Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: US Naval Forces in Gulf, Air Nat'l Gaurd units. Message-ID: <1990Aug23.014128.460@cbnews.att.com> Date: 23 Aug 90 01:41:28 GMT References: <1990Aug11.015150.19844@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug15.032421.26794@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA Lines: 57 Approved: military@att.att.com From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) In article <1990Aug15.032421.26794@cbnews.att.com>, macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko) writes... ^ 2. According to the New York Times (8/9/90) the Antietam is not ^an Aegis missile cruiser but a guided missile cruiser as is the ^England. Of course there's always the possibility that they made a ^mistake. According to Janes Antietam is a CG-Aegis. So (missing the ealier post) you're both right. FYI a list of all the Aegis Cruisers: (sorry to all those with Janes) Ticonderoga CG-47 (ex-DDG-47) Princeton CG-59 Yorktown CG-48 Normandy CG-60 Vincennes CG-49 Monterey CG-61 Valley Forge CG-50 Chancellorville CG-62 Thomas S. Gates CG-51 Cowpens CG-63 Bunker Hill CG-52 Gettysburg CG-64 Mobile Bay CG-53 Chosin CG-65 Antietam CG-54 Hue City CG-66 Leyte Gulf CG-55 Shiloh CG-67 San Jacinto CG-56 Anzio CG-68 Lake Champlain CG-57 Philippine Sea CG-58 There may be more (or corrections) as this is an older Janes... BTW: Where (or what) was Cowpens? And why is one named T.S. Gates when the rest are battles? I missed that story... ^ 6. Another that point that the Pentagon seems to be keeping ^very low key is that every carrier also has a submarine escort of ^at least one or two sub. The exact mix of attack subs to ballistic ^ subs is in fact, they won't say. Neither will they divulge the ^number of subs in the area. I wonder just what type of warheads ^those ballistic subs are packing. Hmmm...... Why would they want to attach a boomer to a carrier group? The improved LAs work just dandy as cruise missile platforms. There are quite a few downsides to attaching a SSBN to a carrier. For one it would tell people where your boomer is...I'd guess that carrier escort subs would be older LAs and Permits if there are any left. Wouldn't they mostly be employed to run a little interference beyond the outer zone defensive ring? I can't imagine where you'd stick the sucker any closer. Surface ASW wouldn't really like to have to distinguish between a supposed friendly contact and a possible hostile before shooting. Good way to lose a carrier to an Oscar ;-) or maybe :-(. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.