HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Subject: Re: Was RADAR's impact on the Battle of Britain overstated?
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:33:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.191812.25928@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney) writes:
>Apparently once the Battle of Britain began the British were intercepting the
>very attack plans that the German bomber crews were getting, including
>evasion and diversion tactics. This was what allowed the British fighter
>groups to attack so efficiently. The quality of the RADAR at that time did
>not provide anywhere near the definition required for the precise defence
>tactics that the British used.

One factor against such an argument is some of the reminicences of RAF
fighter pilots... most mention a gradual improvement in the radar data and
controlling as the BOB went along.  The EMIGMA data would work well enough
for strategic purposes (i.e., "we can stand-down 303 Squadron, since today's
raids will be light and restricted to the south") but I sure wouldn't want
to deploy my forces hour-by-hour based on what a week-old decoded
operations plan said.

What I think is even MORE interesting is the theory put forth in PIECE OF
CAKE (somehow left OUT of the TV series....), which simply stated that the
whole Battle of Britain was a wasted effort as far as preventing
a German invasion of England.  The sluggish, unwieldy barges the Germans
had assembled would require at least 36 hours transit from the invasion
ports to Dover in even the BEST weather.  That'd mean they'd have to spend
at least one night in the Channel; a night during which the Royal Navy
would have free reign (hard enough for a bomber to hit a MTB or destroyer 
driving at 30 knots in the daytime).  Most of the major anchorages were
within eight hours' steaming of the probable invasion beaches... they'd be
able to sail at dusk to minimize the aircraft threat.  

The destroyers' wakes alone would have been enough to capsize scores of 
barges.  And even their lightest secondary weapons would have been sufficient
for those barges lucky to escape the waves.  Hitler might have been faced
with 50% casualties even before the first soldier landed.

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@plato.ds.boeing.com
From: martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk (Martin Briscoe)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Was RADARs' impact on the
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk (Martin Briscoe)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371


JY.A friend was telling me about a book he read that described the exploits of the
  .British code-breakers during WW2. One of the things he said was that this
  .group had broken most of the German codes including the first generation
  .ENIGMA by the end of the battle for France (a substantial amout of help came
  .from anti-nazi German military personnel). This was such a closely guarded

From what I remember from various books on Bletchley Park, the
information from ENIGMA could be very patchy at times.

Attack Warning Red by Derek Wood is worth a read - it is about the
Royal Observer Corps which tracked the incoming aircraft with a simple
optical sight.  They were often able to give very accurate information
once the German aircraft crossed the coast.

               Martin

 * 1st 1.02b #405 * Martin Briscoe - Fort William - Inverness-shire - Scotland
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal 
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 07:59:42 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1i9otoINNi6t@transfer.stratus.com> kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com writes:

  > 
  > 
  > On the topic of WWII fighters.  I always see p51s (in movies,
  > documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
  > polished metal finish.  Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
  > painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
  > Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense.  A lot of
  > the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though.  Does anyone know
  > the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
  > color?

From '43 or so on the Yanks figured that they could save considerable 
weight on their a/c by leaving them "polished".  Only black anti-glare 
panels were painted.  I saw some figures many years ago in an old 
"Mechano " magazine dating from 1946 or '47 which gave the weight 
savings as a few hundred pounds on the B-17 & B-24's.  This would 
translate to faster climb, extra payload and/or less fuel consumption.

Who the hell needs camoflage @ 24,000 feet with 10 mile long contrails 
giving away your position anyway??

The other main reason for painting a/c is corrosion prevention.  Since 
these a/c were not pressurised (hence had less fatigue problem, not 
that the engineers knew about this then anyway), and had a shortish 
life expectancy, this might have been seen as a minor loss.



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: WAS RADAR'S IMPACT ON
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:17:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> What I think is even MORE interesting is the theory put forth in
-> PIECE OF CAKE (somehow left OUT of the TV series....), which simply
-> stated that the whole Battle of Britain was a wasted effort as far as
-> preventing a German invasion of England.  The sluggish, unwieldy
-> barges the Germans had assembled would require at least 36 hours
-> transit from the invasion ports to Dover in even the BEST weather.
-> That'd mean they'd have to spend at least one night in the Channel; a
-> night during which the Royal Navy would have free reign (hard enough
-> for a bomber to hit a MTB or destroyer

I would have to disagree. If the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF they
would have had free reign in the channel and the Royal Nazy would have
had great difficulty operating at all. As we discovered in the Pacific
warships are quite vulnerable to aircraft. I suspect the Luftwaffe could
have neutralized the Royal Navy if they had Air Supremacy. It is even
possible that the German surface Navy could have been brought into play.
With continuous air cover the German capital ships could have moved
fairly easily.
                                        Rocky
From: cpatten@flash.pax.tpa.com.au (Craig James Patten)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines
Date: 5 Jan 1993 21:02:54 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide)
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au

mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:

>This was all news to me, as the sketchy info I have on this engine 
>(J58 (JT11D-20B)) simply calls it a low-bypass ratio turbofan with 
>afterburner.

>Anyone know any details?

My [also sketchy] data states here that the J58-1 (JT11D-20B) is a
"continuous bleed afterburning turbojet". 

Craig.

 --------------------------------------------------------
|    Craig Patten - Internet: cpatten@pax.tpa.com.au     |
|       -- Witty .sig still under development --         |
 --------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Re: Why didn't Luftwaffe paint propeller tips?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:11:20 GMT

In article <lkm6asINN164@news.bbn.com> cwilliam@BBN.COM (Chris Williams) writes:
>
>Anybody know?  I've looked at thousands of photos of WWII aircraft, and
>it appears that the Luftwaffe is the only air force that didn't paint
>some sort of bright warning color on their propeller tips.
>
>Later in the war, this might make sense as better comouflage while on
>the ground.  But there were no painted tips even in the early air-
>supremacy stages of the war.
>
>Could this be a cultural thing?  Might the practice have originated only
>with those countries that had carrier aviation, where there would be a
>greater risk of walking into a prop on a crowded carrier deck?

From what I can gather, the yellow tips on propellers, as well as
the yellow leading edge of the wings were used to help recognize
friendly aircraft in the heat of battle.  There were quite a few
instances of "us shooting down our own boys" early in the war.
The Germans either didn't have this problem, or used the lack of
yellow on these areas to identify friendlies.

>Chris Williams
>cwilliams@BBN.COM
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)        Disclaimer:  Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science                   even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario                    opinions!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Ultrasecret (Enigma)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:14:02 GMT

In article <1996@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>In article <93004.212754VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu> VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>
>The Enigma cipher machine was NOT a secret. It was produced by a poor
>impoverished inventor who offered it to everyone. The Germans added a
>few extra rollers to the machine and this is what was secret (and what
>the Poles worked out) The Engima machine was used by *everyone*. The
>British were arguing about whom to pay the royalities for their machines
>when the war broke out (there was some argument about who had the patent
>and they didn't want to tell a German they had adopted the machine) The
>Japanese and Americans used it too. The US used a special version of it
>with about 14 extra rollers I think.

	The machine was patented in about 1927.  The Japanese machine
	(PURPLE) and the U.S. machine (SIGABA) were formally similar but
	different in practice.  SIGABA in particular was a monstrous
	object.  It used 10 rotors, one or two of which were eccentrically
	mounted and had a few other neat features that made it too
	large to be portable (two very large, very heavy boxes).  I
	think it was William Friedman's revenge on the Japanese.
>
>>It wasn't duck soup because the "key" was changed daily, but a significant
>>number of top-level German messages were deciphered.
>
>The Germans were often very lazy using 4 keys in a diagonal down the
>key board or repeated the same key over and over again.

	Known as "sillies" at Bletchley Park (see "Hut Six Story" by
	Welchman.).  A system is only as secure as its users, like
	the German outpost in the Western Desert that faithfully
	changed the key at midnight, and promptly sent the message
	"Nothing to report."

	Alec Chambers
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Finnish Defense
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:23:03 GMT
Organization: Chalmers Tekniska Lekskola, G|teborg, G|taland

In article <STEINARB.93Jan3140710@tindved.idt.unit.no> steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang) writes:
>> ...  FA-18 is much slower than Mi-29 but has very elegant and
>> effective weaponry.
>
>As Yeager pointed out in his autobigraphy:

  Yes, Chuck Yeager, the man who has to fly two-seaters to get his ego to
fit inside the plane:)

  Seriously, the largest difference between the F/A-18 and the MiG-29 aside 
from the weapons loadouts (and it would take major engineering and trials to 
get the MiG to accept western weapons) is that the MiG require significantly
more maintainance, eats spare parts including new engines like candy (and
who knows if the Russians will be able to deliver spare parts in 5 years?)
and has anachronistic electronics (no scratch that. I see in 'flygplankort'
that the F/A-18 dates from the 70's).

-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."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: *** AF F15 Eagle/Strike Eagle vs. Navy F14 Tomcat ***
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:27:08 GMT

In article <1689@blue.cis.pitt.edu> nahst6+@pitt.edu (Nathan A Horstman) writes:
>Which one is better?  I KNOW the F15 is supposed to be better, but I have a
>Jet Combat Simulation Game (very realistic) that would make the Navy F14
>Tomcat a little better.  Any facts/opinions?
>
>Question:  according to Rand McNally Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft (or
>something like that) the F15A (Eagle) has a ceiling of 100,000 feet while
>the Strike Eagle it lists it as 60k something.  Is one figure or the other
>wrong?  

Perhaps Rand McNally should stick to Map Making.  The SR-71 is only 
listed as a ceiling of 85K Feet, and the MiG-25 Foxbat at 88K feet.
Of course, we all know the SR-71 goes above that right? ;-)
The F-15 has a service Ceiling of 60K+ 
As for the rest, I dont have the figures handy for
comparison, nor do I know enough.  But, I would hazard a guess 
that you shouldnt put too much weight into simulators.
Even though they may be pretty good, they are typically 
slightly biased.  IE I have a game that lets certain aircraft 
evade SAM and AAA easily.  Yet, one hit from AAA in another results
in engine failure.  I dont want to bias anyone, so I will leave the
title out, because I cant prove this, its only happens occasionally.
I know stories of F/A 18's Taking direct hits from sam's in the engine,
and flying home in the other.
But anyhow, lets see what the more informed have to say
about flight characterstics.  I havent studied either much,
but I would have to say it all depends on the mission.
After all, the F-14 is an interceptor and the F-15 is more
of a strike aircraft.

Derek

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.owning
From: rosso@netcom.com (Ross Oliver)
Subject: In search of information about MiG ownership
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:54:15 GMT


I am investigating the purchase of a Russian MiG jet with
the possibility of operating it as an airshow act.  I would
appreciate hearing from anyone who has experience with MiGs
specifically, or warbirds in general, such as:

- Licensing: are warbirds licensed as experimental?  Are there any
  additional requirements for foreign-built aircraft?

- Pilot qualifications: would a type rating be necessary?

- Insurance: is it even possible?

- Maintenance: I have read in magazine articles that early jets
  can actually be simpler to maintain that older piston aircraft.
  Is this really true?  What kind of maintenance does a 30-year-old
  jet engine require?

- Investment potential: most 50's and 60's era jets seem fairly
  cheap compared to WWII aircraft.  Will the jets appreciate as
  well, or linger at their current levels?

As I am just starting to gather information, I'm not even sure what
questions I should be asking.  Any other info or recommendations
would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Ross Oliver
rosso@netcom.com
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Air Combat Lingo questions
Date: 10 Jan 93 06:26:00 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan9.232904.5551@tcsi.com>, jrk@nittany.tcs.com (John Koper) writes...
>I saw the cockpit-footage of the F-16 shooting down the Iraqi MIG
>and had a few questions about the lingo used by the pilot:
> 
>1) "Fox #" : where # is 1, 2, etc.
>	- I know that Fox signifies missile, what does the number signify.
>	  Is it the number of missiles fired from a specific plane or is
>	  a type of missile (e.g. 1 = AMRAAM, 2 = Sparrow, etc.)?
> 
>2) "Got Tone"
>	- The newscaster said that this indicated that the missile had
>	  been launched but I thought it was that the missile had locked
>	  onto the target.  If it is "locking on", is it the plane or
>	  the missile that locks on?  Can the missile pick up the target
>	  while still attached to the plane or does the plane dump the
>	  missile guidance info just before being launched?
> 
>3) "Splash"
>	- Does this signify that the missile has hit the plane or that
>	  the plane has crashed?
> 

	FOX 1 is the launch of a radar guided missile, both active homing
and semi-active homing. Usually is AIM-7 or AIM-120. The number does not
specify. FOX 2 is the launch of a IR homing missile. Since the sidewinder,
AIM-9 is the only IR missile, the letter designator will follow, i.e.
AIM-9P is FOX 2 Papa. FOX 3 is launch of an unguided missile such as GAR-9.
These missiles dont exist any more so you won't here it. FOX 4 is the last
number you will hear about, and it is unofficial. It means that you are
about to have a mid-air collision. 

	Got tone means that the radar guided missile has locked on to the
target and the pilot is about to fire. The AIM-120 will track a target
isstlf while on the airplane, but the AIM-7 had to link with the fire
control computer to track targets prior to launch. 

	Splash means the enemy plane has been destroyed.

You might also hear " I'm judy" which means "I'm taking control of the
intercept" or "music" which means the pilot has weapons lock. 

This also from a Colonel in the AF. 

Peter Vasilion
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Air Combat Lingo questions
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:19:01 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:

>In article <1993Jan9.232904.5551@tcsi.com>, jrk@nittany.tcs.com (John Koper) writes...
>>1) "Fox #" : where # is 1, 2, etc.

>FOX 3 is launch of an unguided missile such as GAR-9.

I've read that in RAF usage, Fox 1, 2 and 3 is for IR, radar
and gun -- but I'm not sure in what order. I guess you can
lump guns and rockets together as beeing "unguided".
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Flying Wing Stability
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:30:06 GMT

In article <1713@tdat.teradata.COM>, wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com (William Jones) writes:
|> A coworker recently visited the facility here in Southern Cal where one of the
|> prototypes of the Northrup Flying Wing Aircraft is being restored. His tour guide
|> remarked that the Flying Wing was a very easy aircraft to fly, and that it was
|> very stable.
|> 
|> This doesn't jive with what I've read about the Flying Wing. I've read that the
|> thing was highly unstable and difficult to fly. In fact it was this instability
|> that lead to the death of the Colonel Edwards who's the namesake of Edwards AFB,
|> and eventually contributed to the cancellation of the program. The same article
|> mentioned that a flying wing design is more feasable today, given modern computer
|> based flight control systems - such as those that make the B2 flyable.
|> 
|> What's the real story on the Flying Wing's airworthyness?

The flying wing configuration can be designed to be completely stable and
to give acceptable handling qualities.  I looked at this quite a few years
ago, so the following is subject to memory bit rot, but the YB-35 was stable.
The largest problem, especially with the jet powered version (YB-48?) was
that the yaw damping was a bit marginal and a yaw damper was required to
give acceptable bombing accuracy.  This was, I recall, the first full time
stability augmentation system used on an aircraft.  (In the YB-35 the prop
disk aerodynamics added yaw stability, this was missing in the jet version).

The B-2, I believe, is somewhat unstable in pitch (and probably also in yaw)
and does require the active fly-by-wire system to stabilize it.  From the
published statements, the handling qualities (with the computer on...) are
very good.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell)
Subject: Re: *** AF F15 Eagle/Strike Eagle vs. Navy F14 Tomcat ***
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:19:56 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Dan Sorenson (viking@iastate.edu) wrote:
: 
: 	Just sort of a shot-in-the-dark, but I seem to recall the F-14
: radar could also send information to another F-14 arriving on station,
: which for some reason was considered a Good Thing to do.  I thus have
: to assume that radar data is stored for a decent period of time, and
: possible intercepts maintained and updated on-board.  It makes
: sense if you're flying CAP and there's civilian or unknown traffic about
: you just wish to monitor, not target.
: 
: 	Does this ring a bell with anybody?  I have no idea where I
: heard this at, but I'm fairly certain it was in reference to the F-14.
: I only remember this because I tried to figure out the data transfer
: rate and was quite impressed.  If the F-15 doesn't have this, it might
: be considered another advantage of the F-14, in certain circumstances.
: 
: < Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
:

Not sure, but you may be thinking of NTDS (Navy Tactical Data System),
which, in the F-14, is capable of two-way transfer of radar and contact
data to other NTDS units.  When it works, it could indeed be a 
significant advantage.  Track data is relayed, not raw radar video (i.e.
target course/speed/altitude/raid count/ew data, etc.)
--Tomcats can link with AWACS, but I don't know what data capability the
Eagle has. 


Jeff
former Naval Aviator
(there-that oughta satisfy random jarheads)
((but see, this way they don't know I was a jet driver, and everybody
knows that's the only REAL pilots in the Navy 8-) ))
From: janm@Haag.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-10 TANKERS FOR SR-71??
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:48:14 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
Reply-To: janm@bern.docs.uu.se
NNTP-Posting-Host: haag.docs.uu.se
Organisation: Dept. of Comp. Syst., Uppsala University, Sweden

rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) writes:

>I recently started one about a potential third world war between Nato
>and Warsaw pact. Written by an Australian Mil Intel fellow. It started
>off with an F-18 shooting a ship with a Penguin Anti-Ship Missile then
>using the other one to shoot down a Russian Recon plane. Of course while
>this was going on the F-14 were bombing the heck out of a nearby Russian
>Airfield with Mavericks! I didn't make it to the second chapter. <g>


Is this Ian Slater's "WW III"? I thought it was tremendously funny, but I
don't think the author had intended it to be funny...
I wonder what he did in the Australian Mil Intel. Worked in the canteen?
Or maybe he worked with disinformation. ;-)
--
Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
janm@minsk.docs.uu.se
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: F-16/AMRAAM Footage on CNN
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:13:37 GMT
Organization: Chevron


 CNN was showing the cockpit video of the F-16/AMRAAM shoot-down
 of that Iraqi Mig-25 today (Fri, 1/08, 3:00 pm CST)

 Really not much different from all the other Gulf A-A footage.

 Travis