HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD 
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:27:56 GMT


From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

>From dhanda@skorpio.USask.ca (Sanjay Dhanda)

> Can someone please post the approximate sizes of the top 5 armed forces of
>the world in each of the tree categories - Army, Navy and Air Force.

>Thanks.

I doubt that these are exactly the top 5 in those catagories, however,
I believe that these are the top 5 in terms of total manpower.

I'd take these numbers with a *large* grain of salt.  First, there's
all the tings that don't fit into an easy chart.  For example, the CIS
has 230,000 Border Guards, and 170,000 Internal security troups not
counted as army.  Nevertheless, this is a significant military force,
and ought to be counted somewhere.  Also, the CIS has *two* air
forces, one for tactical air, and the other for strategic defense
(I've combined them here).  Of course, even that description is a
horrible simplification.

Also, notice that not all men are created equal.  For exmaple, the U.K.
has only 87,000 men in the air force, and yet would probably have no
trouble in a straight fight with the Indian air force at 115,000

Also, notice that the totals do not add up right.  This is because of
all those things that don't fit, and because of the unified command
overhead, and probably other stuff.  Anyway, here is the chart.

>From the 1992 'Military Technology Special Edition" ...

		Army		Navy		Air Force	Total

U.S.		660,200		551,400		486,000		1,886,400
						(9032 aircraft)

C.I.S		1,300,000	420,000		880,000		3,400,000
(Whatever that is today ...)			~13,000 aircraft

China		2,300,000	260,000		470,000		3,200,000
						~4,900 aircraft

India		1,100,000	47,000		115,000		1,260,000
						~500 aircraft

Vietnam		1,100,000	36,000		20,000		1,260,00
						~300 aircraft

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:50:47 GMT


From d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)


In article <Bv3CIA.MK7@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>[...] The main purpose is to bring
>the sub to the surface by damaging it enough so that surfacing is the only
>recourse for the crew to live.

  That was indeed the stated policy of the former administration, and special
weapons like the Elma and Malin were developed. This approach apparently
failed (as the tactics of using depthcharges at safe distances to 'scare them
off' failed too) and nowadays the Navy apparently shoots to hit (and a hit
with a ASW torpedo on a target of the size we are talking about will be a kill).

>Don Palmrose

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rda834x@nella4.cc.monash.edu.au (J. Zufi)
Subject: Patriot & Scud issues
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:45:08 GMT


From rda834x@nella4.cc.monash.edu.au (J. Zufi)

All this patriot and Scud missile talk, interesting.
I have a file (somewhere, can't find it at the moment, but I am
looking) which is a detailed study of the Scud, all modifications,
all Iraqi modifications, and some fairly detailed anaylsis of Patriot
performance. This article was written in Issue 2, 1991 of Military
Technology - I have another which was written after the war, which is once
again a very detailed article.

Those who would like a copy, let me know.

zuf.


-- 
[  Jonathan Zufi                  | rda834x@nellads.cc.monash.edu.au   
[  Robotics & Digital Technology  | zuf@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au          
[  Monash Univeristy, Caulfield	  | "Why?" Topic on English Literature exam. 
[  Melbourne, Australia		  | "Why not?" Student answer, received 99%

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: lesher@coral.bucknell.edu (T. Lesher)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, USA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:39:57 GMT


From lesher@coral.bucknell.edu (T. Lesher)

In article <BvE5KC.2L0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu> writes:
>
>I am not familiar with the jelly donut or explosives conversion, but 75kg is 
>like a 120mm tank gun shell and 1650 m/s is far higher than its muzzle
>velocity. So if a 120mm tank gun is enough of an anti-tank weapon, surely that
>smart missle too.
>

Correct, Raymond.  But we are talking abouta a _kinetic_ weapon here,
ie, one that doesn't use explosives in the warhead.  It relies on the
kinetic energy of the projectile itself, similar to the firing of a
rather lareg bullet.  A 120mm tank gun shell is, I think, a good
antitank weapon; the question we're addressing is, can you have a good
antitank weapon of the stated size _without_ the charge in the
warhead?



-- 
		Tim Lesher, aka <lesher@bucknell.edu>

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: deichman@nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)
Subject: Re: Russian Anti-Satalite Weapon  
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:25:25 GMT


From deichman@nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)

Yes, Anti-Satellite weapons (ASATs) have been around for some time 
(as Mr. D'Arcy pointed out).  The Soviets had a system which would go
into a near-synchronous orbit with the target satellite, then detonate
once it got into range.  Of course, this took some time (since it usually
took a few orbits before it could get close enough) and gave the satellite
a chance to "outmaneuver" the incoming ASAT (granted, this took quite a
lot of the energy the sats carried, but survival outweighs longevity...).

 The U.S. flirted with a direct-fire missile launched from an F-15 during
the 1980s, but that effort was scrapped due to Congressional pressures 
and public disapproval.

 I suspect the Russians have maintained much of the Soviets' vaunted ASAT
capabilities, but with their budget crunch I don't think that ASATs are
very high on the agenda.  As for a quick and dirty way to rid yourself (and
your enemy) of a constellation of comm sats, a few exoatmospheric blasts 
with some nukes could do the job nicely.... :-)

-shane


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Summary: Do these dolts know anything?
Keywords: Patriot, effectiveness, media
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:36:24 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

Hello.

	I was unable to watch the show in question, but on A&E
last night there was supposed to be an "Investigative Report"
item on the effectiveness of the Patriot missile system during
Desert Storm.  I'm hoping somebody did watch it and can post a
synopsis of what was seen as the flaw.

	Based upon the short previews given, though, the big gripe
seems to be that the Patriot did not, in fact, intercept the
inbounds but instead merely exploded near them.  Gee, and I thought
nearly all anti-air missiles did this.  Last I heard, it is much
more likely to disable or destroy an inbound if you explode near it
and send chunkies into its vital areas than if you try to actually
hit the thing and then explode.  I suppose these same journalists
think that the tracers from machine guns shown sweeping over
Bhagdad were more effective than standard flak because they require
a true hit to do damage.  <sigh!>

	If I'm wrong on this, I'm sure somebody will elaborate, but
if the media starts reporting this sort of thing without doing the
very minimum of homework on it, one wonders who has an axe to grind.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Summary: The significance is in what it causes in the future
Keywords: Patriot SDI
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:19:12 GMT


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

The importance of this issue is in what happens as a result.  If you assume
that Patriot is an adequate counter-measure to IRBMs, your follow-up
program is point defense against (faster, better decoy-protected) ICBMs,
with the implication that ballistic missile defense is feasible with current
or near-future technology.  If you assume that Patriot is a counter-measure
of token effectiveness against IRBMs, your follow-up program is to develop
a real point defense against IRBMs, with the implication that point defense
against ICBMs is beyond us, and will remain so for a while, and by implication
that over-all ballistic missile defense is still a pipedream.

Since the truth seems nearer to the latter situation than to the former, and
since the US is presently spending large amounts of money to develop an
over-all ballistic missile defense system, and since a fair number of 
powerful people (with admittedly good track records) have staked their 
reputations on the success of that project, I'd say that the issue of how
effective Patriot was against SCUD is important.  Even more important would
be determining how effective Patriot is TODAY against a SCUD equivalent.
If point defense against IRBMs exists ->now<-, the implications for the 
future are the same as if it had existed a year ago.

                                              Steve   saj@chinet.chi.il.us

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
Subject: Re: Canadian Frigate Program
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:42:18 GMT


From grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)

In article <BvFzKx.Iw@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> HDKP000 <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA> writes:
>
>From HDKP000 <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA>
>
>
>  I would like to know any information regarding the
>City Class frigaes of the Canadian Armed Forces.
>I am especially interested in tthe weepons systems and
>ASW capabilities.
>
This info refers to HMCS Halifax FFH 330, taken from a brochure I received
when I toured the Halifax last month.

Displacement        4750 tonnes
Length Overall      134.1 meters
Beam                 16.4 meters
Hull Draft            4.9 meters
Navigation Draft      6.9 meters

Propulsion             1 Pielstick Cruise Diesel
                       or 2 LM2500 GE Gas Turbines

Speed                Greater than 28 knots
Electrical Power     four 850 kW diesel generators

Armament
Torpedoes           MK 46 (Ship and helicopter launched)
Missles             16 Vertically Launched Sea Sparrow SAMs
                     8 Harpoons
Guns                 1 Bofors 57 mm MK 2 gun
                     1 Phalanx Mk 15 Close in Weapon System
                   4x6 Barreled CHAFF/IR launchers
                 6x.50 Cal HMG

Complement         224 Officers and Crew with aircrew embarked

The Halifax carries one CH 124B Sea King helicopter. The Sea King 
carries sonobouys, a dipping sonar, and Mk 46 torpedoes. The Sea King
is to be replaced by the recently ordered EH101, which has increased
payload and endurance. 

The Bofors fires at 220 rounds per minute, able to engage surface and
air targets, and is operated remotely from the Operations Room.

The Sea Sparrows are operated in conjunction with 2 STIR fire control
radars.

The primary anti-submarine sensor is the Canadian Towed Array Sonar, 
but hull mounted sonars are also present.

*******************************************
Now, I have a few questions of my own. Isn't 16 Sea Sparrows cutting
it rather close? You never can have enough, but 16 seems like very few.

Another question: The new EH101 helicopter is big, and has a sizable
payload (I don't know exact numbers). Would it be possible to adapt it
to carry 1 or 2 Harpoons? This would seem like a good way to give a
little ship longer arms, provided the target doesn't have any CAP.
From: yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: AFROTC question
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:42:46 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


From yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh)

	I'm a freshman in AFROTC.  I have 20/800 vision, my major has absolutely
nothing to do with anything technical, and I'm female to boot.  Do I stand *any*
chance of being let near a plane?

Yuna Huh
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: acase@reed.edu (Andrew Case)
Subject: The Lake Baikal Monster
Summary: Request for info on experimental surface effect vehicle
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:29:13 GMT


From acase@reed.edu (Andrew Case)

I am looking for information on an experimental russian surface effect
vehicle, nicknamed, I believe, the "Lake Baikal Monster". I have
seen a picture of it somewhere (don't I wish I could remember where).
It consists of an aircraft-like fuselage with stubby wings, and
twin jet engines mounted at the nose. The engines are tilted
downwards and outwards so that the thrust is diredted under the
wings. I this (I gather) enhances the air cushion under the wings
and body of the craft, as well as providing thrust to move the craft
forwards.

Any information would be appreciated, most especially technical
information (yes, I realize that a complete set of plans is
likely to be hard to come by :-)).

Please email responses, and i will post a summary.
Thanks for your help. 

..............Andrew

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Sweden Attacks Sub-SUMMARY
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:50:30 GMT


From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)


   From the email and posts I've received on this incident, it seems that
   the Swedish Navy twice depth-charged an unidentified sub contact, and
   fired a homing torpedo at it, for 0 hits. The sub's acoustical signature 
   is similar to one involved in a previous incident involving a mother sub
   and 2 mini-subs, possibly with a track for travelling on the bottom.
   The speculation is that the Russian navy is behind it, for various
   suggested reasons.  Other ideas have been the UK, Germany and a scam by
   the Swedish Navy to justify their military budget.  In other words, 
   nobody knows.
   The Swedish Navy is apparantly able to sink unidentified sub contacts
   without waiting for approval from their Commander-in-Cheif.  The intent
   was to sink the sub, since a homing torpedo was used (as someone else 
   mentioned).

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca
From: knude@daimi.aau.dk (Per Knudsgaard)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:08:13 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark


From knude@daimi.aau.dk (Per Knudsgaard)

wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:


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

>In article <Bv1IJ6.29I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
>youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes: 
>I haven't heard about this paricular incident but I can make a few comments
>about similar cases in the past.  The Swedish have had several cases over the
>years of Soviet subs violating their territorial waters.  (In at least one case
>they actaully managed to ground a Foxtrot ;-)  I would assume that the Russian
>navy is probably responsible for this intrusion.

   Despite many years of trying, the swedes have only managed to identify or
"capture" ONE foreign submarine, namely the famous "Whiskey on the Rocks".
As a matter of fact, the Soviets grounded the submarine themselves, leaving
the swedes as surprised as the rest of the world. There have been plenty of
markings on the seabed, etc, but nothing solid. It is a very good guess that 
whatever is out there is Russian, but from one incident it is hardly a certainty.
If they caught one from time to time, I would be convinced. Maybe they should
try another kind of bait ;^)

   As I recall the incident, the swedes detected radiation from the submarine
leading to a a lot of guesswork in the papers about what kind of nuclear weapon 
was aboard - the Whiskey is not nuclear propelled. 
   Firstly, I would like to know if there have been any new disclosures in this 
matter in the last couple of years, and secondly, would this not lead to a less
aggresive attitude from the swedes? I would surely shoot, but make damned sure I 
missed if there was the slightest chance that whatever I was shooting after had
nuclear arms aboard.

   BTW, the original post was related to an incident within the last couple of 
weeks. According to my local paper, the difference between the usual rutine when
dealing with intruders, and this incident was that the swedes used "homing" torpedoes,
and not only depth charges as usual. That would mean that the swedes are stepping
up the confrontation. Is that right?
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:44:02 GMT


From labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)




	I would have to say that if we were to replace the A-6-s with
f-18's then we would loose about 500 nm range from the carrier's
air reach.thats a third of its reach. I think this would be very
bad. a 1500 nm round trip range is a hell of a reach that no other
carrier aircraft can boast. The f-18 and a-6 designs and intended
roles are too different. the A-6 is designed to carry a large store
of weapons and find a target a hell of a long way away. Sure they
dont have cannons but they do have a tremendous amount of surface
search sensors. The f-18 was designed to replace the a-7 corsair,
here different design philosopies. A long range slow attack air
craft is going to have a different area of speciality than a high
speed shorter range fighter/attack aircraft will. 
	One thing that bothers me is the plans to demobilise the f-14's
in favor of the f-18s as the air protection. Loss of the pheonix
would reduce the air to air range from 110nm to 24nm. The ability
to reach out and touch someone without their ability to touch back
is a huge advantage. The  soviets have this advantage with their
type 65 torpedoes (65 nm range). Again the ability to reach out and
touch someone is very great here. Think about it.

	Ryan M. Gill
	labrg@slab.cc.emory.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: AFROTC question
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:36:42 GMT


From "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>

I just re-read your post and noticed the 20/800 vision.  Sorry.  Pilot
training is definitely not in the cards, in either program.  If it's
correctable to 20/20 (which is doubtful, I presume) then you'd be
eligible for training as a Naval Flight Officer.  NFO's fill positions
such as Radar Intercept Officer in F-14's, Bombadier/Navigator in A-6's,
Tactical Coordinator in P-3's and S-3's, etc.  They are full-fledged
members of the aviation community, are often the Mission Commander of
their aircraft, and serve as the Commanding Officers of many squadrons. 
In a recent change of policy, they now receive SOME flight training
during their NFO training, but not much. 

                                       Captain Joseph D. Mazza, USN
                                       Commanding Officer, NROTC Unit
                                       and Professor of Naval Science
                                       Carnegie Mellon University

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: glock@chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto)
Subject: simunition
Organization: College of Business, University of Florida
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:27:27 GMT


From glock@chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto)

I have heard about rounds (reportedly used by the Marines) available in a 
multitude of calibers calles SIMUNITION; instead of a bullet the is a paint-
pellet.  A small charge propels the paint at 300fps.  Can someone send email 
me more information?  Specifically, I would like the manufacturer's name, 
address, and phone number.

Thanks.






Joe

****************************************************************
**                 GLOCK@chip.cba.ufl.edu                     **
**                                                            **
**     "When the going gets tough, the tough get a GLOCK."    **
****************************************************************
From: wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Keywords: Patriot, effectiveness, media
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:29:02 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


From wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <BvArGq.91I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>	Based upon the short previews given, though, the big gripe
>seems to be that the Patriot did not, in fact, intercept the
>inbounds but instead merely exploded near them.  Gee, and I thought
>nearly all anti-air missiles did this.  Last I heard, it is much
>more likely to disable or destroy an inbound if you explode near it
>and send chunkies into its vital areas than if you try to actually
>hit the thing and then explode.  I suppose these same journalists
>think that the tracers from machine guns shown sweeping over
>Bhagdad were more effective than standard flak because they require
>a true hit to do damage.  <sigh!>

There's been a *lot* of strong press on this subject, pro and con.
Claims of Patriot effectiveness during the war were overblown, and
IMHO current claims about it's ineffectiveness are also overblown.
It is a point defense anti-aircraft system with an upgrade that
allows it to engage missiles in their terminal phase. 

As a point defense system, it seems to have performed very well.
But as an area defense system, it's less than satisfactory against
incoming missiles. The problem is that while it may disable or
divert incoming missiles, it doesn't reliably destroy the warhead
or prevent debris from falling on civilian areas. There really 
isn't *any* system that can do that. The junk has got to fall,
and if the warhead hasn't exploded in air, it can when it strikes
the ground. As a defense for an airfield or tank park the Patriot
is superb, but as a defense for a city it's less useful.

The Patriot hasn't been blooded in it's original intended role
as a defense against attacking aircraft. I expect it can do that
job very well. The press would have treated it kinder if the
debris reaching the ground had been enemy aircraft. They understand
that. 

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.military