HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Secret Spy Plane
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:43:21 GMT


From dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)


brett@digits.enet.dec.com writes:
 >>"Air Force public affairs doesn't knowingly participate in any 
 >>disinformation programs," she said.
 >And the Capt. would probably be telling the truth.  

I'm sure... but disclaiming the "Aurora" (just like they did with 
the F-117A before it), is not exactly a "disinformation campaign". 
That is simply SOP when it comes to black projects...

 >Someone like the CIA, or the NSA, or the NRO, or the ... 
 >could easily be the owner; 

I would tend to doubt it.  NSA/NRO operate mainly computers and satellites.
They certainly do share in the intel products of airborne recce platforms,
but I don't think they are in the business of regularly operating such
vehicles themselves.  As far as CIA goes, chances are they have not directly
been in the major airframe business since the days of the A-12 and U-2.
We can't know for sure of course, but I expect those agencies rely on 
USAF/USN to do most of the flying...

 >and 99.999% of the Airforce personel would be totally 
 >unaware of the existence of the project.

That much is certainly true.
From: patrick.eves@canrem.com (Patrick Eves)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: helos vs. tanks (was
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:25:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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



JN>Randy> Here's my question.  What is the correct way for a tank to deal with a
JN>Randy> helocopter?  If you're in a tank, and you see an oncomming enemy helo,
JN>Randy> what do you do?

JN>How about adding some stingers on the outside of the tank for
JN>automatic threat suppression.  Cheap, simple, and probably prone to
JN>taking out your own choppers too.

...etc.

Hi guys...just buttin' in to give my 2.14 (GST incl.) cents worth.

Tanks vs. aircraft is a bugaboo that has been haunting tankers since aircraft 
first started packing ordnance that could do damage, rather than being merely
annoying.  The .30's and .50's mounted on most tank turrets are there 
ostensibly for local defence/anti-air use.  For local defence, they perform
quite well, but for AA, well...it's not too easy getting hits on a chopper two
klicks away with an unstabilized MG while your tank is bouncing over broken
ground.  Having said that, I just finished reading an analysis of the Iran/
Iraq war in which the author states that the MGs on Iraqi tanks were useful
against Iranian AH-1 choppers, especially when an entire company cut loose at
once.  Remember that the Cobras had to more or less hover in one place, as the
relatively low-skilled TOW gunner guided his missle in.

Moving along, most armies these days deploy mobile AA weapons to accompany the
armour - Vulcan, Chapparral, ZSU-23-4, Tracked Rapier, SA-9, Gepard, etc.  
There are at least as many models of mobile SHORAD systems as there are MBTs.
Ideally, these babies keep the choppers and ground attack jets off the tankers'
backs.  

Finally, in recent years there has been a great deal of work done in the area
of designing tank main gun rounds with homing capability, specifically for use
against attack helos.  The article I read in Jane's describes both 105mm and 
120mm versions, with both IR and "blade frequency" seeking heads.  Blade 
frequency seekers apparently home in on the "whop, whop" of that big overhead
fan.  As the article points out, there aren't any choppers in existence, nor 
are there ever likely to be, that can withstand a hit from a tank's main gun.
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Iowa Upgrade
Summary: Opening a war by attacking an IOWA
Organization: :
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:22 GMT


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

In article <BzBA1t.1pC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca> writes:
 
> From "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
 
>    The problem is, no one would ever attack an Iowa with only *1* fast
>    patrol boat. Try 20 or so, supported by 150 fighter bombers (old and
>    obsolete, perhaps, but still a lot). Syria or Libya might be able to
>    field that many old MiG's (or new MiG's, soon?). The Iowa probably
>    wouldn't sink, but lots of dead crewmen and loss of sensors and
>    armaments are all the attacker really wants. If it can't shell the
>    coast, the Iowa won't be very useful.
 
>    Are there any studies of the results of such an engagement? I have
>    run several Harpoon scenarios (computer version), playing both sides.
>    Usually, the Iowa is damaged and several escorts are sunk, with the
>    virtual annhialation of the attackers. Who wins?

Such an act of war would bring about massive retaliation under very
loose rules of engagement--and one of the aims would probably be to
capture--not kill--the strongman/strongmen ruling the country and
bring him to trial for war crimes in the U.S.  Politically, having
him die of old age in solitary confinement in Leavenworth would be
more valuable than killing him in a bunker, though either might do.

It does get messy.  But after the demonstration with the Tomahawks
that ODS provided, you can bet that some people will think twice.  To
pick up another thread, one reason to launch Tomahawks from a submarine
is to show that you can do it, and that you can put any leader within
300/600/1000 miles of water at risk without warning--which is to say,
permanently at risk.  It's another form of gunboat diplomacy, and I
expect we'll see more of it as the old bipolar stability's passing
leaves a still-enlarging void.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com
Subject: Re: Transport W.P. Richardson
Organization: Bank America Systems Engineering, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:28:54 GMT


From franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com

The vessel General W.P. Richardson was AP 118, commissioned in 1943.
It (she) was not lost during the war. It was a P2 type vessel, 622 ' 7"
in length, beam of 75' 6"; 25' draft. Powered by geared turbines driving
twin screws. Manufactured by Federal-Kearney. They were built from a
pre-war design and were apparently "on loan" to the U.S. Navy from a
U.S. shipping line. Top speed was 21 knots. The weight was 8200 Tons;
loaded weight 19650 Tons.

The information was obtained from the soft cover book
  Fahey's "The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet"; Victory Edition.

 Distributed by GEMSCO, Inc

The date shown is 1944, but that is incorrect since the Forward refers
to hulls cancelled after V-J. (victory over Japan, August 1945)

I think that I have seen reprints of this booklet advertised.

There is a photograph of the RICHARDSON on page 75 of the book; the
ship is also listed on page 63 and the Maritime Commission Type P2
ship is described on page 59.

I hope this information helps fill your quest.

  Good luck,

    Fred Franceschi

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:22:16 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <Bz06pL.Enx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rollhaus@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Charles Rollhauser) writes:
> 
> 
> From rollhaus@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Charles Rollhauser)
> 
>
> Before the war, battleships used range clocks, and markings on the turrets,
> so all the battleships in a squadron could aim at a target that only
> one ship could see. Anyone care to explain how that worked?
> 
> Chuck
>

I'll take a stab.

I would think that the range clock would give the range by giving the time of
flight of the shot.  You know the muzzle velocity of your rounds so the other
ships could deduce the range that way.

For the direction in which to aim came from the markings on the turrets.  By
knowing the firing ship's course and speed (which every ship should know by 
signal flags ;-) ) and by reading the degree markings (or what ever), the
other ships could back calculate the firing ship's gun fire solution.

I would think this had alot of inaccuracy involved.  I guess they felt that
any shot down range, even if all of them are scattered, that might hit at
long range would damage the enemy ship(s) enough for you to win the battle.

Remember, the above is speculation on my part.

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships.....   Those that project power onto shore
and those that protect the power projectors."





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: xarjp@levels.unisa.edu.au
Subject: Re: rapiers in usaf
Organization: University of South Australia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:27:07 GMT


From xarjp@levels.unisa.edu.au

In article <Bz9EtI.67G@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com> writes:
> 
> 
> A friend maintains that a branch of the USAF uses the British Aerospace
> Rapier surface to air missle.  I dimly recall hearing something about
> this ten or so years ago.  Can anyone out there confirm or deny this?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
>

Dont know abou the USAF, but the Australian Army uses them in specialist
anti-air batteries.

In fact, The RAA (Royal Australian Army) put soem of them on (otherwise
unarmed) merchant shipping during the Gulf War. 

As I understand it, the Rapeir's range is fairly limited these days,
and is not effective against stand-off missile launches.
Cheers Rob
 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Lee Mellinger <leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:23:35 GMT


From Lee Mellinger <leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>

In article <BzB9w9.1E8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
:From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
:John Stoffel <john@sekrit.wpi.edu> writes:
:	Why not add a Phalanx?
:Steve]
:< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >


Phalanx gun system aboard ships weighs in at 20,000 pounds and and
that does not include the weight of the ammunition. 

Lee

"Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei."

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:41 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <Bz9FGD.7FD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> writes:
> 
> 
> From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
> 
> 
> 
> 	As far as the concept of high alititude look down radar, what
> 	about the Navy's long standing idea of using a large Airship
> 	with the radar in the gondola or in the hull of the airship as
> 	a phased array??   This would be much cheaper than a hawkeye...
> 		Much longer staying power, don't need the carrier to
> 		refuel.. just drop a line to the fleet oiler and she can
> 		pump the fuel up...
> 				Ryan
> 		
> 


This has been put forward several times in various forms in the US Naval
Institute's _Proceedings_ magazine.  The Navy won't do this because:

10.  It doesn't have fixed wings, so "no self-respecting" aviator would be
caught dead in one.

9.   It doesn't move fast.

8.   It cannot handle all weather conditions.

7.   It cannot go as high as a fixed wing airplane.

6.   It won't carry any guns or missiles.

5.   It would mean they clearly are a supportive element of the fleet.

4.   Sailors on the ships below don't want to be "accidentally" hit with
the "honeydew bucket".

3.   Who ever builds it will want to put their logo over the entire outer
skin.

2.   Reminds them too much of driving the family around town.

And the number one reason why Airships will not be used in the US Navy:

1.   It cannot perform a barrel roll 100 ft off the deck.


Some are real and other are jokes.  I'll let the informed reader decide
which is which.  ;-)  ;-)  ;-)

Sorry, Ryan, I just had to do it!

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
and those that support or protect the power projectors."






========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: caina@merrimack.edu
Subject: Rev. War Reenactment unit being raised In Massachusetts
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:33:54 GMT


From caina@merrimack.edu

    O.K. O.K., this will be my last posting on the subject for some time.

   I am currently raising a Revolutionary War Reenactment unit(Col Greaton's
3d Mass Regiment) that will be based out of Northern Massachusetts/ Southern
N.H. I am hoping will be very active in "living history" and things of the
sort.
   The unit is open to all persons, male or female and of any age.  If you
are interested in joining or would just like some information, feel free to
contact me at caina@merrimack.edu.

Sincerely,

Alex Cain

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: s5umws@fnma.COM (Michael Stalnaker)
Subject: Re: F-14 program (was Re: Iowa Upgrade) 
Organization: Fannie Mae
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:09 GMT


From s5umws@fnma.COM (Michael Stalnaker)

In article 2uB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, David Spencer <spencer@panix.com> () writes:
>
>From David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
>
>Sure, the F14 is a better fighter. Any single-role tool is going to be
>better at its design role than a dual-role tool. But if the dual-role
>tool is adequate at both roles, why have a single-role tool? 

ARRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ever hear of a debacle called the F111?? I wound up being a damn nice strike
aircraft, but was intended to be a fighter.

Ever hear of the F-4? Wound up being a damn good strike a/c, and in the hands
of a *capable* pilot, a pretty darn good fighter too. but every mig in existance
at the time, except the Mig-25 could out turn it. 

They're about to pull another McNamara on us.. Oh.. one A/C can do all jobs...
*sigh*

Oh.. one other thing. According to the range data I have, the F-18 can be summed
up by saying: 'great a/c.. good turn/dogfight capability.. but it ain't got no
legs.'.. Personally, I don't like the idea of having to refuel my CAP aircraft
every hour.

--Mike




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Bonnie L. Maidak" <bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Chernobyl satellite pictures
Summary: Chrnobyl satellite pictures
Keywords: Chernobyl, satellite pictures, infrared
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:29:16 GMT


From "Bonnie L. Maidak" <bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu>

Dear net readers:

I tried to selectively choose the most appropriate Usenet sci.* groups for this question. Please
respond with email, as a heavy workload limits the amount of time that I presently can devote
to news reading. The question from a colleague is:

   The Chernobyl power plant fire was filmed by an american 
satellite, by infrared photography I think, and it showed the 
cloud spread. How to get those pictures, and who might have their
rights? Generally, are non-classified US satellite pictures 
publicly available?
                               Sincerely, Niels Larsen
                                   (larsen@biobase.aau.dk)


Thanks very much in advance,

-Bonnie L. Maidak
bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Sun
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:50 GMT


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

>From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
>Prompted by the current fasinating history of the Bell Airacobra...
>
>I hereby nominate the following as the worst and most dangerous (to 
>their aircrews) fighters on the Allied side in WW2
>
>1. Brewster Buffalo -- so bad that it deserves a class all of its own.

Almost as bad as the Fairey Battle.

Actually, not *nearly* as bad as the Battle...the Finns did pretty well
with their version of it.

>2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.

The Airacobra was pretty successful when used in the proper role, that of
a low-altitude fighter and attack aircraft.  The Russians liked them pretty
well.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pyrdek@edinboro.edu
Subject: Swiss military preparedness??
Organization: Edinboro University of PA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:41 GMT


From pyrdek@edinboro.edu

There was a television show on one of the major networks several months
(or was it years?) ago regarding Swiss military preparedness.  Does anyone
remember what it was called or who had it?

It showed how hospital functions were built under mountains and fully
equipped, center divders on four lane highways could be removed very
quickly so that these highways could be used as aircraft runways, pylons 
supporting bridges etc. were PRE-MINED with explosives (I think that
this was what was shown!), the call up of military reservists AND
THEIR MILITARY WEAPONS from their home and I seem to recall bicylcle
military units.

The point of the program was that the swiss, perceived as SO NEUTRAL,
were indeed one of the MOST militarily prepared, equipped and trained
army/civil operations in the world.  I guess if I recall correctly,
it just goes to prove that those who are most prepared to defend themselves
are the least likely to have to do so.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:29:03 GMT


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

: [mod note -- that one slipped by me.  From what I remember, there were 3
: BBs in the Yamato class -- Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano.  The Shinano was
: converted to a carrier (displaced something like 70,000 or 80,000 tons), and
: was sunk by U.S. sub in the Inland Sea on it's way to sea trials.  Can't
: remember the name of the sub that did the deed, but it's captain wrote a
: book about it -- _The Sinking of the Shinano_
: 

U.S.S. Archerfish, I believe.

[mod note -- that's it.  The book is well worth reading]
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
Subject: Prussian Military
Summary: There must be many books on the subject
Keywords: books history prussia
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:33 GMT


From fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)

There must be many books on the subject of the Prussian military, its 
organization and the various units who were involved in various engagements.

I would love to hear any opinions as to where I might look for a good 
description during the 18th century. There were Cuirassiers and dragoons 
who changed from heavy horses to lighter ones during this time for better 
maneuverability. How does one find out which units existed and where?

Who were the hussars. What was their duty? Same with the dragoons and 
grenadiers. The latter I presume were infantry which carried some kind of 
grenades around.

The reason I would like some more information and maybe find pictures of the 
various uniforms etc is because of genealogy. One of my ancestors was a 
'Feldjaeger' in the Royal Prussian Army who married one of the local girls 
when she was seven months pregnant.  This fellow's father also a dragoon from
Ansbach-Bayreuth.  It may have been these units who for the first time proved
superior to the Austrian cavalry, after the above mentioned lighter horse
switch, during battle in Silesia in 1745.  Only 10 squadrons of dragoons swept
6 battle hardened Austrian infantry regiments into disappearance.  They took
66 unit flags and the Austrians lost 10,000 men wounded and killed.  This was
the battle of Hohenfriedberg in June 1745 after which Frederick II (the Great)
wrote his Hohenfriedberger March music.

I wonder if there are muster lists for any of these units available anywhere.

I'm also curious how the Principality of Ansbach, which is near Nueremberg,
got to be fighting for the Prussians.  I know that Ansbach and Bayreuth were
part of Prussia in the late 1700's but how did that happen?  I mean Prussia
and Bavaria were arch enemies for centuries.

>From reading the 'Biography of Catherine II' I know she was instrumental in 
getting Bavaria to cede Ansbach/Bayreuth on a permanent basis in return for 
not letting Austria get Bavaria when their King had died without an heir. But 
I'm having a hard time finding the beginning of this Ansbach connection to 
Prussia. 

One other thing, the above Feldjaeger eventually became something called a 
JUDIMAGISTER (1800) in Hilter, in the Kingdom of Hannover.  Anybody know what
that was?  Achim Kruse tells me that a Feldjaeger more than likely was a
military policeman which then led into private police or judicial work.

Trying to reconstruct the past is a lot of fun but it sure brings its 
headaches with it too. It's especially difficult doing it on this side of the 
ocean. Perhaps the net can help?

fred

-- 
W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     'mans feet have grown/so big 
26 Warren St.   home: fred@icdi10.compu.com  that he/forgets his littleness'
Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		Don Marquis 
609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr