HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Organization: Chevron
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:38:10 GMT


From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

In article <C15yqv.L3v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
|> From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> Jan Wolitzy writes:
|>> The anti-shipping version is terminally guided, and so would probably
|>> be effective were it not for the effectiveness of (cheaper) shipboard
|> close-in defense systems.
|>
|> Rather a broad statement, considering the fact that no CIWS has yet
|> received a proper testing in actual combat, with multiple missiles
|> incoming from unknown directions. As far as I can tell all successful
|> CIWS firings have been in tests, with a single missile or a pair arriving 
|> from a known direction. Were there any actual combat kills of a single
|> missile yet? Not counting Silkworms :)

 Why not counting Silkworms?  It's an anti-ship missile isn't?

 It has been reported that the Iraqi's fired something like 100 Exocets
 and numerous Silkworms, yet none are known to have hit any ships.  If
 the CIWS didn't stop them, what did?

 Wasn't a British frigate or such credited with downing several missiles
 with its CIWS while operating near that big island near Kuwait city?
 Wasn't the Missouri also involved?

 The only way you could have "multiple missiles incoming from unknown
 directions", is to be on the open ocean at war with some other major
 sea power or somekind of surprise attack while in a inland sea or such. 

 Besides, each CIWS station is responsible for only a small quadrant
 of the ship's perimeter and acts independently and automatically (in
 the case of Phalanx at least).  None of them cover a 360 deg circle by 
 itself.

 And what about the Falklands?


 TRAVIS
From: bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:03:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)


From bprofane@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)

In article <C15yF6.KC1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes:
>I do remember that the manufacturer of Tomahawk did submitted it
>in the competition for the Air Force's ALCM program but lost to the Boeing
>design.  I guess the Air Force doesn't like anything the Navy produces ;-) 
>Also, look who's land attack cruise missile is seeing all the action :-) :-). 

Not only did the Tomahawk lose, it lost badly.  During the
competition GD's Tomahawks were pile-driving right into the desert
floor 2 out of 3 times while Boeing's ALCM's flew like a dream.
The air-launched cruise was the the main competition, I believe,
and GD got the SLCM and GLCM contracts as a consolation.  I had a
relative who worked on the project for Boeing and as a kid I got to
go into the prototype fab area and run my hands over prototype
ALCM's.

Re accuracy: the AF generals said, "Not only can we hit a football
field, we can target any yardline."  So I was told.  It would be
interesting to know the accuracy numbers for the DS ALCM strikes
because it's likely that the Tomahawk is actually the second best
cruise missile in the world.
From: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: strategic bombing (was: B2s v. carrier task force)
Keywords: B2s, Carriers
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:10:49 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


From David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>

>From holthaus@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (James R. Holthaus)

>>From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us

>>Is this entirely true?  My readings about WWII indicate there there were
>>one or two classes of targets against whic strategic bombing was effective,
>>the first being refineries, fuel depots, oilfields, and such, and the
>>second being large railroad yards, vital crossings, and bridges.  Aren't
>>these still valid strategic targets?

>Well, German industrial production peaked in 1944.  So much for the
>strategic bombing idea.  Bombing supply lines is interdiction--a different
>goal than strategic bombing.  

The US Strategic Bombing Survey makes a numbingly complete case
(including the statistical volumes, it consumes about 15 running feet
of shelf space, if memory serves) for the ineffectiveness of strategic
bombing in WW2. 

Most strategic targets are either easy to protect (like underground
command posts and factories) or easy to rebuild (like ball-bearing
factories). Rail yards tend to be in population centers, so if you're
worried about civilian casualties (as we were, eg, in France), bombing
them is a bad idea. Given that military authorities will cut civilian
rail traffic before military traffic, and there's a long hierarchy of
priorities for military traffic, you have to do a lot of damage to
rail yards before you hurt strategic military transport.

The strategy of bombing refineries _was_ successful, as they were
difficult to rebuild and impossible to protect. They were also
essential to the German war effort. By D-Day, the fuel shortage
directly induced by refinery bombing, combined with fighter losses to
Allied fighters that were finally able to accompany the bombers to the
refineries, had removed German aircraft from the skies over western
Europe.

The strategic bombing survey also painfully demonstrates the
*counter-effectiveness* of area bombing European civilian targets.
Japanese cities, on the other hand, were highly inflammable and almost
completely unprotected, so firebombing them was highly effective, if
morally dubious. (Most of the senior USAAF and US Army officers were
appalled at RAF Bomber Command's and Pacific Theater USAAF's terror
bombing of civilian targets; on the other hand, Paul Fussel's _Thank
God for the Atom Bomb_ presents the case from the point of view of an
infantryman scheduled to land in the first wave of the invasion of
Japan.)

The Air Force, for obvious institutional reasons, has chosen to ignore
these results, and similar demonstrations of the ineffectiveness of
strategic bombing in Korea and Vietnam .... 

A good, accessible source on this is Williamson's _Luftwaffe: Strategy
for Defeat_. Though the bombing survey itself makes for some fairly
interesting reading.

dhs    spencer@panix.com
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Harpoon and tactics.
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:29 GMT
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


From bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au


>
>
> First of all, does anyone have any idea if Harpoons have
> been mounted on navy helos?
>

        I have a book called Modern Helicopter Combat (Tiger Press)
which notes that the Sea Cobra (a version of the Cobra attack helo
and used by the US Marines) is capable of carrying 2 Harpoon missiles.
The most probable use of such an arrangement would be from a heavy
assault ship such as a Tarawa or Wasp, where there aren't enough
planes to provide "over the horizon" anti-ship strike capability.

> I've been trying to figure out how two O.H.Perry class frigates
> and a Ticonderoga Cruiser would defend against two soviet
> Kirov Class cruiser. Any suggestions?
>

        I don't like your chances. Unless your Tico is carrying
lots of anti-ship Tomohawk missiles (T-ASM's), two Kirovs simply
have too much self defence capability. You'd need to get all your
missiles off in an overwhelming attack wave, and even then the
Kirovs would still have a very good chance of surviving. (I'm
making this comment in regard to "Harpoon", not regarding a real
life situation.)

        While I'm at it, can anyone give me a phone number,
address (or even email address) for the US Naval Institute?

I'm particularly interested in reference books they might
publish. I have a rather good ship reference called "The
Encyclopedia of World Sea Power", but it's getting out of
date and hasn't been updated since 1989, and I can't justify
$400 for a copy of Janes Fighting Ships.


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kellyfj@unix1.tcd.ie (Q)
Subject: Wanted: info on AI and the military
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:25 GMT


From kellyfj@unix1.tcd.ie (Q)


I'm posting this for a friend who is doing a project on "Artificial
Intelligence and the Military."

Has anyone got any ideas whereabouts AI was, is, or will be used in the
military? Are there any good references out there? 

Any suggestions at all would be helpful!

Thanks in advance

--Frank

     *******************************************************************
     * KELLYFJ@unix1.tcd.ie  |      bortaS bIr jablu' d'reH Qaqu'ny'   *
     * KELLYFJ@vax1.tcd.ie   |          -Go Browns! Go Dawgs!-         *
     *******************************************************************
From: patrick.eves@canrem.com (Patrick Eves)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: recent iraqi events
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:25 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>



T1>     Are Iraq's SA-3 "Goa" SAMs deployed on both fixed and mobile launchers?
T1> (Does this type of missile come in both versions?)  If mobile, are the mobile
T1> launchers tracked or wheeled? I have encountered conflicting data on this, and
T1> would like find further sources.  How many "Goa" launchers comprise a battery?


Hi there.

As far as I know, the SA-3 comes only on a mobile launcher.  Since the missles
in question are apparently moving all over the no fly zone, I would assume Iraq
deploys them as such.  However, since the "launcher" is simply the Russian
standard ZIL-157 truck with launch rails on the back, along with associated
equipment, it wouldn't take much to turn a mobile launcher into a fixed one.  
A flat tire would do the trick <g>.

T1>     Was the Iraqi fighter shot down on Sunday, 17 January 1993, a MiG-23
T1> "Flogger" or a MiG-29 "Fulcrum?"  Early reports indicate the former,  but a
T1> friend said he saw later news reports indicate the latter.

I had heard on CNN that it was a MIG-25, so go figure.


Pat
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ Why did CNN cancel that cool "Desert Storm" show?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:20 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <C124wI.7op@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "John M. Wu" <johnwu@netcom.com> writes:
>
>1)  When anti-aircraft shells go up, they have to eventually come
>back down.  With a gun shooting 90 deg., the bullet will go up to
>around 9000 ft. and then start coming down up to terminal
>velocity (300 fps?).  At terminal velocity, the bullet can still kill a
>person.  Do anti-aircraft weapons like those in Iraq cause large
>ground damage and numerous casualties due to what eventually
>happens to fired shells (eg. the Baghdad hotel damage)?  Seems
>like a terribly inefficient way to defend a city from damage. 
>Wouldn't not firing anything cause less damage to Baghdad?
>
>2)  Has a simple handgun been used in war to shoot down a
>warplane?  Theoretically, a single bullet could pierce the
>cockpit and kill the pilot or hit a component of the plane that
>caused it to explode such as fuel.  I can't imagine a F-15 being
>shot down by a guy with a pistol but I can imagine citizens being
>shot at by low flying fighters try to retaliate with a pistol
>during WW2.
>

1)  All large caliber (23mm and above) anti-aircraft shells have a fusing 
system that causes them to explode at a preset altitude.  In theory, they all 
explode at or around that altitude, and all that's left to hit the ground is 
fragments, which won't penetrate anything signifigant after falling that 
distance.  However, with the large number of shells going up, I cant imagine 
that all of them worked exactly as designed.  
	The more modern anti-aircraft guns have proximity fusing in addition to
their altitude fuses, which causes them to blow up when they come within a 
certain preset distance of a solid object, ie an aircraft or helicopter.  This 
makes them much more effective against attacking aircraft, because they do not 
require the aircraft to fly through a specific altitude range to score a 
successful hit.

2) If I had to guess, I'd say the chances of taking down a plane with a handgun
are pretty close to zero.  The first thing to consider is that due to the short
barrel length of a handgun, they have a very short effective range, and most 
people can't hit reliably at more than 75 yards.  In addition, they have a very
low muzzle velocity due, again, to the short barrel.  This means that if the 
aircraft has any sort of armor, the bullet wont penetrate.  If a plane took any
serious damage from a handgun round, it was only through the extreme luck of 
the shooter.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: SLAM description (Was Re: Air launched tomahawk?)
Organization: Chevron
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:55:51 GMT


From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

In article <C1D89q.9Dx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, chadwemy@bigwpi.wpi.edu (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
|> The AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile, or SLAM, uses the Harpoon airframe 
|> with an electro-optical (TV) guidance system, with a similar warhead.  It can 
|> achieve ranges upwards of 50 nm, and was used with great success from A-6E's 
|> in Desert Storm against targets ranging from bridges to buildings.  
|> 
|> The SLAM is steered by the A-6's Bombadier/Navigator (BN) by means of a small 
|> CRT and joystick in the cockpit.  He lines the crosshairs up on the intended 
|> target and the missile flies toward it.  This keeps tha the launch aircraft out
|> of harms (SAM's) way, and can deliver an extremely accurate 500 lbs of 
|> destruction.

 In the interest of accuracy:

 SLAM can be launched from any platform that can also handle Harpoon -
 ships, A-6, F-18, B-52G.  I believe the F-16 is suppose to be given 
 SLAM capability too.

 The SLAM is a Harpoon mated with a Maverick's IIR seeker (Imaging 
 Infra-Red not TV) and a Walleye data link.  Range is about 75 miles.

 The SLAM is programmed to attack a particular point on the ground.
 The SLAM flies a route to that point (the target) similar to Harpoon.
 At a certain distance from the target, SLAM turns on its IIR seeker 
 and relays the image back to a controller platform (typically an 
 aircraft but not necessarily the launching aircraft).  The "operator"
 can simply watch the SLAM impact the target or can send the SLAM 
 course corrections.  NO operator input is required at all.

 A typical mission would be to launch several SLAMs at a large target - 
 a command&control center, ammo/fuel dumps, etc.  The operator watches
 the first SLAM impact, then uses the image from the second SLAM to do
 immediate damage assessment.  If the first SLAM did good, the second 
 SLAM can be "moved" to another part of the target. If not, the second
 SLAM can be used to re-attack that part of the target.  The pattern 
 then repeats for all subsequent SLAMs.


 SLAM would also be good for anti-ship purposes.  What if the ship 
 being attacked was a sub-tender?  As the SLAM approached, the operator
 might detect a sub's conning tower and re-direct the SLAM from the 
 ship to the much higer-valued sub target.  Harpoon would simply attack
 the largest radar return it "saw".  Or what if the ship turned out to
 be friendly?  The SLAM could be averted from it, not so other anti-ship
 weapons.  The Turk's might have appreciated this feature.

 
 TRAVIS
 hhtra@hou281.chevron.com


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:40:52 GMT


From "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>

Panu Wilska <wilska@cc.lut.fi> writes:

> There have been rumors that during Vietnam war VC succeeded to bring
> down american jets by firing them with AK-47:s. That is possible when
> large amount of guns are pointed to same target. However I don't
> know any individual case.
> 
 Well, I know of a case, northwest of Kontom in May or early June 
of 1971. We called this an "aerial ambush". What they did was to 
have 30 to 40 men sitting in a square formation with their AKs 
ready. Several hunderd yards in each direction from the "ambush" 
was an observer with a field phone. When any aircraft passed over 
one of the "observers" on a heading that would take him over the 
"ambush" he would give the order to fire and all the troops would 
fire a whole magazine straight up. The aircraft would fly through 
this hail of fire and normally take several hits even if it was an 
F-4! BTW, I also got shot down by one of these once, but not in an 
F-4. It was a UH-1C I was flying.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
                         gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wcsswag@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:20 GMT


From wcsswag@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca

        


    I was wondering how exactly does "dial a yield" work. 


Thanks in advance
Alex
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Carrier History Question
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:57:08 GMT
Organization: Amherst College


From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu>

This is a followup to my earlier request for info on WWII carriers.  I've
found two excellent sources, Okumiya's "Zero!" and Ito's "The End of 
the Imperial Japanese Navy".  One gives the launching dates and other
the sinkings.  

The problem is with the Junyo.  Ito lists it as medium damage in Dec, but
survived until the end of the war.  Okumiya lists it as sunk, time not given.
Neither source describes it's sinking/damage, so I would suppose it did not
happen during a major battle.  Anybody know what actually happened?

Ito also lists several carriers as "foundered".  At the risk of exposing
myself as a former army man I will say that my dictionary gives as definition 
of founder "to sink below the water," which sound suspiciously like sinking.
I'm assuming that this means they sunk in harbor and were, therefore,
theoretically recoverable.  Carriers involved are Amagi and Kaiyo.
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Claribel sniper locator info provided
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:57:05 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu


  A couple of people ahve asked me for further info on the Claribel Hostile
Fire Direction Indicator so here it is.  The book is WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT OF
COUNTER-TERRORISM by Michael Dewar.  It was published 1987 by Arms and Armour
Press Limited in London, UK.  It's distributed in Australia by Capricorn Link
Pty. Ltd., P.O. Box 665, Lane Cove, New South Wales 2066.

The text of the entry is as follows; "Developed for the British Army as a means
of determining the source of fire aimed at patrols or observation post,
Claribel is a low powered X-Band CW radar system.  It provides 360 coverage in
all weathers and picks up missiles of all velocities except stones, bricks,
etc.  Comprising four radar heads, commander's and crew's displays, central
processing unit, orientation unita, and power supply, the equipment can be
fitted in Land Rovers, APCs, and even saloon cars, in the last case invisibly
located in the bodywork.  After the tracking data has been processed, the
direction of fire is indicated on a simple, electro-luminescent clockface
display.  This visual warning is suplemented by an audible alarm.  The system
will indicate the positions of two snipers firing simultaneously.  Should the
vehicle driver take evasive action, the in built orientation system
correspondingly updates the information display.  Powered by lead/acid
batteries, the Claribel system can operate for eight hours between charges. 
VARIANTS:  A man-portable variant known as Aries houses the radar heads in a
specialty design flak jacket; the processor unit is carried in a pouch on the
belt and the display ona watchface on the wrist."

The book doesn't say who makes or give photo credits either.  For all of the
other equipment in the book, it gives the comapny name.  The Claribel is the
only system of this type that it mentions.
                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Daemon E. Hobbs, C/LtCol, AFROTC
                 Senior, (Spatial Information Systems)
                          Cal Poly, Pomona
                            **Commander**
                602D Air Force ROTC Cadet Squadron (ATC)
                Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

         "My ramblings represent no one's opinion but my own."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Christopher J de Zorzi <cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Submarine related questions
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:36 GMT


From Christopher J de Zorzi <cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>


Cal, 

	If you want info on the Ohio class, get out a book named "Trident".  
(If you mail me, I'll look up the call # for ya)  It answers your questions, 
and they even show what the tail section looks like.  The book goes into how 
the 726's went from the drawing board to the boatyard to comission.  
Interesting stuff.  

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:41:05 GMT


From edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)

In article <C17vLw.Eo6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Geoff Miller <Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com> writes:
>
>From Geoff Miller <Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com>
>
>
>drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells) writes:
>
>>But 5 meg bombs are awfully rare these days. Even US ICBMs don't carry
>>much more than 350k warheads. 
>
>Why are megaton-range weapons rare in this day and age?  Also, what are
>typical yields of the various nuclear gravity bombs still in inventory?
>
>
>Geoff

A bunch of low yield bombs are much more effective than one large one
in terms of destroying soft targets.  As far as hardened targets such
as silos, accuracy of the missile is much more important than warhead
strength. I wish I had my books from a course in nuclear war science I
took at W&M: I could give you exact figures.  

I believe that the blast effect should drop at least as the cube of
the distance from the explosion. Thus, if it takes a given overpressure
to kill a silo, a 5 megaton bomb can only kill a silo 2.2X as far away
as a 500 kT.

One of the problems given in the class was to destroy Norfolk with a
1-megaton bomb, estimating deaths/injuries, percentage of military
capacity destroyed, fallout, etc.  (I dropped mine on the Public
Health Service hospital, fuzed for 10,000 feet.)  The one bomb just
couldn't kill the whole city: the instructor wouldn't give me the 4
250kT bombs I asked for.  With the four, I could have assured utter
annilihation. Sigh: what's a budding Dr. Strangelove to do these days....

-- 
Eric R.      edremy@d31ha0.Stanford.EDU       Department of Chemistry
                        -1/2\nabla^2\psi_{T-72}

Newsgroups: sci.military