HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mr YC Yap <eln118w@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Organization: Monash University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:29 GMT


From Mr YC Yap <eln118w@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au>

Aylwyn Scally (aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie) wrote:
: 
: 
: It seems to be a commonly held view that by the end of the Second World War,
: German physicists were very close to developing their own atomic bomb.
: Coupled with the development of the V2 missile, this could have completely
: changed the outcome of the war.
: 
: Does anyone know of any evidence confirming or disputing the existence of a
: German nuclear research programme? If there was one, was it very far
: advanced by the time the war ended? 

I seem to remember watching this documentary on German nuclear research.
The Germans were ahead initially, and thised the Americans to develop their
own bomb. But as the war turned against the Germans,around 1942, Hitler
preferred research projects that could turn out war-winning weapons within
a short time, about 6 months I think. German nuclear scientists predicted
it'll take at least 2 years before they could achieve self-sustaining
reaction. So the German High Command lost interest in this field, but
instead based their hopes on rocket research. I think the Germans spent
more money on the V-weapons research than the Americans spent on their
nuclear project.

At the end of the war, it was discovered that the Germans had build a crude
experimental reactor, but did not achieve self-sustaining reaction due to
the lack of certain raw material(either uranium or heavy water, I'm not
sure). They were close to achieving self-sustaining reaction, but still far
away from the bomb.

Alexander.
Mailing address : 10792759@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au
From: craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Need address please.
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:57:13 GMT
Organization: Do I look organized to you


From Craig R Albrechtson <craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>

Does someone out there in netland have the 
address for the Public information office
of the United States Defense Intelligence agency.

I am looking to get a handbook on the soviet armed forces 
that I guess they publish, and of course I need the address
so I can send them a letter.

Just email me with the reply.

thanks
-- 
************************************************************************
* Craig Reese Albrechtson (Slider) * University of Wisconsin Milwaukee *
* The usual meanless disclaimers apply * craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu       *
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: RAM operational on LHA-5
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:55:57 GMT


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

Hi all.

Some time ago I posted that RAM was operational on a USN ship. I remembered it
to be an assault carrier and thought it was a Wasp class vessel. It wasn't.
It was LHA-5 Peleliu, of the Tarawa class. Saw it  in Miltech 12/92.

cheers

--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
 -- Hobbes
From: Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com (Steven.Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:03:49 GMT
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

In <C1F7BL.LH9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>     Argentina: 1 (Vienticinco de Mayo)

Gone. I can provide operational data if anyone would like it, but the ship was
inactive since June 1986. The ship entered AFNE, Rio Santiago, in October
1988, and after some ideas for overall, including new propulsion, the idea was
cancelled in October 1991. The ship was decommissioned, stricken, and sold for
scrap by May, 1992. 

>     2 x Moskva Class (Moskva and Lenningrad)--very old, close to retirement--
>                operate only KA-25/27 helicopters

Only Moskva remains. In fact, there are plans to scrap it, and may have been
already.

>     4 x Kiev Class (Kiev, Novorosysk, Minsk, Kharkov(?))--early/mid-1970s
>                ships with ski-jumps for Yak-38 "Forgers" and ASW helos; some
>                of these are in awful states of repair and need immediate over-
>                hauls or scrapping
Only Kiev and Novorossiysk remain, at Vladivostok. Very bad condition. Will
probably be scrapped. The other is Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Gorshkov, a
modified Kiev-class. It is in Northern Fleet, and the other two may be used
for parts.
 
Kuznetsov and Varyag are as stated, but all others not mentioned here I
believe have been scrapped or never started.
-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Tomahawk or SAM - My opinion
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:24 GMT


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

In article <C143JD.2yG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>
> Was it a US Tomahawk or Iraqi SAM?
>
> Now the Iraqi's say it was a cruise missile but the US is saying it must
> have been an SAM.
>
> I don't think it was a Tomahawk for the following reason:
>
> The Tomahawk's engine is internal and doesn't have an afterburner or
> such.  It is always in cruise mode (.7 Mach), being accelerated to speed
> by a discardable rocket booster or aircraft.   
>
> The newscamera was pointing out the window, slightly up and to the
> right.  The missile approaches from the right, moving slightly downward
> to the left.  Because of the camera angle and flight path, the missile 
> never presents a rear or full side view.
>
> And FLAME can be seen coming from the rear of the missile!
>
> Because of the location of the engine and the nature of the Tomahawk's
> flight characteristics, a visible flame could NOT have been seen by the
> camera at that angle!

Another possibility is that it what you saw was a damaged and burning Tomahawk.
The US admits that the Iraqi air defenses did destroy several of the missiles, 
and if this happened, they had to come down somewhere.  

Another factor pointing to this could be the Al Rashid (sp) hotel itself.  It 
is a fairly large Baghdad landmark, and the Tomahawk can be programmed to 
follow a certain course using waypoints that would show up on it's TERCOM 
(TERrain COMparison) radar system.  If the missile was supposed to overfly the 
hotel and then turn toward the target area, and it was hit by AA fire at an 
inopportune moment, then it could concievably have impacted on or near the 
hotel.  

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: The Corps band's bell
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:52:52 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Tony Buckland <buckland@ucs.ubc.ca>

 Does anyone know the story behind the ship's bell used as an
 instrument in the Marine Corps band during President Clinton's
 Inauguration?
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Catching a Tomahawk
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:10:45 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <C1H2u1.F09@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
engp2065@nusunix1.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) writes:

> I hope to see some discussions and even improvement to this 
> scheme.

Well since you asked.  I'm not sure I see the point in catching a
cruise missile.  Saddam already has a bunch of AAA, he doesn't have a
bunch of nets and balloons.  Recon photos would soon see the masses of
netting which would then cause the attacking forces to simply use a
different attack method like the F-117 and smart bombs.  

The point for someone who could be that focus of such an attack is to
prevent the missile from hitting the target.  Going through all that
trouble (nets, moats, water) presupposes that the attacking force is
willing to wait for all this preperation and then, once everything is
in place, attack with cruise missiles, and at that target, not
something else.  This is a lot of supposition.  As I said at the
beginning, I don't understand why anyone would want to "catch" a cruise
missile.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: I R A Aggie <aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu>
Subject: Training Carrier Pilots (was: Carrier info.wanted )
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: An Ol Ag surrounded by a bunch of unfriendly Seminoles
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:31:03 GMT


From I R A Aggie <aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu>

> From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

> Also: George Washington and America. U.S.S. Lexington (AVT 16) had her last
> aircraft landing in February 1991, No. 493,248. In March, 1991, it was decided
> to decommission the ship because of maintenence problems. It was stricken
> November 30, 1991, and is now a display at Corpus Christi, TX. It was replaced
> by U.S.S. Forrestal, redesignated AVT 59 on February 4, 1992, after completing
> her last deployment with Carrier Air Wing 6 (CVW 6) from Mayport, FL. She left
> in May 1991, and returned that December. The ship entered a complex overhaul
> at the Phillidelphia Naval Yard in September 1992, and is scheduled to
> complete November, 1993. Most work will be removal of weapons and sensors. 

So, in the interim, where are the naval aviation candidates (trainees?
cadets???) going to learn their carrier landings, since there is currently
not AVT available?

[mod note -- U.S.S. Forrestal will be serving as the training carrier 

Steve]

James - confused&dazed, but that's nothing new
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:36 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <C15yF6.KC1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes: 
>> From Apostolos Karmirantzos <karmira@natinst.com>
> 
> As for US Navy cruise missiles, only the Harpoon (50 NM range according to
> open literature) is air launchable and does not have a land-version (anti-ship
> only).  I thought that the Navy was talking about making Tomahawk air-
> launchable but I think its length does make it difficult to put under a wing 
> of A-6 or F/A-18.
The Navy does indeed have a land attack veersion of Harpoon called SLAM which
was used experimentally in the Gulf.  (as was the British Alarm to answer
another post).  Tomahawk was considered in an air launched form.  I think it
was cost rather than fit which killed it.  

More recently, a Tomahawk variant has been submitted to the British sor their
new stand-off attack missile program.
> 
> 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 :-) :-). 

Don't forget those conventional ALCMs at the beginning of ODS.

>                              
> Don Palmrose
> "There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
> and those that either protect or support the power projectors."
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with
America"  	President William Jefferson Clinton
		January 20, 1993

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: Interesting Article on Japanese WWII Radar
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:23 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <C15ywt.LGz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
James Parkyn <jparkyn@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

> Maybe the microwaves could disrupt the ignition system or cook the pilot,
> but there were no control systems that I can recall until almost the end of the
> war in planes such as the B-29 that had empty-state devices (vacuum tubes) in
> (gasp) analog fire control computers. I really can't remember if they had
> tube autopilots. 

Most if not all American bombers had an autopilot.  If they used the
Norden bonbsight, they had to because the bombsight was coupled to the
auto pilot and was flying the airplane during the run in to the target.
 These autopilots were gyros I believe, I don't think tubes were
involved.

Corky Scott
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:26:47 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


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

CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu writes:


>From CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu

>In article <C17vrM.Exy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com
>(T.M.Haddock) says:
>>
>>From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
>>
>>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?

I have seen nothing about this. I can only recall two silkworms being fired
during DS, one being brought down by a Sea Dart, the other succumbing to 
natural causes. No exocets or anything else.

cheers

--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
 -- Hobbes
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Andreas Laangstroem <e2anla8@etek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SWEDEN
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:48 GMT


From Andreas Laangstroem <e2anla8@etek.chalmers.se>

In article <C19o9K.46A@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
|> 
|> 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. 
[stuff deleted]
|> >Wouldn't not firing anything cause less damage to Baghdad?
|> >
|> 
|> 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.
|>
 
Not all large calibre AA shells are of that kind. The Swedish 40mm AA shell
m/48 from Bofors does _not_ explode at a certain altitude, it explodes
when the loss of rotation causes a couple of spring mounted balls to press
the firing pin into the detonator (aprox after 7-8 sec fligth time) or by 
hitting something which causes the impact fuse to go off. The newer shells
to the same gun wich has proximity fuses use a timer to cause selfdestruction
after 7-8 secs.

Since i have recieved e-mail after my last posting on this subject telling
me I'm dead wrong, I shall soon post a detailed description of the Bofors
40mm AA prjectile.

|> Chad Wemyss
|> Worcester Polytechnic Institute

-- 
Andreas Langstrom
         ^     ^
         \-----\--------- These characters should have dots above them but
                          this stupid 7-bit ASCII doesn't allow that. :-(

Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Quack! (Donald Duck)
eal@cd.chalmers.se
eal.@eta.chalmers.se
e2anla8@etek.chalmers.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stefan Kronkvist INF <skronkvi@aton.abo.fi>
Subject: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:33 GMT


From Stefan Kronkvist INF <skronkvi@aton.abo.fi>


Hello!

I am looking for general aircraft-carrier information.

1) How many carriers do UK,USA and France have? (names if possible)
2) What kind of aircrafts are they using at their carriers?
3) What kind of defensive weaponry is usually fitted on a carrier (exept
   for the planes of course)?
4) Did UK use their carrier(s) at the 'Falklands-War'? 
5) When is the average western carrier built (-50:s -60:s ...)?
6) Are there any major differenses between British,French and US carriers.

If you have some information,please post it.All information will be
apprissiated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Kronkvist                                    skronkvi@aton.abo.fi
Abo Akademi University
Finland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: anasaz!briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:57 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA


From Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>

In article <C15y9n.K3A@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jeff Nanis <nanis@ll.mit.edu> writes:
>
>From Jeff Nanis <nanis@ll.mit.edu>
>
>	OK, let's take a somewhat hypothetical case. 
[stuff deleted]
>
>	Two issues concern me about the B-2. First of all, the B-2 
>must attack the 20 targets sequentially and will have a survivability
>rate of (1 - P_k_terminal)^20. 

[deleted stuff]
>
>	Thus, it seems to me that even if the mission P_survival
>was the same for 1 B-2 and 20 AXs, the expected value of remaining
>aircraft would be <1 B-2 compared to >1 AX.

Yeah, but how is this math supposed to impressed Khaddafi?  8-)

A Carrier Battle-Group sitting off the coast of a nation is VERY impressive.
Bomber's also have trouble making Port Calls, Flying the Flag, and all that
other good "show of force" stuff that is intrinsic to military doctrine.
After all, deterence through strength you means you show your power, not
necessarily use it.  This is very difficult for Bombers to to do.

>-- 
>  Jeff Nanis				MIT Lincoln Lab
>		An official opinion? Be real. 
>
>  nanis@ll.mit.edu			Radars 'r' us.
-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim (Random Dude))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: more ?'s about seacobras
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:03:46 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


From "Ted Kim (Random Dude" <tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>

In article <C1F6tu.KL7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Christopher John Arnold <gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu> writes:
>Does anyone know if it is common practice for the USN to use 
>Sea Cobras on their ships, apart from Marines using them as
>support gunships. Do Cobras ever play a role in anti-ship warfare?

It is not common to use them for non-Marine roles. I believe some were
used in the various clashes between the USN and Iranian forces in the
Iran-Iraq war and possibly in DS. Their use was strictly a make shift
affair against small craft (e.g. Boghammers) and oil platforms.

-ted

-- 
Ted Kim                           Internet: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:     ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3680A Boelter Hall                Phone:    (310) 825-8524
Los Angeles, CA 90024             FAX:      (310) 825-2273
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Tornado F3 replacement
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:43 GMT


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

In article <C1F6tE.KG8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>
>	Interesting.  If its so good, why then hasn't the USN adopted it?
>Surely it would fulfill all their requirements?  Or is it case, as in the
>case of the abortive P1154 design that a "bigger, better Harrier" has more
>inherent problems than you might realise, including the ones found during
>the Gulf Conflict in the light of combat experience (ie its rather extreme
>vulnerability to heat seeking weapons due to location of probable hits
>near its exhausts). 
>

There was recently a very good discussion on the various advantages and 
deficiencies of a VTOL/STOVL design on sci.aeronautics.  I wish I had saved 
some of the posts, but I will tell you what I remember.

The main advantages discussed were:
	* Basing flexibility
	* The ability to use damaged/destroyed airfields.  

The disadvantages were:
	* Vulnerability to shoulder launched and other IR-guided SAM's, and the
		problem of massive structural damage when a missile struck near
		the engine exhausts, ie amidships.
	* Reduced load capabilities to allow vertical or shortened take-
		off, when compared with similar-sized conventional designs.
	* Reduced range capabilities, again when compared to similar-sized 
		conventional designs.

If I had saved any of the posts, I would re-post them on this newsgroup, but I 
would advise checking sci.aeronautics if you are still interested in the 
subject.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: How much does this equipment cost? (Southern Watch)
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:44:59 GMT


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

In article <C124r2.7GJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@wam.umd.edu> writes:
>
>Oh.  One more thing.  What would happen if a Cruise missle were loaded
>with 1000lb of food?  Could it be used to shoot food to troops trapped
>behind hostile forces?  (Assuming we knew where the troops were, the
>missles were in range, etc.)
>

Well, I suppose that it would be possible, but very expensive.  I read an 
account of one similar attempt to resupply troops who were relatively isolated 
from friendly support. During World War Two, some fighter pilots filled their 
drop tanks with K-rations instead of fuel, and then dropped them over friendly 
troops.  They stopped when word came back that the drop tanks were nearly as 
dangerous as enemy artillery.  Remember that the Tomahawk moves at 500-700 mph,
and that it would have to land nearly on top of the friendlies in order to
ensure that they got the food.  Second, even if you ignore the threat to 
friendlies (!!!), the chances of an MRE surviving the impact in any kind of 
shape to be near-palatable are slim (Please withold all jokes regarding MRE 
taste, color, texture, etc.  I've eaten them, I know.  We call them Meals 
Refusing to Exit, in reference to their effects on "regularity")  

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute



Newsgroups: sci.military