don't look like what we have now.

To be more practical it would be better to to use aircraft the technology
available in 1941 could reproduce since you might block the attack on Pearl but
that wouldn't stop the war. A B-36 would make more sence.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Marc Reeve]

Alan Minyard > wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >In message >, Paul F Austin
> > writes
> >>500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound
> >>bombs may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to
> >>go off after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of
> >>attacking large ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and
> >>there's a fair chance of breaking the ship's back.
> >
> >21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
> >VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
> >BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)
> >
> >That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
> >it will *hurt* a ship of that era.
>
> One hit from a US Sub blew the Taiho sky high. The Japanese were
> notorious for filling their ships with avgas fumes.
>
So were we, at the start of the war. Witness what happened to the
Lexington.

I vaguely recall reading that the real problem with Japanese ships was
that they were using light, sweet crude from the Netherlands East
Indies, _unrefined_, as bunker fuel. This stuff would leak all sorts of
interesting volatiles around the interior of a ship if an attack
broached fuel tanks, and all it took was one spark...

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Guy Alcala]

WaltBJ wrote:

> A series of sonic booms would sure as hell wake up Pearl Harbor.
> Is a Beagle able to carry Harpoons?
> BTW I was one surprised 104 driver when my AIM9B growled nice and loud
> at a C47. Coming in from the portside low it had a good look at #1's
> exhaust stack. But then it was first conceived as a kamikaze-killer.

IIRR, the very first a/c shot down by an AIM-9 in test (by Wally Schirra
IIRC) was a Hellcat drone. And all those SAM-7s using uncooled seekers
drove the piston-engined O-1s and O-2s (not to mention Spads), up to much
higher altitudes in Vietnam in 1972, making their utility as FACs far
less.

Guy

[Tuollaf43]

"Pete" > wrote in message >...
> "Paul F Austin" > wrote
> >
> > Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs.
> Otherwise,
> > a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation.
>
> A few hours later, you have gone to Pearl, and notified HQ of the deal.

Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings. At the end
of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
of navigation excersices in the vicinity.

>
> > At the
> > worst, all six would be back in business for the battles of 1942. Since
> the
> > Japanese CVs weren't armored to speak of, a GBU-10 with a Mk-84 warhead
> > should be the basic CV ship-killer. Two F-15Es should nail all six CVs
> with
> > one bomb per and an extra pair as backup and coup d'gras. I'd nail all CVs
> > and then pull back to maximum endurance loiter and observe Japanese damage
> > control efforts.
>
> Remember, 1/2 the attack force is already on the way. You need to slow them
> down as much as possible.
>
> > At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
> > in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try and
> > talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go back
> > and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.
> >
> > This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
> > ship.
>
> Which is why I thought 16 MK-82 vs 8 MK-84. Smaller warhead, yes, but more
> hits.
>
> The real question is, can 2 Strike Eagles sink all 6 carriers? Maybe, maybe
> not. There are only two of you, with limited ordnance. Slow them down as
> much as possible until you can shake things up at Pearl.
>
> Pete

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Tuollaf43) wrote:

> Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
> impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
> unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
> time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings.

The what?

> At the end
> of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
> awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
> preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
> the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
> the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
> of navigation excersices in the vicinity.

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:18:00 -0700, (Marc Reeve) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> >In message >, Paul F Austin
>> > writes
>> >>500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound
>> >>bombs may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to
>> >>go off after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of
>> >>attacking large ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and
>> >>there's a fair chance of breaking the ship's back.
>> >
>> >21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
>> >VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
>> >BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)
>> >
>> >That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
>> >it will *hurt* a ship of that era.
>>
>> One hit from a US Sub blew the Taiho sky high. The Japanese were
>> notorious for filling their ships with avgas fumes.
>>
>So were we, at the start of the war. Witness what happened to the
>Lexington.
>
>I vaguely recall reading that the real problem with Japanese ships was
>that they were using light, sweet crude from the Netherlands East
>Indies, _unrefined_, as bunker fuel. This stuff would leak all sorts of
>interesting volatiles around the interior of a ship if an attack
>broached fuel tanks, and all it took was one spark...
>
> -Marc

True, but the Japanese never did figure out that CO2 inerting could save
a carrier. What happened to the Lex involved far more than a single
torpedo hit, the Lex took at least two torpedoes and an unknown number
of bomb hits. The explosions are thought to have been the result of
damaged bunker fuel tanks.

Al Minyard

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Pete" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Paul F Austin" > wrote
> > >
> > > Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs.
> > Otherwise,
> > > a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation.
> >
> > A few hours later, you have gone to Pearl, and notified HQ of the deal.
>
> Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
> impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
> unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
> time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings.

Trouble is Japan had just broken off diplomatic relations with
the USA and had attacked Wake, the Phillipines and Malaya.
You dont think Japan only attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec 7
do you ?

> At the end
> of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
> awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
> preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
> the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
> the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
> of navigation excersices in the vicinity.
>

Actually you get the medal of honor for being the only commander
who was on the ball. Short and Kimmel keep their jobs and
Douglas McArthur is fired for being unprepared.

Keith

[Pete]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote

> Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
> impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
> unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
> time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings. At the end
> of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
> awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
> preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
> the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
> the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
> of navigation excersices in the vicinity.
>

With 20/20 hindsight, and the means to preventor seriously inhibit the war
in the Pacific, I think that's a reprimand I'd take.

Again, with 20/20 hindsight, if you could shoot (name your favorite
dictator), knowing it would land you in jail, but but also knowing it would
prevent X thousand or million deaths, would you do it? I'd like to think I
would.

Pete

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Pete"
> wrote:

> "Tuollaf43" > wrote
>
> > Where you are promptly arrested and shipped stateside on charges of
> > impersonating an officer of the US armed forces and for conducting an
> > unauthorised attack on a friendly nation(Japan wasnt at war at the
> > time you stuck the carriers) in an UFO with USAF markings. At the end
> > of the day you receive a letter of reprimend from FDR for wreaking his
> > awesome 'day of infamy' and 'unprovoked attack' speech he was
> > preparing for so long, for just such a day. You go down in history as
> > the mysterious madman who triggered war in the pacific by attacking
> > the peaceful, friendly japanese fleet who had been conducting freedom
> > of navigation excersices in the vicinity.
> >
>
> With 20/20 hindsight, and the means to preventor seriously inhibit the
> war
> in the Pacific, I think that's a reprimand I'd take.
>
> Again, with 20/20 hindsight, if you could shoot (name your favorite
> dictator), knowing it would land you in jail, but but also knowing it
> would
> prevent X thousand or million deaths, would you do it? I'd like to think
> I
> would.

One of my mentors took his doctorate in Germany. He told me that in, oh,
1937 or so, he was presented to Hitler. While he was an academic, he
was also a wrestler, and felt he could have done great damage -- if he
had only known.

I remember watching him shake over the memory, and the only words I
could offer him were that he couldn't have known -- and wrestling
doesn't give you the skill to kill someone in seconds.

[Paul F Austin]

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote
> One of my mentors took his doctorate in Germany. He told me that in, oh,
> 1937 or so, he was presented to Hitler. While he was an academic, he
> was also a wrestler, and felt he could have done great damage -- if he
> had only known.
>
> I remember watching him shake over the memory, and the only words I
> could offer him were that he couldn't have known -- and wrestling
> doesn't give you the skill to kill someone in seconds.

Please don't take this as a jab at your mentor but did he talk about why he
and others "didn't know"? After all, Kristalnacht for example was four years
in the past at that point.

[Fe]

In article >, Paul F Austin wrote:
>
> "Howard Berkowitz" wrote
>> One of my mentors took his doctorate in Germany. He told me that in, oh,
>> 1937 or so, he was presented to Hitler. While he was an academic, he
>> was also a wrestler, and felt he could have done great damage -- if he
>> had only known.
>>
>> I remember watching him shake over the memory, and the only words I
>> could offer him were that he couldn't have known -- and wrestling
>> doesn't give you the skill to kill someone in seconds.
>
> Please don't take this as a jab at your mentor but did he talk about why he
> and others "didn't know"? After all, Kristalnacht for example was four years
> in the past at that point.

I thought it was in 1938.

[Paul F Austin]

"Fe"wrote
> Paul F Austin wrote:
> >
> > "Howard Berkowitz" wrote
> >> One of my mentors took his doctorate in Germany. He told me that in,
oh,
> >> 1937 or so, he was presented to Hitler. While he was an academic, he
> >> was also a wrestler, and felt he could have done great damage -- if he
> >> had only known.
> >>
> >> I remember watching him shake over the memory, and the only words I
> >> could offer him were that he couldn't have known -- and wrestling
> >> doesn't give you the skill to kill someone in seconds.
> >
> > Please don't take this as a jab at your mentor but did he talk about why
he
> > and others "didn't know"? After all, Kristalnacht for example was four
years
> > in the past at that point.
>
> I thought it was in 1938.

Sorry, you're right. The anti-Jewish laws and policies started in 1933.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Paul F
Austin" > wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" wrote
> > One of my mentors took his doctorate in Germany. He told me that in,
> > oh,
> > 1937 or so, he was presented to Hitler. While he was an academic, he
> > was also a wrestler, and felt he could have done great damage -- if he
> > had only known.
> >
> > I remember watching him shake over the memory, and the only words I
> > could offer him were that he couldn't have known -- and wrestling
> > doesn't give you the skill to kill someone in seconds.
>
> Please don't take this as a jab at your mentor but did he talk about why
> he
> and others "didn't know"? After all, Kristalnacht for example was four
> years
> in the past at that point.
>
>

You may be thinking of the "Night of the Long Knives," the 1934 purge of
the SA and other inconvenient sorts. Kristallnacht was in 1938.

I can't say I would have seen that as more than thuggery and lack of
central control. Given the information I had at the time, would I have
sacrificed myself -- for certainly that would happen -- to kill someone
whose monstrosity was not yet well known?

Remember that one of the issues of the SA purge was that they were
running internment camps independently of the SS, police, etc. While the
"euthanasia program" certainly preceded the Final Solution, the latter
was formalized at the Wannsee Conference in 1942.

[tough_1002]

Scott Ferrin <> wrote in message >...
> On 1 Jun 2004 20:05:13 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
> >A series of sonic booms would sure as hell wake up Pearl Harbor.
> >Is a Beagle able to carry Harpoons?
>
> The Korean ones will carry the SLAM-ER but the impression I get is
> that your standard E can't. AFAIK the B-52 is the only USAF aircraft
> that can carry them.
>
F-15E can carry SLAM ER. In fact, an F-15E is being used to do SLAM
ER integration testing while the F-15K is in work. But there is a lot
of inter-service politics and the Air Force does not want SLAM ER on
F-15E because it is paying a lot of money to develop the similar JASSM
missile. If SLAM ER was put on F-15E, it could be called JSLAM-ER and
Congress might mandate that the superior JSLAM-ER, developed by the
Navy, replace JASSM. The Air Force is still smarting from the Navy's
Tomahawk taking over some of the land attack role, and it doesn't want
the Navy SLAM-ER to repeat that embarassment.
>
> >BTW I was one surprised 104 driver when my AIM9B growled nice and loud
> >at a C47. Coming in from the portside low it had a good look at #1's
> >exhaust stack. But then it was first conceived as a kamikaze-killer.
> >Walt BJ

[tough_1002]

Scott Ferrin <> wrote in message >...
> On 1 Jun 2004 20:05:13 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
> >A series of sonic booms would sure as hell wake up Pearl Harbor.
> >Is a Beagle able to carry Harpoons?
>
> The Korean ones will carry the SLAM-ER but the impression I get is
> that your standard E can't. AFAIK the B-52 is the only USAF aircraft
> that can carry them.
>
F-15E can carry SLAM ER. In fact, an F-15E is being used to do SLAM
ER integration testing while the F-15K is in work. But there is a lot
of inter-service politics and the Air Force does not want SLAM ER on
F-15E because it is paying a lot of money to develop the similar JASSM
missile. If SLAM ER was put on F-15E, it could be called JSLAM-ER and
Congress might mandate that the superior JSLAM-ER, developed by the
Navy, replace JASSM. The Air Force is still smarting from the Navy's
Tomahawk taking over some of the land attack role, and it doesn't want
the Navy SLAM-ER to repeat that embarassment.
>
> >BTW I was one surprised 104 driver when my AIM9B growled nice and loud
> >at a C47. Coming in from the portside low it had a good look at #1's
> >exhaust stack. But then it was first conceived as a kamikaze-killer.
> >Walt BJ

[tough_1002]

Scott Ferrin <> wrote in message >...
> On 1 Jun 2004 20:05:13 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
> >A series of sonic booms would sure as hell wake up Pearl Harbor.
> >Is a Beagle able to carry Harpoons?
>
> The Korean ones will carry the SLAM-ER but the impression I get is
> that your standard E can't. AFAIK the B-52 is the only USAF aircraft
> that can carry them.
>
F-15E can carry SLAM ER. In fact, an F-15E is being used to do SLAM
ER integration testing while the F-15K is in work. But there is a lot
of inter-service politics and the Air Force does not want SLAM ER on
F-15E because it is paying a lot of money to develop the similar JASSM
missile. If SLAM ER was put on F-15E, it could be called JSLAM-ER and
Congress might mandate that the superior JSLAM-ER, developed by the
Navy, replace JASSM. The Air Force is still smarting from the Navy's
Tomahawk taking over some of the land attack role, and it doesn't want
the Navy SLAM-ER to repeat that embarassment.
>
> >BTW I was one surprised 104 driver when my AIM9B growled nice and loud
> >at a C47. Coming in from the portside low it had a good look at #1's
> >exhaust stack. But then it was first conceived as a kamikaze-killer.
> >Walt BJ