Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Bert Van de Merckt <Bert.VandeMerckt@****.be>
Subject: EuroWars
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:59:24 +0200
Hai there,
could some of you describe the Eurowars in more detail? Or at least
tell me where to find some more stuff on it?
[I wanna know where we're heading :)]
Thanks in advance,
Bert
[---------------------------------------------]
"Pub: Ah,yes,a meeting place where people
attempt to reach advanced states of mental
incompetence by the repeated consumption of
fermented vegetable drinks." - Kryten
[-------------------------------]
mailto:Bert.VanDeMerckt@****.be
http://www.ping.be/~ping8611
Roleplaying LINK of LINKS page:
http://www.ping.be/~ping8611/rpglinks.html
[--------------------------------------------]
Message no. 2
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: EuroWars
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:37:12 GMT
Bert Van de Merckt writes

> Hai there,
> could some of you describe the Eurowars in more detail? Or at least
> tell me where to find some more stuff on it?
Sounds like you found the stuff in 'and so it came to pass'. I cannot
remember there being much more info on it, its in the timeline in at
least the London sourcebook but i don't thinks there is any more
data in there and more complete SR timelines exist (eg the one in
'Worlds Without End' is very complete).

> [I wanna know where we're heading :)]
The Eurowars are over, the Naithwright (is that how FASA spelt it)
strike ended them years ago. As to know about Europe, depends what
books the GM has. Germany is good and no big worry, just get BuMoNa
contracts to replace your Docwagon if required (sourcebook is very
good). Britian - don't annoy those Druids, don't waltx through
customs with guns, unregistered magic kit etc (i'm sure you can come
up with 101 solutions to that one) and Tir Na Nog - don't go unless
you have pointy ears or serios backup so you can get back out.

> Thanks in advance,

Mark
> Bert
Message no. 3
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: EuroWars
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:41:38 +0100
Bert Van de Merckt said on 18 Apr 96...

> Hai there,

Shark? Where?! :)

> could some of you describe the Eurowars in more detail? Or at least
> tell me where to find some more stuff on it?

Just some major war in Europe, from 19 May 2031 to late January 2033. It
was started by Russia (needing natural resources), and ended by a
surprise strike by some bomber aircraft of which nobody knows who sent
them and why. It caused the ECC (or EU, as it's called now) to collapse.
Cost of the war is about 250,000 dead and a million wounded.

> [I wanna know where we're heading :)]

On a road to nowhere :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Maybe I'm all messed up. But this is the only time I really feel alive.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 4
From: "Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject: Eurowars
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:01:37 +0100
Hi!

Could anyone please tell me where to find some more informations
about the euro-wars?

Thanks
ss
Message no. 5
From: Raven <florian.goll@******.UNI-WEIMAR.DE>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:39:36 +0000
> Could anyone please tell me where to find some more informations
> about the euro-wars?
There's something in the history section of the Germany Sourcebook
(as far as they included it in the english version).
It started in '31 and ended in '34.
For more Information mail me privatly.
--Raven



-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCC/MC/SS>$ d-(?) s:+>: !a>? C++(+)@ LSX P L+ E+ W++ N o? K-
w+ O M+ V PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+++ R* tv+(++) b+++ DI? D+
G(++) e>++++ h--(---) !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Message no. 6
From: "Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 19:53:04 +0100
> > Could anyone please tell me where to find some more informations
> > about the euro-wars?
> There's something in the history section of the Germany Sourcebook
> (as far as they included it in the english version).
> It started in '31 and ended in '34.
> For more Information mail me privatly.
> --Raven

Danke, das Deutschland in den schatten hab ich bereits. Werds mir mal
genauer durchlesen, aber die Informationen sind doch recht duerftig.
Wenn du also eine ahnung hast, wo ich mehr finden kann, bitte mail
mir...
Thanx
ss
Message no. 7
From: "Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 21:21:25 +0100
> Danke, das Deutschland in den schatten hab ich bereits. Werds mir mal
> genauer durchlesen, aber die Informationen sind doch recht duerftig.
> Wenn du also eine ahnung hast, wo ich mehr finden kann, bitte mail
> mir...
> Thanx
> ss


Sorry. this should'nt have gone to the list. sorry

very sorry.

ss (sorry)
Message no. 8
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 11:18:28 +0100
Simon T. Sailer said on 19:53/ 1 Jul 97...

> Danke, das Deutschland in den schatten hab ich bereits. Werds mir mal
> genauer durchlesen, aber die Informationen sind doch recht duerftig.
> Wenn du also eine ahnung hast, wo ich mehr finden kann, bitte mail
> mir...

The Eurowars were never really explained by FASA. All we know of them is
that there were some wars in Europe, the major one of which was between
Russia and western Europe, and it ended quite suddenly when an unknown
someone bombed the HQs on both sides. (Which, as we discusse a few months
ago, is very weird because if ending a war is that easy then we'd have
gottten rid of all of them by now...) There were some more little wars,
but nothing of the scale of this "big one."

The above info is from SRII page 28. DidS (pages 27 and 28 of my v2.01D)
gives a bit more detail about where and how the fighting took place (it
says the Russians got close to starting a nuclear war), and estimates a
quarter of a million people died and a million were wounded as a result of
the war.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Without lies, there'd be 100% divorce rate, a lot of discontented
children, and no advertising industry.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: "Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 18:52:01 +0100
> The above info is from SRII page 28. DidS (pages 27 and 28 of my v2.01D)
> gives a bit more detail about where and how the fighting took place (it
> says the Russians got close to starting a nuclear war), and estimates a
> quarter of a million people died and a million were wounded as a result of
> the war.
> --
> Gurth

Thanks. I just wonder why fasa has never fully explained the wars.
maybe the'lll do so in the future..
(seems you know german quite well)

ss
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 12:22:47 +0100
Simon T. Sailer said on 18:52/ 4 Jul 97...

> Thanks. I just wonder why fasa has never fully explained the wars.
> maybe the'lll do so in the future..

Don't hold your breath... The Euro-Wars don't really impact the game
setting and they took place about 25 years ago, so unless there will be
some major event (or perhaps an adventure) that has something to do with
them, I doubt they'll offer us any more explanations for what happened
where and why.

> (seems you know german quite well)

Well enough to get by, though it's easier to read than to get the grammar
right when speaking or writing it :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Without lies, there'd be 100% divorce rate, a lot of discontented
children, and no advertising industry.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 11
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:33:04 PDT
[Snip Eurowars history]

>How's that for a soundbite history? (It's in the *And So It Came to
>Pass* section of the BBB, too.)
>
> Danyel Woods

Thanks! I haven't read that chapter in years- looks like I'll have
to refresh myself.

Tony: "You know, when you told me to get this out for you, I thought
my hearin' was goin'. I says to myself: 'Leon's a pro- nobody uses this
except beginners.'"
Leon: "It's for practice. I like to stay in shape."
Tony: "That's good. Always stay on top. Just like me, I gotta know
where everything is. That's why I never leave this place except to go
from hear to there."
Leon: *big grin*
Tony: "Change ain't good, Leon. Ya know?"
Leon: <picks up package>
Tony: "Check it, make sure it's all there."
Leon: "I trust you."
Tony: "One thing's got nothin' to do with the other. Remember
that."
Leon: "I will."
-Leon and Tony, "The Professional"

I dunno why, but this exchange reminded me of that scene. :)


-Vagabond
"Under wandering stars I've grown"
________________________________________________________
<nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 12
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:10:44 +0000
> Although I've heard the story before, it wasn't until I read that last line
> when I realized exactly how similair the Eurowars were to the Great War with
> a century and a quarter tacked on... only with Russia acting as the Triple
> Entente (evil scum trying to gain an empire), Nato as the Triple Alliance
> (lofty good guys, unable to repell the invaders, yet holding them off), and
> the UK acting as the Americans (coming in from afar to end a long, bitter
> war)
> Any comments?

Good guys, bad guys. That's the names the winners assign. On both
sides the president yells "we're fighting the evil empire!". At any
rate, war has changed a lot since WW1. It's not trench warfare, but a
rapid, fluid thing. It moves faster, deadlier, five or more theaters
at once - information, air, sea, subsurface, land, supply. For such
an intense war, with such massive resources on both sides, to last
eight years and *still* be a stalemate, something has to *want* that.
As to why China or Japan wouldn't do a massive land grab from Russia
if it was weakened by eight years of war is anyone's guess. (Need I
remind you that Japan and Russia has, technically, been at war the
last 60 years?). China and Russia is playing friendly these days, but
neither trusts the other... and rightly so. As for western europe,
well, *if* they fought an eight year long war side by side, it would
not balkanize easily. Now if the alliance shattered, say, and in
response the wraith strike happened, though.. hm. There
could be something fishy going on behind the scenes here.
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 13
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:40:10 +0000
> > Although I've heard the story before, it wasn't until I read that last line
> > when I realized exactly how similair the Eurowars were to the Great War with

> rate, war has changed a lot since WW1. It's not trench warfare, but a
> rapid, fluid thing. It moves faster, deadlier, five or more theaters
> at once - information, air, sea, subsurface, land, supply. For such
> an intense war, with such massive resources on both sides, to last
> eight years and *still* be a stalemate, something has to *want* that.

Explain why the Middle East has conflicts that last so long. Because
while technology has increased the pace of a battle, wars are still
the same things...advancing too soon may open you up to attack by
the enemies same fast weapons, etc. Sun Tzu's the Art of War is
still studied in military academies not because technology cares
whether the sun is to your back, but because the tenets of warfare
are still the same.

> As to why China or Japan wouldn't do a massive land grab from Russia
> if it was weakened by eight years of war is anyone's guess. (Need I

Fear of each other? Internal problems? It's the only logical answer
I can come up with, esp. since Imperial Japan of SR time is quite
land-hungry.

> remind you that Japan and Russia has, technically, been at war the
> last 60 years?). China and Russia is playing friendly these days, but

Russia and Japan are still at war? Can someone fill me in on this?

> neither trusts the other... and rightly so. As for western europe,
> well, *if* they fought an eight year long war side by side, it would
> not balkanize easily. Now if the alliance shattered, say, and in
> response the wraith strike happened, though.. hm. There
> could be something fishy going on behind the scenes here.

I think the point of the wraith strike is that something fishy was
going on SOMEWHERE. :)

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:47:51 +0100
Brett Borger said on 10:40/29 Apr 98...

> > remind you that Japan and Russia has, technically, been at war the
> > last 60 years?). China and Russia is playing friendly these days, but
>
> Russia and Japan are still at war? Can someone fill me in on this?

During the final part of WWII, the Russians got actively involved in the
war against Japan too. They invaded a few islands i nthe very north of
Japan, which they've refused to give back ever since and which is _not_
covered by any peace treaty. This is part of the reason why Yeltsin is in
Japan quite a lot.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Neighbors, let us join today in the holy love of god and Money
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:47:52 +0100
Fade said on 15:10/29 Apr 98...

> Good guys, bad guys. That's the names the winners assign. On both
> sides the president yells "we're fighting the evil empire!". At any
> rate, war has changed a lot since WW1. It's not trench warfare, but a
> rapid, fluid thing. It moves faster, deadlier, five or more theaters at once

Reminds me of a B5 quote that I can't reproduce 100% accurately right here
and now... Something about heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots...

> - information, air, sea, subsurface, land, supply. For such an intense
> war, with such massive resources on both sides, to last eight years and
> *still* be a stalemate, something has to *want* that.

We've been over this before, and the most obvious conclusion is that the
Euro-Wars are a badly-thought-out piece of SR history. War on a major
scale leaves massive destruction and decades of rebuilding: just look at
the end of WWII -- only by the 1960s can we say Europe had really
recovered from it, but effects are _still_ noticable, if only because many
survivors are still alive. In SR, the Euro-Wars are not as far in the past
as WWII is today, so their effects would likely still be felt.

> As to why China or Japan wouldn't do a massive land grab from Russia
> if it was weakened by eight years of war is anyone's guess.

IMHO if you want to turn the Euro-Wars into a more realistic scenario,
apply some background from Twilight: 2000, but switch things around a bit.
Instead of Russia being occupied with China and Germany taking advantage
of that, do it the other way around. Oh, and leave out the nukes :)

> As for western europe, well, *if* they fought an eight year long war
> side by side, it would not balkanize easily.

OTOH there were lots of small wars instead of one big one; it's called the
Euro-War_s_ with an S at the end for a reason. The balkanization may be a
result of the war: Italy for example is fractured in the extreme, and
perhaps it's caused by the rivalry (is that the right word?) between the
north and south of the country -- the south saying to the north "Good luck
with your war, but we don't want to pay for it any longer" is plausible,
if you ask me. Once you get small cracks, larger ones often follow.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Neighbors, let us join today in the holy love of god and Money
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 16
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:37:59 +0200
Gurth wrote:
>> > remind you that Japan and Russia has, technically, been at war the
>> > last 60 years?). China and Russia is playing friendly these days, but
>>
>> Russia and Japan are still at war? Can someone fill me in on this?
>
>During the final part of WWII, the Russians got actively involved in the
>war against Japan too. They invaded a few islands in the very north of
>Japan, which they've refused to give back ever since and which is _not_
>covered by any peace treaty. This is part of the reason why Yeltsin is in
>Japan quite a lot.

It wasn't an opportunist move.. Japan had attacked Russia between three and six
times between 1936 and 1943. In my version of the Shadowrun world they're
*STILL* at war... the Federation and the Empire, having been at war for more
than a hundred years.. sounds good to me. AFAIK there's not been anything
official on it yet, either.

Gurth also commented in another post that we've been through the Eurowars
before. When he mentioned it, I recall the discussion as well. Unless anyone
has any objections I'll not respond further.
(I can't imagine anyone would.).

On a side note, I was very, very wrong about Europe. EMU - European Monetary
Union - is now reality. There'll be a ten year transition period, but it's now
a done deal. I didn't expect that! I didn't expect that at all... always
thought some nationalist fuck would railroad the deal. Interesting....
Will be fun to see what happens next. Perhaps.

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 17
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@******.BACKBONE.OLEMISS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:24:52 -0500
>Reminds me of a B5 quote that I can't reproduce 100% accurately right here
>and now... Something about heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots...

"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to kingdom of idiots
would fight a war on twelve fronts" - Londo

Mike Broadwater
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon
"Everyone wants to be Cary Grant. Even I want to be Cary Grant."
-- Cary Grant
Message no. 18
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:42:59 -0400
> > Although I've heard the story before, it wasn't until I read that last line
> > when I realized exactly how similair the Eurowars were to the Great War with
> > a century and a quarter tacked on... only with Russia acting as the Triple
> > Entente (evil scum trying to gain an empire), Nato as the Triple Alliance
> > (lofty good guys, unable to repell the invaders, yet holding them off), and
> > the UK acting as the Americans (coming in from afar to end a long, bitter
> > war)
> > Any comments?
>
> Good guys, bad guys. That's the names the winners assign. On both
> sides the president yells "we're fighting the evil empire!".

Yeah, I meant it to be just an archetypical categorizing, but I should have placed
emoticons next to the evil scum and lofty good guys.. sorry.

> As to why China or Japan wouldn't do a massive land grab from Russia
> if it was weakened by eight years of war is anyone's guess. (Need I
> remind you that Japan and Russia has, technically, been at war the
> last 60 years?). China and Russia is playing friendly these days, but
> neither trusts the other... and rightly so.

Excellent question, I don't know if there's been a Japan, China or Russia
sourcebook put out, but my guess is that either China or Japan -did- take some
land. OTOH, I do recall something that stated that Russia had lost a lot of her
Siberian wildlands to either native or metahuman rebels... akin to the US's
problems with the NAN.

> As for western europe,
> well, *if* they fought an eight year long war side by side, it would
> not balkanize easily. Now if the alliance shattered, say, and in
> response the wraith strike happened, though.. hm.

Now -that's an idea... perhaps one of the Allies feared a withdrawl of the other
allies, and arranged for the Nightwrath strike... thus postponing any military
removals while HQs were being rebuiilt and comm lines were re-set-up.

> There
> could be something fishy going on behind the scenes here.

I think that describes most of world politics in the 21st Century.

> Fade

--
Stonebow
The life of man: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Thomas Hobbes
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 19
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:48:38 -0400
Brett Borger wrote:

> > remind you that Japan and Russia has, technically, been at war the
> > last 60 years?). China and Russia is playing friendly these days, but
>
> Russia and Japan are still at war? Can someone fill me in on this?

Russia and Japan never signed a peace after WWII.... it's doubtful that anything
will come of this any time soon, because one of the nations involved doens't have an
army, and the other has a few too many internal problems to risk mindlessly
attacking anyone. =)

>
>
> -=SwiftOne=-



--
Stonebow
"A milion years?" persisted the jeering old man with keen sadistic zest.
"A half million? The frog is is almost 500 million years old.Could
you really say, with much certainty, that America, with all it's
strength and prosperity, with it's fighting man that is second to
none and with it's standard of living that is the highest in the
world, will last as long as... the frog?"
Joseph Heller, Catch-22
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 20
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:06:13 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 03:24 PM 4/29/98 -0500, Mike wrote:
>>Reminds me of a B5 quote that I can't reproduce 100% accurately
right here
>>and now... Something about heir to the throne of the kingdom of
idiots...
>
>"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to kingdom
of idiots
>would fight a war on twelve fronts" - Londo

Almost.

"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

Although leaving out the words 'the throne of the' detracts nothing
from the content of the quote, only the style.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNUeWPc2C0fERRVM5AQHa7AP/TU9SVa+MJKgF/0DnzD+380kRZplor1/u
QuVN3N4tFjgYGt/XLpMMQtR5/qo5Yb3JfX2h4CVQOTq3NvN14SeZb7zUal17wQdY
aIOnWhu3znLS71QAVTrzDLvtOPt32dz/uRY0AL3YldVwatbNYb9nUQKFma5acjP3
pkdaPsiTHwk=
=OkV9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 21
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:28:30 +1200
Quoth Brett Borger (2240 29-4-98):

<<SLICE>>

>> neither trusts the other... and rightly so. As for western
europe,
>> well, *if* they fought an eight year long war side by side,
it would
>> not balkanize easily. Now if the alliance shattered, say, and
in
>> response the wraith strike happened, though.. hm. There
>> could be something fishy going on behind the scenes here.

>I think the point of the wraith strike is that something fishy
was
>going on SOMEWHERE. :)

Since the question has migrated, I might as well join in here. Airwasp
made this comment on the "Nordic countries/Eurowars" thread:

>It is believed that the bombers were British, but even though don't
acknowledge it officially.

They could be denying it, or they may be telling the truth: perhaps the
RAF *did not* fly that mission. I hate to repeat myself, but the
bombers came from the *area* of the UK. And though the aircraft were
British-made, and about the only people who would buy them are
Commonwealth nations, who's to say what language the pilots spoke? :-)

<Hoping this hint is a little less obscure than the last one.>

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'
Message no. 22
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:23:27 -0300
Geoff Morochnick escreveu:
>
> > > Although I've heard the story before, it wasn't until I read that last line
> > > when I realized exactly how similair the Eurowars were to the Great War
with
> > > a century and a quarter tacked on... only with Russia acting as the Triple
> > > Entente (evil scum trying to gain an empire), Nato as the Triple Alliance
> > > (lofty good guys, unable to repell the invaders, yet holding them off), and
> > > the UK acting as the Americans (coming in from afar to end a long, bitter
> > > war)
> > > Any comments?
> >
> > Good guys, bad guys. That's the names the winners assign. On both
> > sides the president yells "we're fighting the evil empire!".
>
> Yeah, I meant it to be just an archetypical categorizing, but I should have placed
> emoticons next to the evil scum and lofty good guys.. sorry.

I think the Entente was the side with the USA and the other coutries
who won....


Ubiratan
Message no. 23
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:18:33 +0100
Michael Broadwater said on 15:24/29 Apr 98...

> "Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to kingdom of idiots
> would fight a war on twelve fronts" - Londo

That's the one! Thanks :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
You're gonna like it, but not a lot.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 24
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:18:33 +0100
Rune Fostervoll said on 21:37/29 Apr 98...

> >During the final part of WWII, the Russians got actively involved in the
> >war against Japan too. They invaded a few islands in the very north of
> >Japan, which they've refused to give back ever since and which is _not_
> >covered by any peace treaty. This is part of the reason why Yeltsin is in
> >Japan quite a lot.
>
> It wasn't an opportunist move.. Japan had attacked Russia between three
> and six times between 1936 and 1943.

Yes, one of the best-known wars being over Manchuria. However Russia
didn't really involve itself with Japan until after May 1945, and only
then invaded Japanese islands instead of fighting Japanese troops in or
near China.

> On a side note, I was very, very wrong about Europe. EMU - European Monetary
> Union - is now reality. There'll be a ten year transition period, but it's now
> a done deal. I didn't expect that! I didn't expect that at all... always
> thought some nationalist fuck would railroad the deal. Interesting....
> Will be fun to see what happens next. Perhaps.

More like four years. Next year banks and other businesses can/will start
handling transactions in Euros, and from 2002 (I believe) we'll get them
in our wallets too. That should finally put a stop to those German
tourists asking how many Marks something costs :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
You're gonna like it, but not a lot.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 25
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:18:33 +0100
Geoff Morochnick said on 16:48/29 Apr 98...

> Russia and Japan never signed a peace after WWII.... it's doubtful that
> anything will come of this any time soon, because one of the nations
> involved doens't have an army, and the other has a few too many internal
> problems to risk mindlessly attacking anyone. =)

What, you mean Russia hasn't paid its military for ages and so effectively
doesn't have one, and Japan is suffering from the Asian crisis?

Japan _does_ have an army, only it's called a Defense Force, just like in
Israel (the difference being that Japan's has been used only for defense
since it was created).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
You're gonna like it, but not a lot.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 26
From: Alex van der Kleut <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:23:00 -0400
>They could be denying it, or they may be telling the truth: perhaps the
>RAF *did not* fly that mission. I hate to repeat myself, but the
>bombers came from the *area* of the UK. And though the aircraft were
>British-made, and about the only people who would buy them are
>Commonwealth nations, who's to say what language the pilots spoke? :-)
>
><Hoping this hint is a little less obscure than the last one.>

Okay, I'll jump in with the obvious answer. If I remember correctly, there
were several groups that lived in the area that had some military
connections. And it does say specifically in the London Sourcebook (at
least in a decker comment) that the RAF planes did not fly. But that
doesn't mean that some other county nearby couldn't have bought another few
squadrons and used them from the same area.

So of course the group that jumps to mind immediately is Tir na Nog (those
wacky elves!). They could have the resources. But the question is, why
would they? Wouldn't they want the norms to nail themselves some more? Of
course, another comment in the LS mentins that there were rumors (rumors of
rumors, wow) that the big boys were going to start playing dirty. Maybe
they decided to stop it before something could blow their way.

Or it could have been some other group, or individual, who wanted the war
stopped, but didn't want the credit. I think that the point that they were
NightRavens from the UK area was confirmed by only one group, a
Scandanavian listening post. And the commando raids could have been
anybody. SO how hard would it be to fool/fakeout/buy off the listening post?

Sommers
Message no. 27
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:10:33 -0400
Ubiratan P. Alberton wrote:

> Geoff Morochnick escreveu:
> >
> > > > Although I've heard the story before, it wasn't until I read that last
line
> > > > when I realized exactly how similair the Eurowars were to the Great
War with
> > > > a century and a quarter tacked on... only with Russia acting as the
Triple
> > > > Entente (evil scum trying to gain an empire), Nato as the Triple
Alliance
> > > > (lofty good guys, unable to repell the invaders, yet holding them
off), and
> > > > the UK acting as the Americans (coming in from afar to end a long,
bitter
> > > > war)
> > > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > Good guys, bad guys. That's the names the winners assign. On both
> > > sides the president yells "we're fighting the evil empire!".
> >
> > Yeah, I meant it to be just an archetypical categorizing, but I should have
placed
> > emoticons next to the evil scum and lofty good guys.. sorry.
>
> I think the Entente was the side with the USA and the other coutries
> who won....
>
> Ubiratan


Yeah, I miswrote.... the Entente actually was just France, Britain and Russia..... the
US joined the Allies, a derivative of the origional Entente.
--
Stonebow
[Life] tends to pick on everyone.
You just notice it more when it's you.
Michael Harrison
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 28
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:20:55 -0400
> > Russia and Japan never signed a peace after WWII.... it's doubtful that
> > anything will come of this any time soon, because one of the nations
> > involved doens't have an army, and the other has a few too many internal
> > problems to risk mindlessly attacking anyone. =)
>
> What, you mean Russia hasn't paid its military for ages and so effectively
> doesn't have one, and Japan is suffering from the Asian crisis?

Not what I meant, but that'd work, I suppose. =)

> Japan _does_ have an army, only it's called a Defense Force, just like in
> Israel (the difference being that Japan's has been used only for defense
> since it was created).

I didn't know exactly how much of an army Japan's D.F. was... but from a
previous post I've learned it to be one... however, Israel's army never has
been used in a purely offensive operation... only for driving out invading
arab armies , and of corse, for terrorizing Palestinian citizens. (Gotta love
jabbing at both sides....) :)
--
Stonebow
I would there were no age between ten and three-and-twenty,
or that youth would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in
the between but getting wenches with child, wronging the
ancientry, stealing, fighting.
William Shakespeare
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 29
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:24:11 -0400
Danyel N Woods wrote:

> Quoth Brett Borger (2240 29-4-98):
>
> >It is believed that the bombers were British, but even though don't
> acknowledge it officially.
>
> They could be denying it, or they may be telling the truth: perhaps the
> RAF *did not* fly that mission. I hate to repeat myself, but the
> bombers came from the *area* of the UK. And though the aircraft were
> British-made, and about the only people who would buy them are
> Commonwealth nations, who's to say what language the pilots spoke? :-)
>
> <Hoping this hint is a little less obscure than the last one.>
>

I would say that you're referring to Tir Nan Og, but since Ireland isn't a
commonwealth nation now, and it's doubtful Tir would join the commonwealth,
I'm not sure which mythic commonwealth nation you're referring to. :)

> Danyel Woods



--
Stonebow
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to success is more important
than
any other one thing.
-Abraham Lincoln
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 30
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:00:55 +1200
Quoth Alex van der Kleut (0123 1-5-98):

<<SLICE my post>>
>Okay, I'll jump in with the obvious answer. If I remember correctly,
there
>were several groups that lived in the area that had some military
>connections. And it does say specifically in the London Sourcebook (at
>least in a decker comment) that the RAF planes did not fly. But that
>doesn't mean that some other county nearby couldn't have bought another
few
>squadrons and used them from the same area.

>So of course the group that jumps to mind immediately is Tir na Nog
(those
>wacky elves!). They could have the resources. But the question is, why
>would they? Wouldn't they want the norms to nail themselves some more?
Of

Why wouldn't they want the norms to nail themselves more, he asks?
Answer: they did. If either side had won the Eurowars in 2033, they
would have had a good part of their infrastructure and military left,
(relatively) intact. From the Tir's PoV: with anti-metahuman sentiment
rising (remember, they might have foreseen/imagined something like
Humanis/Alamos 20000 would appear), and a good dose of European paranoia
about the Tir's intentions, who's to say what ideas might occur to the
victorious generals - who now have a body of combat-experienced troops?
So, before they reach that point, why not keep them hammering at each
other until everyone's too weak to do anything? By staging that strike,
the Tir kept anyone from winning at all: everyone just kept bangin' away
at each other, bleeding themselves white until they were too weak to
fight, and just quit to go home.


>course, another comment in the LS mentins that there were rumors
(rumors of
>rumors, wow) that the big boys were going to start playing dirty. Maybe
>they decided to stop it before something could blow their way.

Damn. Y'know, I was so focussed on my pet theory that I completely
forgot the corporate angle. But still, the RAF pays very close
attention to its airspace. They'd know who flew what out of which
corporate base, and they'll likely take the issue up with the owners of
that base when laser-guided bombs from corporate jets started immolating
*Allied* C3 bunkers as well as Russian. And if the bombers came out of
some facility elsewhere in the world (meaning air-to-air refuelling en
route - and tanker aircraft are *REAL* expensive, like $250 million a
copy) - well, who would really care *that* much about Europe? The
Japanacorps? (Shyeah, whatever.)

>Or it could have been some other group, or individual, who wanted the
war
>stopped, but didn't want the credit. I think that the point that they
were
>NightRavens from the UK area was confirmed by only one group, a
>Scandanavian listening post. And the commando raids could have been
>anybody. SO how hard would it be to fool/fakeout/buy off the listening
post?

I don't know about this one. Like I said, if they launched from the UK
area, the RAF would likely take it up with them. If they launched from
else where - well, what does a NightWraith cost? At a guess, $75
million in 2033 UCAS dollars? Twelve-plus jets, plus munitions (a
million plus *per bomb*), plus crews and training, plus ground personnel
training and equipment, plus tanker planes (if they launched from
outside the immediate area)... Jesus, about the only ones who could
afford that would be a .... <*an 'oh, shit' idea forms*>

.... Would be <dare I say it?> - a *dragon*?

O - M - G.

*When was Saeder-Krupp formed, again?*

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'
Message no. 31
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:08:17 +1200
Quoth Geoff Morochnick (0724 1-5-98):

<<SLICE my post>>
>I would say that you're referring to Tir Nan Og, but since Ireland
isn't a
>commonwealth nation now, and it's doubtful Tir would join the
commonwealth,
>I'm not sure which mythic commonwealth nation you're referring to. :)

Northern Ireland is the British-run part, yes? Aren't they part of the
Commonwealth? I assumed that status would be carried over from NI to
the 'united' Tir. Was I mistaken?

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'
Message no. 32
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 00:26:19 +0200
*snip Who might have launched the strike?*

It was from the vicinity of the UK.

That leaves few countries likely to have done so.

But even more so, it's surprising noone had noticed the aircraft launched
from a regular airfield.

I'm thinking in the direction of rather bizarre gear right now -
a stealth carrier, or a small, submersible one.

I don't quite buy the dragon bit. It sounds wrong.
Might be interesting to know what Lofwyr did during the war, though..
after all, Saeder Krupp is a German corp, and that is bang in the front
lines.

Fade

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 33
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:24:50 -0400
Danyel N Woods wrote:

> >I would say that you're referring to Tir Nan Og, but since Ireland
> isn't a
> >commonwealth nation now, and it's doubtful Tir would join the
> commonwealth,
> >I'm not sure which mythic commonwealth nation you're referring to. :)
>
> Northern Ireland is the British-run part, yes? Aren't they part of the
> Commonwealth? I assumed that status would be carried over from NI to
> the 'united' Tir. Was I mistaken?
>

Northern Ireland is British run, currently, though they are part of the
commonwealth, akin to Scotland and Wales. Since Tir would probab;y find the
same sort of offense at being part of the commonwealth that Eire had, I
think that it'd not be a member.
All IMesHO

--
Stonebow
Cruelty, very far from being a vice, is the first sentiment Nature
injects in us all. The infant breaks his toy, bites his nurse's
breast, strangles his canary long before he is able to reason;
Marquis de Sade
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 34
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:21:46 +1200
Quoth Rune Fostervoll (1026 1-5-98):

>*snip Who might have launched the strike?*

>It was from the vicinity of the UK.

>That leaves few countries likely to have done so.

>But even more so, it's surprising noone had noticed the aircraft
launched
>from a regular airfield.

>I'm thinking in the direction of rather bizarre gear right now -
>a stealth carrier, or a small, submersible one.

Now *there's* one outta left field! 'Conventional' carriers cost what,
$750 million a copy today? Plus operating costs? Then put *stealth* on
top of that? How the hell do you 'stealth' a ship that's three
hundred-plus metres long and *must* be a certain shape (to carry out
flight operations)? That's even more expensive than tanker planes! And
even if you *did* get it to work, you couldn't hide its construction or
existence. (The submersible carrier idea, I'll leave very much alone -
frankly, it's a little ludicrous.)

But let's face it, if they flew out of a base somewhere overseas
(Stateside? Farther away?), flew the mission, then landed at *another*
base away from the first, anyone watching would likely think it was a
normal training mission (they could well have left homeland radar
coverage on a course that hid their true destination, and re-entered it
in similar fashion). Only the pilots, those involved in the launch and
mid-air refuellings would know what they were doing, and they'd be
sworn/bribed to secrecy (or otherwise silenced); those on the ground
when they landed would think they'd just flown a normal training hop.

>I don't quite buy the dragon bit. It sounds wrong.
>Might be interesting to know what Lofwyr did during the war, though..
>after all, Saeder Krupp is a German corp, and that is bang in the front
>lines.

Precisely. He wanted to stop the fighting completely, while there was
still something left for him to run/take over. Didn't quite work out
the way he planned, but at least he didn't have Ivan in (most of) his
factories.

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'
Message no. 35
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:39:03 -0600
Rune Fostervoll wrote:
/
/ *snip Who might have launched the strike?*
/
/ It was from the vicinity of the UK.
/
/ That leaves few countries likely to have done so.
/
/ But even more so, it's surprising noone had noticed the aircraft launched
/ from a regular airfield.
/
/ I'm thinking in the direction of rather bizarre gear right now -
/ a stealth carrier, or a small, submersible one.

Or they could have flow from air tanker to air tanker to air tanker
to... and so on. They could have come from anywhere in the world.

The US did the same when F-111s flew out of England to bomb Libya in
the late 80s. Because most of the European countries wouldn't
authorize the F-111s to fly over them, the bombers had to take the
long way around, and make several connections with tankers along the
way.

-David
--
"That which we do not know supports that which we know."
- Joseph Campbell
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 36
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:58:58 -0400
> But even more so, it's surprising noone had noticed the aircraft launched
> from a regular airfield.

> I'm thinking in the direction of rather bizarre gear right now -
> a stealth carrier, or a small, submersible one.

I think a -very- bizarre mood... I'm no expert on aircraft carriers, but I
find it hard to imagine a submersible carrier... the water wouldn't slide off
correctly on the flat sort of surface you'd need for planes to land... plus
watertight hangar would take up too much room....As to a stealth carrier,
well... I suppose it'd be feasible, but probably a tad too expensive.

>
>
>
> Fade
>
> --
>
> ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
> -Ambrose Bierce



--
Stonebow
The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make heaven of Hell, and a
hell of Heaven. -John Milton
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 37
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:21:51 -0400
At 11:21 AM 5/1/98 +1200, you wrote:

>>I'm thinking in the direction of rather bizarre gear right now -
>>a stealth carrier, or a small, submersible one.
>
>Now *there's* one outta left field! 'Conventional' carriers cost what,
>$750 million a copy today? Plus operating costs? Then put *stealth* on
>top of that? How the hell do you 'stealth' a ship that's three
>hundred-plus metres long and *must* be a certain shape (to carry out
>flight operations)? That's even more expensive than tanker planes! And
>even if you *did* get it to work, you couldn't hide its construction or
>existence. (The submersible carrier idea, I'll leave very much alone -
>frankly, it's a little ludicrous.)


It is a bit out of left field. But not totally ludicrous. I'm not sure
who, the Brits or Americans, but one of them has
plans/ideas/thoughts/prototypes/fantasies/something! of what is essentially
a submersible, stealthed carrier.

Now before you get too carried away, let me explain. As I recall, it was
horribly slow, couldn't dive terribly deep, and was more of a
helicopter/jump jet carrier, not the traditional USS Nimitz floating
airfields.

But the idea of it was/is that the sub-carrier could sneak up very close to
their targets, pop up, allow the choppers and Harriers to take off and do
their thing, sink back down for a bit, resurface and let the aircraft land,
then try to sneak back out.

It's an interesting concept and probably won't/didn't fly considering the
relatively limited role it would have combined with the tremendous costs.
But still interesting.

Erik J.


"Oh, the silent helicopters and the men in black fatigues? They're just my
car pool to work."
Message no. 38
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@******.BACKBONE.OLEMISS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:29:30 -0500
At 11:21 AM 5/1/98 +1200, Danyel N Woods wrote:
>>I'm thinking in the direction of rather bizarre gear right now -
>>a stealth carrier, or a small, submersible one.
>
>Now *there's* one outta left field! 'Conventional' carriers cost what,
>$750 million a copy today? Plus operating costs? Then put *stealth* on
>top of that? How the hell do you 'stealth' a ship that's three
>hundred-plus metres long and *must* be a certain shape (to carry out
>flight operations)? That's even more expensive than tanker planes! And
>even if you *did* get it to work, you couldn't hide its construction or
>existence.

The design for a stealth sub and a stealth carrier already exists. You use
the same design principles as with the US Nighthawk, but change it to a
ship configuration. This was mentioned by one of the guys who used to run
the Skunkworks (sorry I don't remember the name, this is all from a Popular
Science article I read about 3 years ago.) The concept is the same, just
redirect the incoming radar or sonar. These ships weren't built for a
couple reasons. Cost being one, as well as the secrecy involved. A lot of
advancement in the US Navy is based off what you did last. No one wants to
Captain a ship you can't talk about. Plus you have to get a few hundred
sailors never to tell anyone what they do on what where. And getting the
crew on and off....It can be done, it's just not very probable.

Paul, if I'm wrong, try not to jump all over me :)


Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand and Dwarven Illuminati
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
Message no. 39
From: David Wangen <wangendb@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:42:32 PDT
First of all, this is my first post, so be gentle. I have been lurking
for about a year and a half now, so I shouldn't screw anything up too
badly.

>Now *there's* one outta left field! 'Conventional' carriers cost what,
>$750 million a copy today? Plus operating costs? Then put *stealth*
on
>top of that? How the hell do you 'stealth' a ship that's three
>hundred-plus metres long and *must* be a certain shape (to carry out
>flight operations)? That's even more expensive than tanker planes!
And
>even if you *did* get it to work, you couldn't hide its construction or
>existence. (The submersible carrier idea, I'll leave very much alone -
>frankly, it's a little ludicrous.)

Actually, from what I've been told by some Lockheed engineers, the size
of the object you're trying to hide doesn't really matter. Once you
have the shape perfected, the radar signature doesn't change that much.
So a stealth carrier wouldn't be that hard to design, since the Skunk
Works already made a stealth ship design.

David Wangen
USAFA '00
Rock Hard Redeye

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 40
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:56:04 +1200
Quoth David Wangen (1243 1-5-98):

>First of all, this is my first post, so be gentle. I have been lurking
>for about a year and a half now, so I shouldn't screw anything up too
>badly.

>>Now *there's* one outta left field! 'Conventional' carriers cost
what,
>>$750 million a copy today? Plus operating costs? Then put *stealth*
>on
>>top of that? How the hell do you 'stealth' a ship that's three
>>hundred-plus metres long and *must* be a certain shape (to carry out
>>flight operations)? That's even more expensive than tanker planes!
>And
>>even if you *did* get it to work, you couldn't hide its construction
or
>>existence. (The submersible carrier idea, I'll leave very much alone
-
>>frankly, it's a little ludicrous.)

>Actually, from what I've been told by some Lockheed engineers, the size
>of the object you're trying to hide doesn't really matter. Once you
>have the shape perfected, the radar signature doesn't change that much.
>So a stealth carrier wouldn't be that hard to design, since the Skunk
>Works already made a stealth ship design.

Yeah, I know about Lockheed's stealth ship - while I don't know any
Lockheed engineers, I have read Ben Rich's book Skunk Works. As I
understand it, stealth shaping *couldn't* work for an aircraft carrier
operating conventional aircraft, simply because it has to maintain a
certain basic shape: it needs all those acres of flat deck for planes to
land on, and an angled section to allow safe landings. A carrier for
VTOLs like the Harrier or FB Eagle, maybe, but NightWraiths are
conventional-takeoff aircraft (they'd have to be if they were bombers -
only CTOLs can carry really heavy weapons loads (at least IRL)).

As a sidebar, has anyone ever found/made up the stats for the
NightWraith? I'm thinking of running a low-intensity-warfare scenario
in New Zealand and I was considering giving the RNZAF a bunch of 'used'
FA-38s as its main bomber force. (We're too small to afford 'modern'
fighters like the Eagle.)

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'
Message no. 41
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:56:46 EDT
In a message dated 4/30/98 6:25:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
9604801@********.AC.NZ writes:

> Now *there's* one outta left field! 'Conventional' carriers cost what,
> $750 million a copy today? Plus operating costs? Then put *stealth* on
> top of that? How the hell do you 'stealth' a ship that's three
> hundred-plus metres long and *must* be a certain shape (to carry out
> flight operations)? That's even more expensive than tanker planes! And
> even if you *did* get it to work, you couldn't hide its construction or
> existence. (The submersible carrier idea, I'll leave very much alone -
> frankly, it's a little ludicrous.)
>
Yep, it's outta left field, but if the correct backing was given, say a
Dragon, just not Lofwyr (Dunkelzahn was around too folks and didn't want
things going to a big war head...some of the more powerful Elves may not have
been thrilled either).

We've discovered a heller of an idea. It could be termed a "Stealth Carrier",
just take out the "Carrier". Get a ship big enough to load/unload the
plane(s) involved. Then have the runway on the water. Literally.

We've managed to create a Barrier Spell within the "D6" drain limit that can
be cast upon the surface of the water (large body preferred) that is MORE than
long enough to handle/serve as a runway. Use buoy's to serve as runway
lights, make them "Low Wattage Ultraviolet", and they won't show up on lower
end sensors, and place them along the subsurface of the "Barrier Runway".

Yep, things are really tough when you are a Pirate with some planes.

-K
Message no. 42
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:13:21 EDT
In a message dated 4/30/98 7:27:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time, erikj@****.COM
writes:

> Now before you get too carried away, let me explain. As I recall, it was
> horribly slow, couldn't dive terribly deep, and was more of a
> helicopter/jump jet carrier, not the traditional USS Nimitz floating
> airfields.

THIS is already in use folks. Retractable cargo-type access is now being used
for smaller helicopters on some larger submarines. Most of the helo breaks
down somewhat anyway, so storage space isn't all that large.

> But the idea of it was/is that the sub-carrier could sneak up very close to
> their targets, pop up, allow the choppers and Harriers to take off and do
> their thing, sink back down for a bit, resurface and let the aircraft land,
> then try to sneak back out.

Actually, there is a MAJOR twist on this that Jon, Mike and I had bouncing
around between us a few months ago. See Below...

> It's an interesting concept and probably won't/didn't fly considering the
> relatively limited role it would have combined with the tremendous costs.
> But still interesting.

Within the RL of today, who knows the exact limits. Within the realms of SR,
let's just say there is another option available. Take the Verticle Launching
System of a missile upon a given craft (submersible or otherwise). Instead of
a missile, place within it a drone or -very- small craft (hell, could be a
retracting Nightglider using Mike's VGW modification from a while ago for all
I care). Put it within the shell and launch it in the missile. Missile goes
screaming off and carries the object to a given region or destination.

Deployment occurs at this stage. What was a missile sheds it's "skin" and
becomes the drone/craft that it contains therein. Drones with higher rating
Pilot Programs or Satlinked Rigger Interfaces (chuckling at the evil in that
option) could easily be deployed by the military over such distances. Hell,
some corps would LOVE to do this just to raise the fur on some "currently on
our shitlist target" probably.

Okay, the retrieval part is not quite perfect of course, as it could mean
anything from sacrificing a specially made drone/craft to a rendevous with
another target or site somewhere else in allied territory.

Thoughts???

-K
Message no. 43
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:18:21 EDT
In a message dated 4/30/98 7:58:49 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
9604801@********.AC.NZ writes:

> As a sidebar, has anyone ever found/made up the stats for the
> NightWraith? I'm thinking of running a low-intensity-warfare scenario
> in New Zealand and I was considering giving the RNZAF a bunch of 'used'
> FA-38s as its main bomber force. (We're too small to afford 'modern'
> fighters like the Eagle.)
>
No, that is something we've never touched. We do have stats for something
called "the Raven" in our games. Nasty piece of technoscream that was part of
the Winternight Wars. It's become the property of a Rigger Boss in the
Atlanta area who does occasionaly "unlisted operating tests for his military
friends". Basically the "Stealth" Bomber, but modified with a few other
things in mind (R2 and beyond into Jane's stuff).

KILLER STUFF!!! Can Pull Mach 2.something (stats are buried currently...MIKE!
NO COMMENTING HERE!!!).

-K
Message no. 44
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 03:32:16 -0400
On Thursday, April 30, 1998 10:56 PM, Ereskanti wrote:

> We've discovered a heller of an idea. It could be termed a "Stealth =
Carrier",
> just take out the "Carrier". Get a ship big enough to load/unload the
> plane(s) involved. Then have the runway on the water. Literally.
>
> We've managed to create a Barrier Spell within the "D6" drain limit =
that can
> be cast upon the surface of the water (large body preferred) that is =
MORE than
> long enough to handle/serve as a runway. Use buoy's to serve as =
runway
> lights, make them "Low Wattage Ultraviolet", and they won't show up on =
lower
> end sensors, and place them along the subsurface of the "Barrier =
Runway".

You don't even need magic. During WWII, the Allies operated various =
'floating areodromes' in the channel in support of the invasion of =
normandy. Literally floating. They found a way to lay out a (cloth IIRC) =
surface on the water that could support aircraft. Now, I'll admit that =
spitfires and hurricanes are lighter than a jet fighter-bomber carrying =
max weapons load. But all that you would need to operate the =
NightWraiths would be a material that could distribute load as evenly as =
possible across it's area, enough of this material to support the number =
of nightwraiths you want/need to launch simultaneously, and it becomes a =
simple matter of engineering (good thing my fiance isn't on this list, =
she'd hit me for that...).

As for the material, think on the properties of kevlar... Perhaps a =
silk/kevlar weave backed up by plastic support members and flotation =
cells. You pull a freighter or two up to a handy flat peice of ocean, =
unroll your areodrome, crane your aircraft over the side, and away they =
go. For maximum deniability, collect the pilots after they land, and =
just sink the thing afterwards. (Safer than ditching for the pilots, and =
the evidence *still* ends up at the bottom of the ocean).

In case you haven't thought of this yet, smugglers would simply LOVE =
something like this. Instant portable runway? Sign them up in droves.

(I don't have the sources for this lovely bit of trivial anymore, I lost =
the book in a move. It was a book about a wacky war gadgets lab (tm) =
that the brits ran during WWII; they developed such interesting things =
as steam-fired mortars, anitsubmarine mortars, the 'mulberry' =
breakwaters used to make temporary harbors off the normandy beaches =
(including a floating road similar to the concept above), and a lot of =
other nifty wierd stuff that I don't recall anymore. =
ObEvenMoreUselessTrivia, Nevile Schute (SP?), the guy who wrote _On the =
Beach_, was a member of this lab)

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 45
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:41:05 +0100
Geoff Morochnick said on 15:20/30 Apr 98...

> Israel's army never has been used in a purely offensive operation...

LOL! I always get the 1967 and 1973 wars mixed up, but IIRC one of them
was started by the Israelis as a kind of pre-emptive strike against the
Arabs. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon wasn't exactly an entirely defensive
operation either. (Overrunning half a country doesn't count as "defending"
in my book.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
You're gonna like it, but not a lot.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 46
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 06:53:10 -0400
Gurth wrote:

> Geoff Morochnick said on 15:20/30 Apr 98...
>
> > Israel's army never has been used in a purely offensive operation...
>
> LOL! I always get the 1967 and 1973 wars mixed up, but IIRC one of them
> was started by the Israelis as a kind of pre-emptive strike against the
> Arabs. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon wasn't exactly an entirely defensive
> operation either. (Overrunning half a country doesn't count as "defending"
> in my book.)
>

Well, the Israeli's have always been fond of going overboard... but it was
officially a defensive war.

To bring this more OT, what happened in the Middle East after the chemical
attacks and nukes? With the UCAS supposedly staying out of world politics, did
Israel get run over by the L.o.A.N.?

--
Stonebow
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other
bastard die for his.
-George Patton
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 47
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 09:58:13 -0400
Ereskanti wrote:
>> It's an interesting concept and probably won't/didn't fly considering the
>> relatively limited role it would have combined with the tremendous costs.
>> But still interesting.
>
>Within the RL of today, who knows the exact limits. Within the realms of SR,
>let's just say there is another option available. Take the Verticle
>Launching
>System of a missile upon a given craft (submersible or otherwise). Instead
>of
>a missile, place within it a drone or -very- small craft (hell, could be a
>retracting Nightglider using Mike's VGW modification from a while ago for all
>I care). Put it within the shell and launch it in the missile. Missile goes
>screaming off and carries the object to a given region or destination.

This sounds familiar...

>Deployment occurs at this stage. What was a missile sheds it's "skin" and
>becomes the drone/craft that it contains therein. Drones with higher rating
>Pilot Programs or Satlinked Rigger Interfaces (chuckling at the evil in that
>option) could easily be deployed by the military over such distances. Hell,
>some corps would LOVE to do this just to raise the fur on some "currently on
>our shitlist target" probably.

Why not skip the middle man? Stick a Runner in there with a 'chute.
Straight from WWII to Paranoia's 2000mm Clone Insertion Rounds. :-)

>Okay, the retrieval part is not quite perfect of course, as it could mean
>anything from sacrificing a specially made drone/craft to a rendevous with
>another target or site somewhere else in allied territory.

In Paranoia, it usually just meant subtracting 1 from the number of
clones left... :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 48
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:20:09 -0300
Geoff Morochnick escreveu:
>
>
> > I think the Entente was the side with the USA and the other coutries
> > who won....
> >
> > Ubiratan
>
> Yeah, I miswrote.... the Entente actually was just France, Britain and Russia.....
the
> US joined the Allies, a derivative of the origional Entente.
> --
>

The end of that war was ugly. Basically The World vs Germany alone.
Guess who won :) .

Ubiratan
Message no. 49
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:51:50 -0500
At 07:58 PM 98-04-30 -0400, you wrote:
>> But even more so, it's surprising noone had noticed the aircraft launched
>> from a regular airfield.
>
>> I'm thinking in the direction of rather bizarre gear right now -
>> a stealth carrier, or a small, submersible one.
>
>I think a -very- bizarre mood... I'm no expert on aircraft carriers, but I
>find it hard to imagine a submersible carrier... the water wouldn't slide off
>correctly on the flat sort of surface you'd need for planes to land... plus
>watertight hangar would take up too much room....As to a stealth carrier,
>well... I suppose it'd be feasible, but probably a tad too expensive.
>
A submersible carrier is feasable. They looked into it in the 50's but it
moved to slow with the tech they had then. I belive populat science looked
at the idea again a couple of years ago and found it much more feasible
(though with the cold war over no one's really in a hurry to build the
thing). I don't remember if the submerisble carrier was VTOL only or not
though. Also hiding a ship isn't as hard as you might suspect. You need
to know where the satallites are and keep under radio silence and probably
sail under a cloud bank (which won't do you much good against a radar
imaging sat I'll give you but will really ruin the day for an optical one).
Basically yes you can hide a carrier but the Nightwraiths WERE NOT CARRIER
LAUNCHED. Carrier landings screw up the avionics is stealth aircraft
that's why none of the present ones have tailhooks. Of course it's quite
common for present day stealth aircraft to be launched from afar and
refulled in mid flight.

SteveD

>>
>>
>>
>> Fade
>>
>> --
>>
>> ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
>> -Ambrose Bierce
>
>
>
>--
>Stonebow
>The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make heaven of Hell, and a
>hell of Heaven. -John Milton
>bodiam@**********.com
>http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 50
From: Alex van der Kleut <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:19:13 -0400
At 01:51 PM 5/1/98 -0500, SteveD wrote:
> Basically yes you can hide a carrier but the Nightwraiths WERE NOT CARRIER
>LAUNCHED. Carrier landings screw up the avionics is stealth aircraft
>that's why none of the present ones have tailhooks. Of course it's quite
>common for present day stealth aircraft to be launched from afar and
>refulled in mid flight.

Actually, stealth aircraft don't have problems with their avionics being
screwed up by carrier landings. One of the reasons that they don't have a
tailhook is that there's not much room inside them for the equipment, since
everything is internal.

But the big reason they don't do carriers is the paint. All of that cool
RAM and paint they use to bounce radar reacts BADLY to sea air. All of the
salt content and stuff corrodes after a few weeks. Same thing happened to
the Navy's newest F18 (E/F?). The paint all caused it to corrode. But I
think that they just fixed it with the newest batch 6 months ago (it was
about 2 years ago that I went to McDonnel Douglas and checked out their
plant). They will be using the new type on the F22, which isn't quite as
stealthy as the F177, but pretty close.

Sommers
Message no. 51
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:13:13 -0400
> >
> > > I think the Entente was the side with the USA and the other coutries
> > > who won....
> > >
> > > Ubiratan
> >
> > Yeah, I miswrote.... the Entente actually was just France, Britain and
Russia..... the
> > US joined the Allies, a derivative of the origional Entente.
> > --
> >
>
> The end of that war was ugly. Basically The World vs Germany alone.
> Guess who won :) .

Naw... Germany wasn't alone! Germany had two weak, corrupt, decadent empires with poor
troops on their side! :)

--
Geoff "Stonebow" Morochnick
[Life] tends to pick on everyone.
You just notice it more when it's you.
Michael Harrison
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 52
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:58:37 -0300
Geoff Morochnick escreveu:
>
> > >
> > > > I think the Entente was the side with the USA and the other
coutries
> > > > who won....
> > > >
> > > > Ubiratan
> > >
> > > Yeah, I miswrote.... the Entente actually was just France, Britain and
Russia..... the
> > > US joined the Allies, a derivative of the origional Entente.
> > > --
> > >
> >
> > The end of that war was ugly. Basically The World vs Germany alone.
> > Guess who won :) .
>
> Naw... Germany wasn't alone! Germany had two weak, corrupt, decadent empires with
poor
> troops on their side! :)
>


One of which gav up the conflict at that time, and other wich changed
sides... :)

Ubiratan
Message no. 53
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:02:58 -0400
Ubiratan P. Alberton wrote:

> Geoff Morochnick escreveu:
> >
> > > >
> > > > > I think the Entente was the side with the USA and the other
coutries
> > > > > who won....
> > > > >
> > > > > Ubiratan
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I miswrote.... the Entente actually was just France, Britain and
Russia..... the
> > > > US joined the Allies, a derivative of the origional Entente.
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > > The end of that war was ugly. Basically The World vs Germany alone.
> > > Guess who won :) .
> >
> > Naw... Germany wasn't alone! Germany had two weak, corrupt, decadent empires
with poor
> > troops on their side! :)
> >
>
> One of which gav up the conflict at that time, and other wich changed
> sides... :)
>
> Ubiratan

No.... Italy wasn't one of the empires I was thinking of. I was thinking of
Austria-Hungary and
the Ottoman Turks. I still wonder if FASA has come out with any ideas on what happened to
the
land that was once the Ottoman's... (i.e.: the Holy Land/ Middle East)

--
Stonebow
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other
bastard die for his.
-George Patton
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 54
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:16:23 -0600
At 11:41 01/05/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Geoff Morochnick said on 15:20/30 Apr 98...
>
>> Israel's army never has been used in a purely offensive operation...
>
>LOL! I always get the 1967 and 1973 wars mixed up, but IIRC one of them
>was started by the Israelis as a kind of pre-emptive strike against the
>Arabs.

The 6 day war was the pre-emptive strike, Yom Kippur war was the Arabs
trying to take the territory back and failing.

-Adam J
Who does pay attention in clas once in awhile.
-
http://www.interware.it/users/adamj \ fro@***.ab.ca \ ICQ# 2350330
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ FreeRPG Webring \ TSS Productions
The Shadowrun Supplemental \ SR Archive Co-Maintainer \ RPGA Reviwer
Message no. 55
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:31:17 -0500
At 04:19 PM 98-05-01 -0400, you wrote:
>At 01:51 PM 5/1/98 -0500, SteveD wrote:
>> Basically yes you can hide a carrier but the Nightwraiths WERE NOT CARRIER
>>LAUNCHED. Carrier landings screw up the avionics is stealth aircraft
>>that's why none of the present ones have tailhooks. Of course it's quite
>>common for present day stealth aircraft to be launched from afar and
>>refulled in mid flight.
>
>Actually, stealth aircraft don't have problems with their avionics being
>screwed up by carrier landings. One of the reasons that they don't have a
>tailhook is that there's not much room inside them for the equipment, since
>everything is internal.
>
>But the big reason they don't do carriers is the paint. All of that cool
>RAM and paint they use to bounce radar reacts BADLY to sea air. All of the
>salt content and stuff corrodes after a few weeks. Same thing happened to
>the Navy's newest F18 (E/F?). The paint all caused it to corrode. But I
>think that they just fixed it with the newest batch 6 months ago (it was
>about 2 years ago that I went to McDonnel Douglas and checked out their
>plant). They will be using the new type on the F22, which isn't quite as
>stealthy as the F177, but pretty close.

F22? I was under the impression that it was a classified aircraft. Then
again I could be thinking of a different aircraft.

SteveD
>
>Sommers
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 56
From: Alex van der Kleut <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eurowars
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 09:27:07 -0400
At 06:31 PM 5/1/98 -0500, Stephen Delear wrote:

>>But the big reason they don't do carriers is the paint. All of that cool
>>RAM and paint they use to bounce radar reacts BADLY to sea air. All of the
>>salt content and stuff corrodes after a few weeks. Same thing happened to
>>the Navy's newest F18 (E/F?). The paint all caused it to corrode. But I
>>think that they just fixed it with the newest batch 6 months ago (it was
>>about 2 years ago that I went to McDonnel Douglas and checked out their
>>plant). They will be using the new type on the F22, which isn't quite as
>>stealthy as the F177, but pretty close.
>
>F22? I was under the impression that it was a classified aircraft. Then
>again I could be thinking of a different aircraft.
>
>SteveD

Nope. Kind of hard to keep something clasified when they call 50 brass from
the Pentagon and 100 reporters to announce the plane, along with "America"
playing in the background and fireworks exploding overhead! :) The F-22 was
never a "black" program, just certain parts of it are classified. There are
some good articles in Pop Sci on it.

Basicallt this is the replacement for the F15. Faster, more agile, same
load, and a lot stealthier. But not so completely stealthy that they wanted
to keep it quiet. It's supposed to be a front line fighter.

Sommers

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Eurowars, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!