pearl harbor, why no usn a/c in the air?

Bill Kambic wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
5200 nautical miles between San Diego and Soul and almost 6000 between
San Diego and Taipei vs 4200 nautical miles between the East Coast and
Tripoli.

I'm not sure I see your point.

Take the top dozen trouble spots where a carrier battle group might make
a difference.

The compare the distance between the current carrier bases and these areas.

Select the base that is most distant and transfer the carriers out
elsewhere so they can react to trouble quicker.

The result is better coverage and quicker response for the same long
term costs.

Ignore Boxer's whining, it's not like she'd ever vote for any real
defense spending.

-HJC

From: Henry J Cobb
Date: 4/10/2004 09:18 Pacific Daylight Time

How many radar equiped ships did the Navy have sitting at Pearl Harbor?

Saw a movie (so it must be accurate ...) some 20+ years ago which in fact
showed that indeed a US aircraft carrier w/ very advanced aircraft -- including
some kind of airborne radar aircraft -- spotted the appraoching IJN carrier TF
....

"Mike Weeks" wrote in message
...

Saw a movie (so it must be accurate ...) some 20+ years ago which
in fact showed that indeed a US aircraft carrier w/ very advanced
aircraft -- including some kind of airborne radar aircraft -- spotted
the appraoching IJN carrier TF


Yeah, Nimitz had some nerve naming a carrier after himself.

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 4/10/2004 11:53 Pacific Daylight Time

Yeah, Nimitz had some nerve naming a carrier after himself.

Always have wondered how, as the then head of BuNav, he was able to do that ...

Acccchhh! m' wee bairn, Mikey Weeks.... have y told the people on this
thread that you've been caught bull****ting by Kevin Brooks when you
pretended you were a "jet fighter pilot"...


MIKE WEEKS, USS LIBERTY USS LIBERTY MURDERS ISRAEL AHRON JAY CRISTOL
A. JAY CRISTOL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL GOI IDF THE LIBERTY INCIDENT
ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY JIM ENNES JAMES ENNES JAMES A. ENNES JOE
MEADORS WAR CRIME stan engel shipfixr dn roberta hatch sheldon
lieberman little_people Ward Boston Admiral Thomas Moorer Robert
McNamara LBJ 30mm with proximity fusing 30mm cannon with
proximity fusing 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing


kevin brooks said this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...g.goog le.com

"No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
called upon his own "qualifications"."

Bwaaaaahaaa! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

C'mon mikey... tell an old scot your qualifications, laddie!

Acccch!!! M'wee bairns… I'll give y'warp factor eight and maybe a wee
bit more…

The following message has been designed to prevent Mike Weeks from
engaging in conduct on this thread THAT HE has engaged in on the
threads where the USS Liberty survivors gather….

….and to follow Zionist Mike Weeks, who got caught by Kevin Brooks
pretending on the Google Groups pretending to be a US Naval "jet
fighter pilot"...

…just like Week's good buddy, A. Jay Cristol(Ahron Jay Cristol),
author of "The Liberty Incident" has BEEN CAUGHT pretending to be a
"jet fighter pilot" who "flew combat missions in the Far East" during
the Korean War and who served as an officer in US Naval Intelligence
when in reality…

…Mike Weeks is IN ACTUALITY … a US Naval reservist…and "no";he's not
the "jet fighter pilot" he got caught pretending to be ….. he is
"computer operator" AND…

"the Korean War… snicker…heroooo",A. Jay Cristol never came within
thousands of miles of any combat… and he graduated from "flight
training school" only 90 days before the Korean War ended before he
sat his fat little rump down in the cockpit seat …not of his
...snicker… "jet fighter"… but instead a "Turkey Prop".. the US Navy's
slowest plane… and "no"… he never served in US Naval Intelligence
unless perhaps it was in the kitchen of the mess halls peeling
potatoes as punishment for bull****ting about his "war record"




Mike Weeks, who ALONG WITH HIS BUDDY, A. Jay Cristol, is actively
involved in helping the Government of Israel cover up the murder of 34
of his fellow countrymen…

In the following messages on this thread, you'll be able to determine
for yourself to just what extent, if any, Mike Weeks is a traitor to
both his country and fellow computer oper… er.. fellow servicemen in
the US Military…

…but first to give you a snapshot of just what kind of individual it
is who ends up betraying his fellow Americans…. We'll repeat the "self
esteem" problems Mike Weeks has which cause him to pretend to be a
"jet fighter pilot" as Wing Commander of "The Data Entry Squadron"…


Hey, Mikey…. M'wee bairn… point oot t'the ladies the hyperlink Kevin
Brooks is talking aboot where he caught you bull****ting aboot being a
"jet fighter pilot"…

kevin brooks said this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...g.goog le.com

"No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
called upon his own "qualifications"."



Odd how he gets rather quiet when
called upon his own "qualifications".


Odd how he gets rather quiet when
called upon his own "qualifications".


Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
since he made such a big deal of it.

since he made such a big deal of it.

since he made such a big deal of it.



Odd how he gets rather quiet when
called upon his own "qualifications".






ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote in message ...[i]
From: Henry J Cobb
Date: 4/9/2004 19:26 Pacific Daylight Time

snip

Applying VP-21's numbers

Which wasn't based at PH in any event ...

we get 51 planes required to do a 360° search
to 450 miles so just 20 planes in the air could have done a search
beyond the strike radius of any Japanese carrier based aircraft.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/martin_1.html

The "Martin-Bellinger Report" on aircraft availability

start
PATROL WING TWO
U. S. NAVAL AIR STATION,
Pearl Harbor, T. H.,
December 19, 1941.

Memorandum for Admiral H. E. Kimmel, U. S. Navy.

MY DEAR ADMIRAL: In accordance with our conversation of yesterday, I am
forwarding to you the following information:
...

t should be noted that there were insufficient patrol planes in the Hawaiian
Area effectively to do the Job required. For the commander of a search group to
be able to state with some assurance that no hostile carrier could reach a spot
250 miles away and launch an attack without prior detection would require an
effective daily search through 360 to a distance of at least 800 miles.
Assuming a 16-mile radius of visibility this would require a daily 16 hour
flight of 84 planes. A force of not less than 209 patrol planes, adequate spare
parts and ample well trained personnel would be required for such operations.

(Signed) P. N. L. BELLINGER
Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy,
Commander Patrol Wing TWO.
end

RADM Bellinger appears to not agree.

MW

There's even a discipline (Operations analysis, senior course at USNA) that's intended for
problems just like this: maximization of search detection with given
assets.

Very sensible post, John; but wasn't Operations Analysis developed
during WW II, too late for Pearl Harbor?

It's an aspect of Game Theory, isn't it?

vince norris

vincent p. norris wrote:
There's even a discipline (Operations analysis, senior course at USNA) that's intended for
problems just like this: maximization of search detection with given
assets.

Very sensible post, John; but wasn't Operations Analysis developed
during WW II, too late for Pearl Harbor?

It's an aspect of Game Theory, isn't it?

http://www.lionhrtpub.com/orms/orms-2-01/nps.html
The British, specifically the Operational Research Society, mark the
year 1937 as the birth of operational research (they say operational,
we say operations). Operational research began when, having developed
radar, scientists were then asked to develop procedures for its use in
a new, effective air defense system.

-HJC

Henry J Cobb wrote:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/...365-Pearl.html
On Sunday, December 7, 1941, this ship, acting as squadron leader for
the Commander Destroyer Squadron THREE, was at the Navy Yard, Pearl
Harbor, in a restricted availability status undergoing preliminary
radar installation work.

How many radar equiped ships did the Navy have sitting at Pearl Harbor?

Not sure, but out of the six CXAM sets fitted to ships, only California was
there. Her set was removed and mounted ashore after the attack, then
installed in Hornet sometime in the summer of 1942.

There were 14 CXAM-1 sets installed, of which Pennsylvania, West Viriginia
and Curtiss (AV-4) were in Pearl, but I don't know that they'd actually been
fitted yet. The only other naval air search set that might have been
available would be the early SC, but I dont know which ships might have
gotten that at the time. Friedman ("Naval Radar", from which the above
fitment info comes) just says SC "installation began in late 1941, and the
operating forces objected strongly to the reduced capabilities of the new
set [compared to the CXAM/CXAM-1, which had much larger antennas and thus,
greater range].

I remmber reading somewhere that after the attack, it became USN policy for
at least some ships in Pearl to maintain a radar watch despite the terrain
limitations, the navy not being willing to trust the army again. I don't
know how long this policy remained in effect; as experience with radar grew,
and especially considering that an Army set had picked up the incoming raid,
the beginner behavior that occurred on Dec. 7th wasn't going to be repeated.

Guy

In article ,
on Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:23:20 -0700,
Henry J Cobb attempted to say .....

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
Because all the Navy fighters were aboard the carriers which were,
famously, absent. Launching things like seaplanes, which were present
at Pearl, would be useless and suicidal.

IMHO the single biggest mistake at Pearl was not having the PBYs out for
patrols in every direction at dawn every morning.


There were not enough to provide 360 degree coverage.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

There were not enough to provide 360 degree coverage.

You might have missed my post. While 360 degree coverage would have been
the most desirable, coverage on the most likely threat axes would have
certainly been better than nothing. Insufficient search capability is
better than none at all. The aircraft were of absolutely no use sitting on
the ramp.

R / John