HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:24:47 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <BtpCCL.LDC@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>
>My computational model indicates that while it is possible to optimize
>the shape of the U-238 blanket of the secondary fusion core that as far
>as simply generating an arbitrarily high yield such optimization must
>have only marginal effect on the ultimate power of the device.  Indeed,
>with an arbitrarily thick U-238 wrapper it should be obvious that there
>is little relevance in the shape of the fusion core tamper.

Since U238 can't support a chain reaction, not enough neutrons are released
by it's fission, an arbitrarily thick blanket won't uniformly fission since 
the neutrons from the fission trigger are captured by the nearest U238 atoms 
before they can reach the far side of the device. This asymetry will assuredly 
cause the device to disassemble out the side without generating the necessary 
pressure to light off the fusion capsule.

It's the lighting of the fusion capsule that generates the necessary
neutron flux to fully fission the U238 blanket, which acts primarily
as a yield booster to the device. A tamper of any heavy metal is sufficient
to light the fusion capsule under focused radiation pressure. It's the
radiation pressure, focused by the whispering gallery like shape of the
*outer* housing of the device that drives the tamper into the fusion
capsule with sufficient force to generate the 100 million atmospheres
needed to light the fusion capsule. That energy will reach the tamper
at 30 ns after the fission trigger goes super critical and has achieved
about 2^1024 doublings. At about 52 ns after that, the tamper will have 
achieved about 6000 km/s closing velocity and will impact the fusion 
capsule to about 100 million atmospheres, lighting the fire.

The outer casing does not immediately disassemble under radiation pressure
because the innermost layer turns to opaque plasma that then acts as a
mirror for the following energy. This opaque plasma formation is the
reason for the unique double flash of nuclear weapons. The energy doesn't
stop, it's just reflected internally for a while. By shaping the outer
casing as an eliptical shell, there are two focal points. One contains
the fission trigger, the other, the fusion capsule and it's tamper. This
delivers a symetric energy pulse from the fission trigger to the fusion core.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:30:47 GMT


From liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)

youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:

>   While in the topic of aircraft going away, here is a little tidbit I'd like
>   confirmed (or not confirmed):  I heard the Navy was going to standardize on
>   F/A-18s for the carriers.  This would mean the F-14 *and* A-6 would go away.

>   Don't flame me; that's just what I heard.  I can't see it happening, because
>   of the short legs of the F/A-18 and the big bomb-carrying capability of the 
>   Intruder.  The idea of having 5 squadrons of 1 typr of plane might solve
>   some problems, but it still sounds like bull to me.  Anymore confirm or
>   deny this?

  From what I read in the mags, it was a competition between the F/A-18 and
the F-14. The F/A-18 was not to replace the A-6, the A-12 was supposed to do
that. But with problems with the A-12, this is in limbo.
  The F/A-18 was supposed to be upgraded/modified to an E/F standard, with
stretched fuselage(more fuel=>legs), improved avionics, etc. This would
solve the problems with its range, esp in strike missions. The alternative
is the F14 Quickstrike, which is a F14 modified for ground attack, similar
to the F15E.
  IMHO, the F14 deal seems much better than the F/A-18E/F. It is less
expensive to get to this standard, it would takes less time for the
development, the end result would be superior to the 18e/f in everyway. But
it seems those in charge don't think so and I *think* that the 18e/f has the
green light and the f14 is going to be history. Maybe its because the 18
is younger, has more growth potential, less threat(no USSR), etc.
  There are several well written articles on this topic in the past few
months. Check out Proceedings, JDW, IDR, etc. I am too busy
to search for these again.(sorry!)

/***********************************************************/
				Liang Tian Soon
				liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au
/***********************************************************/


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:19:43 GMT


From clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)

With regard to the spinning thing in the front getting in the
way of aerial refueling, I am currently reading Clancy's 
"Clear and Present Danger" in which helicopter aerial refueling
plays a significant role.  I am TC is correct in the feasibility 
of helicopter aerial refueling despeite the presence of a large
spinning thing.  For a prop plane, there's nothing stopping
the fueling probe from being mounted on a wing tip.

Perhaps the problem in WWII was the need for extremely volatile
aviation gasoline.  Turbine fuel should be easier to deal with.
Or was there some crucial invention that made aerial refueling
practical, prop or no-prop?
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:32:50 GMT


From tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)

davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:


>From davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith)


>Why is the top of a tank still the weakest point?  With the advent of
>tank killing helicopters, airplanes, self- forging munitions, and
>Cessna pilots armed with Super-soaker water guns, I'd think that this
>would no longer be the case.  Are current MBT still designed with less
>regard to the threat from the air?

Basically, an aircraft can carry a much larger warhead than a tank cannon shell.
Therefore, if you were to try to protect the tank from this larger warhead on
top (and front and sides and rear, as well; aircraft can attack from any
aspect), you would end up with an extremly heavy tank that would probably need
a nuclear reactor to provide enough power to move it.  In the end, tank
designers accept the fact that the vehicle can be destroyed from the air and
design air-defense missles and guns to try to destroy the enemy aircraft before
it can launch its weapons.

Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: nigel@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: China and Expansionism
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:15:21 GMT


From nigel@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov

In article <BuF3CD.8ML@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> shane <DEICHMAN@cisco.nosc.mil> writes:


>   within a mile of the border.  The Chinese smarted from that 
>   defeat for some ten years, until they thought they'd play some 
>   hardball with the Vietnamese in 1979.

>     During the course of that ill-fated campaign, the Chinese 
>   suffered over 60,000 casualties in the FIRST THREE DAYS.  
>   Fully one half of their mechanized units were incapacitated 
>   during that same time period.  To add insult to injury, the 
>   regular Vietnamese troops never even mobilized in any 
>   significant show of force -- most of the Chinese losses were 
>   at the hands of the local militia!

Hmmm...I'd heard a slightly different story.  Evidently the plan had
been to punch through the VN frontier units with "crack" PLA units and
then drive south quickly before mainforce VN units arrived.  As it
turned out the assult stalled near the border (say 60 miles or so in)
and the invasion was more or less called off.  The majority of the
losses occured during the pullout when normal VN units appeared and
tried to encircle and kill as many Chinese troops they possibly
could...mostly to make sure the PLA got a sufficiently bloody nose so
as to not to try that particular stunt again.  

Evidently the VN troops were as willing to die for the Cause as PLA
troops and were blessed with the experience from seasoned troops
involved in another shooting war 10 years or so ago.  I believe that
at the time the PRC government really slammed the lid down on the news
of the debacle and the region itself is still (or was a couple of
years ago) considered under direct military control or martial law or
something...

>     A former professor of mine was a Sinologist (is that what 
>   they call them?); on one of his first trips to Beijing, he 
>   remarked to his guide that the trees he saw troops planting 
>   while wearing their dress uniforms must have had some 
>   significance.  "Oh, those are their ONLY uniforms," he was 
>   told.

There was a Discovery Channel show about the PRC military forces.  It
was rather amusing if somewhat sad.  Most interesting was the air
force training...and the shooting range where Japanese businessmen
come over to pay $$$ to fire large caliber guns, MG, and other
assorted things that go bang.

[more deleted]

>   nations.  I don't think the fact that George Herbert Walker 
>   sold the Taiwanese (whom the Chinese consider subordinate, as 
>   the Federal Government would look upon a single state) a few 
>   wings of F-16s is going to change this philosophy....

Personally I don't think the F16s modify the power balance much at
all...and IMHO I'd rather have bought F20s ;-).

>     Just my three rubles, 29 kopecks worth....

>   -shane

Nigel



--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Tuesday, 8 September, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:16:19 GMT


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Tuesday, 8 September, 1942

British motor torpedo boats attack German shipping off Cherbourg; German
coastal batteries fire in response.

Two battalions of the Australian 21st Brigade are surrounded in the Owen
Stanley range.

Six hundred US Marine Raiders land near the Japanese base on Taivu Point,
Guadalcanal.  They attack the base, doing considerable damage, then
evacuate by sea.

Vichy officials dismiss General de St. Vincent.  The general, in his
capacity as Military Governor of Lyons, had refused to cooperate in the
arrest of Jews in his jurisdiction.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"The inconceivables of only two years ago are today's realities.  The war
is compressing into the space of months developments which might have taken
us half a century to realize if necessity had not forced the pace... Give
us a victorious peace and the freedom of enterprise it would guarantee,
and our progress will be unprecedented.  Let our swords be might and
mighty indeed will be our plowshares." - Dr. Charles M. A. Stine, speaking
to the American Chemical Society
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:15:03 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <BuF2y5.80I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes:

>Wasn't there any attempt for the "mother" bomber plane to carry smaller
>fighter plane(s)?  These fighter planes could be released whenever the
>bomber(s) were attacked by enemy fighter plane(s).

There was also the early (1920s?) Navy experiments with biplane
fighters carried by trapeze mounts on dirigibles...

I believe the huge airships Macon and Akron carried fighters, 
and several were lost along with the airships..



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: janm@Dublin.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:29:07 GMT


From janm@Dublin.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)

rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:

>I have read a lot of articles about the V-2 rocket.  Wow!  I can't believe 
>those Germans could acquire space age technology.  I read articles about the
>mass destruction it did to London.  Why didn't the Germans just concentrate 
>all of their production efforts to building the V-2 and attacking London as
>opposed to even getting involved with a situation like the Battle of Britain.


The "V-2" (its real name was A-4) wasn't ready until the end of the war.
Besides, it was a very expensive way to deliver a limited amount of explosives.
It wasn't very accurate, so it was limited to attacks on cities.
Finally, the Germans could not have defeated Britain by destroying London,
IMHO.

--
Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
janm@bern.docs.uu.se or janm@minsk.docs.uu.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jeff Uphoff <juphoff@aoc.nrao.edu>
Subject: Re: green troops ...... :) ......
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:25:47 GMT


From Jeff Uphoff <juphoff@aoc.nrao.edu>

In article <BtyIry.9Aw@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "S.K. Whiteman" <WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU> writes:
>
>From         "S.K. Whiteman" <WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
>
>>In an Army transportation unit, I've heard of sending poor saps out looking
>>for a "trailer stretcher" as well...  keep them coming...

My most memorable one was a new guy coming up and asking for a "sponge
inflator."  He was carrying a new sponge that was still flat and stiff.
A friend of mine and I took the sponge, walked to a supply room, found a
ziploc baggie, put the sponge in it, and poured some Comet cleanser in on top.
We gave it back to him, told him the powder was a special chemical that was
designed to expand the sponge and treat it to prolong its usefulness, and
instructed him to shake the baggie until the sponge had expanded to normal
size.  He thanked us and walked off, shaking away...
The guy who had started the joke by sending him after the sponge inflator
got such a laugh out of what we had thought up to give him, he tracked us
down to find out who we were and buy us a round at the e-club that evening.

-- 
Jeff Uphoff -- "Uppie"     |  The post office raises the price of stamps,
                           |  becomes a paying sponsor of the olympics,
juphoff@astro.phys.vt.edu  |  then purcahses ad time on tv to brag about it.
juphoff@zia.aoc.nrao.edu   |    Is this a great country or what?


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mark Miller <msmiller@ctbu.rational.com>
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:53:46 GMT


From Mark Miller <msmiller@ctbu.rational.com>

|> From rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
|> 
|> 
|> I recently read an article that claimed if the Germans had their Me-262's
|> up a year earlier that they could have changed the outcome of the air battle
|> especially over Berlin.  I would appreciate any comments on this.

The 262 had phenominal speed for the day, plus 4 30mm cannon. In short,
it could not be caught if it didn't want to be and could bring down a
B17 in a few seconds. Most of the kills recorded against the Me262
were recorded while it was orbitting its base to land. This was the
only time when the 262 was vulnerable and by war's end there were Me109's
and Fw190's assigned to each Me262 base for protection of the jets during
landing.

Early and proper insertion of the Me262 into the skies over Germany
would have almost certainly forced the USAAF to abandon daylight
precision bombing. Even with the hundreds of escort fighters being
sent up, the 262 was just too fast.

It would not, however, have changed the outcome of the war. Only the
amount of time it took.

One has to wonder, however, what sort of technology we'd be using
today if large scale use of jet fighters and bombers had begun as
early as 1943.

	-MSM

________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: The Curtiss XP-17
Keywords: Experimental P-1 Hawk, Tornado engine
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:20:07 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

The first Curtiss P-1 off the production line (Ser No 25-410) had been
used  as  an  test machine throughout its entire life.  For a time, it
had been used to test  an  experimental  inverted  Allison  air-cooled
variant of the "Liberty" engine, but no change in designation had been
made.  However, when it was used as a  testbed  for  the  new  480  hp
Wright  V-1460-3 Tornado inverted V-12 air-cooled engine in June 1930,
the designation XP-17 was  applied.   This  experiment  had  not  been
performed  by  Curtiss,  but rather by the Engineering Division of the
USAAC, and the experimental designation was intended to  indicate  the
test  status  of  the  airframe,  and was not meant to designate a new
experimental fighter prototype.

The XP-17 achieved a maximum speed of 165 mph at sea level and 161 mph
at  5000  feet.   An  altitude  of  10,000 feet could be attained in 8
minutes.  Service ceiling was 21,400  feet.   Weights  were  2204  lb.
empty   and   2994  lb  gross.   The  performance  of  the  XP-17  was
uninspiring, and the experiment went no further.

Sources:

  United States Military Aircraft Since 1909,  Gordon Swanborough  and
  Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books,
  1987.

  Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press,
  1987.

  "The Curtiss Army  Hawks",  Peter  M.  Bowers,  Aircraft in Profile,
  Doubleday, 1969.

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Keywords: A-bombs
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:55:48 GMT


From saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)

In article <BuDF4v.Ftu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:
>
>From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
>
>In article <BuBLLn.GC1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mark Miller <msmiller@ctbu.rational.com> writes:
>
>>It would not, however, have changed the outcome of the war. Only the
>>amount of time it took.
>
>This is *highly* debateable*. There is considerable evidence to indicate
>that Germany would have had the atomic bomb several months before the
>U.S. did, were it not for resources diverted to the Luftwaffe for use
>against the bombers. Imagine an a-bomb on a V-2 for a couple of seconds.

I would be curious to see a little of this evidence.  I've seen several
accounts of the German A-bomb project that said the design goal was a
land-transportable device for area denial (in other words, a reactor that
could do a Chernobyl on command).  At that, the probability of success
wasn't considered high.  If the war lasted longer, and if something like
that was used in either France or Russia, I suspect that there would have
been a policy by the Allies that would make the plowing of Carthage with
salt look half-hearted.  As for whether ANY weapon at all could have won
the war for Germany:I defer to Albert Speer, who was there at the time,
and predicted economic collapse by 1947, at the latest.

                                       Steve   saj@chinet.chi.il.us

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Misc
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:33 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <Bu9HKB.GEL@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> urf@ki.icl.se (Urban F) writes:
>
>From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
>
>In Britain, there is work going on on a EMP bomb, but "there is
>no operational requirement yet". The principle seems to be to set
>up a standing HF wave in a tube, and then explosively squeeze the
>tube together from one end, in phase with the radio waves, in a
>very short time.

Another method is to implode a superconducting electromagnet.

>Researchers in USA have been able to use the intrinsic micro-
>noise of the ocean to imagine objects. So far only at close
>range, but there is no fundamental reason why a sub couldn't use
>this stealthy method at larger ranges.
>In empty water, the noise from small air bubbles bursting, is
>exactly the same in all direction. An object will block some of
>this noise, as well as reflect some other, thus you can to some
>extent determine what it is made of.

Clancy claims that the Ohio class is a "hole in the water" that
can be detected in principle by listening for where the noise
*isn't*.

Gary
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:11:56 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:


>From davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith)


>Why is the top of a tank still the weakest point?  With the advent of
>tank killing helicopters, airplanes, self- forging munitions, and
>Cessna pilots armed with Super-soaker water guns, I'd think that this
>would no longer be the case.  Are current MBT still designed with less
>regard to the threat from the air?

Mostly because the MTBs now in production were designed in the late -70s
or early -80s, when the top-attack threat wasn't so widespread. Though, I 
must admit that I think they should have seen the writing on the wall.
I don't know if Leclerc has thicker top-armor than the norm, Jane's doesn't
say.

I suspect there would be problems with upgrading the top-armor, what with all
the stuff stuck on the top of the turret.

--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
Newsgroups: sci.military