HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:00:53 GMT


From megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <Bu9H6p.Euz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>Speaking about the stealth, I was wondering exactly how the F117 stealth 
>flies.  Yes, I have heard that on board computers adjust the surfaces of the 
>plane, but I don't understand what parts of the surface and what happens 
>if there is an engine mailfunction and the power shuts down?  Sounds kind

Standard Fly-By-Wire really. The F-16 couldn't stay in the air without it's
computers, it's dynamically unstable. The X-29 would disintegrate in 1/40th
of a second at Mach speeds if all its computers were to fail.

The F-117 is pretty normal, It has flaps, airelons, and rudder-vators.

It's similar to the 16 in the dynamic unstability effects.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Re: Escorts (Was: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:36:44 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


In <BuF2xr.7yH@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> janm@Dublin.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson) writes:


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

>I was under the impression that there wasn't much need for escorts towards
>the end of the war. Didn't the B-29s fly without escort?

Is this because most Japanese fighters could not reach the heights
that the B29 could reach ?

--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: 10006
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:40:47 GMT


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <Bu0Cv6.5w6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu writes:
>I've been following this discussion with great interest, and I've learned
>a great deal about one of my current favorite topics: The military
>activities of the early Roman Empire in the east. Could anyone out
>there offer sugestions other then the WRG books and Osprey books
>on the Roman campaigns against the parthians after 53 BC ?.

Cary and Scullard's _A_History_of_Rome_ isn't great on military
events, but it does spend a little time on the Parthian campaign.

Some of Plutarch's _Lives_ also mention it, specifically the _Life_of_
Crassus_ and _Life_of_Antony_.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)
Subject: Re: The Typhoon Class Submarines
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:53:59 GMT


From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)

In article <Bu9Ht6.GqG@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes...
>I have not been following Russia lately but what is to become of the new 
>Russian, Typhoon class submarines?  Are they going to be cancelled or what?
>I would appreciate any comments.

From what I last read, the Typhoons were all in the process of being
moth-balled (sp?).  It is apparently too costly to continue using them
in active patrols.  Even before the Break-up of the USSR, there was 
indications that production of the Typhoon would be suspended due to cost.

As to what their final disposition will be I haven't heard.

SJRD

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:29:31 GMT


From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)

In article <BuBLDI.FwA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:

>Here's a little more pure speculation:
>
>Remote-control tanks.  Remember Atari's old Tank Battle
>arcade game?

Atari didn't have teams of top scientists working on ways to jam or take
over your control mechanisms. I believe that unless you use wire to
transmit your control inputs, you'd lose these tanks rapidly. Use of
wire presents other problems, of course.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | It is commonly agreed that the inventor of a weapon
                    | used to kill and maim must share in large measure
George Patterson -  | the guilt for its thousands of victims. By the way,
                    | who DID invent the bicycle chain?
                    |                            Kelvin Throop
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Misc
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:31:21 GMT


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.
(This partly explains US Navy's interest in fluidic computers.)

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.

Brithish Aerospace, Saab and Thomson-CSF have started to study a
100 km stealthy air-air missile with an active radar seeker. In
service date of the S225X could be 2000. It will use the same
stealthy Thomson-CSF seeker as Active Skyflash. Rocket/ramjet
propulsion is evaluated.

Some Indian Vijayanta tanks will be upgraded, the laser range-
finder can pulse once per second for 10 seconds, then it needs 30
"rest". (I always thought you could use them as much as you
wanted.)
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: trh@ukc.ac.uk (T.R.Hopkins)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:11:12 GMT


From trh@ukc.ac.uk (T.R.Hopkins)



>From rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)


>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 first V-2 (A4) was fired on June 13 1942, the second on October 14 1942.
Hitler was very impressed and ordered 5000 to be built immediately. Speer makes
the point in "Inside the Third Reich" 

   Even 5000 long-range rockets, that is more than 5 months' production, would
   have delivered only 3750 tons of explosives; a single attack by the
   combined British and American air forces delivered a good 8000 tons.

(Moreover Hitler would not support the development of a heavy bomber. Rather he
insisted that the Me-262 be used as a jet bomber rather than a fighter. It
could carry a load of little more than a 1000 lbs.)

The first V-2's were fired at England at the beginning of September 1944 -- not
5000 at one go but 25 over a period of 10 days.

I'd argue about the use of the term "mass destruction" -- wasn't there a
successful deception that convinced the Germans that the V-2's were
overshooting resulting in a lot of the later missiles falling short of the
capital?


Tim
From: gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: 10006
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:11:29 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


From gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu

I've been following this discussion with great interest, and I've learned
a great deal about one of my current favorite topics: The military
activities of the early Roman Empire in the east. Could anyone out
there offer sugestions other then the WRG books and Osprey books
on the Roman campaigns against the parthians after 53 BC ?.

Also I'd be interested in any recorded instances of the parthians using
camels or elephants against their oponents .

One last topic that I hope someone could enlighten me on.
How did the parthians fare against oponents whose force structure was
also cavalry heavy, I.E. The Sassanids and the later Roman Empire.

Thanks  enentsiism0
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Craig Garnett '87 <cgarnett@amhux1.amherst.EDU>
Subject: Re: Expansionist China
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:28:26 GMT


From Craig Garnett '87 <cgarnett@amhux1.amherst.EDU>

General war in Asia is pretty unlikely. You might, under certain
conditions, see something ugly going on in that chain of islands (the
Spratleys, I believe). But for things to get close to you down in
Australia, troops would have to cross a number of borders, which is
usually guaranteed to result in serious international opposition. While
China could admittedly veto any Security Council resolutions authorizing
use of force against them, the Chinese have enough problems without
getting involved in a general war that'd piss a lot of people off. That
would really kill of their economic modernization plans, would probably
cost them Hong Kong, and given their "internal difficulties", might give
rise to uprisings. There's also enough military power in the region that
China would have to worry about being invaded themselves. Russia and
China have never been fond of each other, and India and China have some
disputes, too. 

Should Chinese troops get close to Australia, though, I'm certain that
not only the US, but just about everyone in sight would be involved. By
then, things would be so far out of hand that everybody with a gun (or a
sharpened stick, in the case of the Chinese Army) would be out shooting
and stabbing already. :)

Don't worry. If the US and the Soviet Union managed to never start
shooting at each other directly, the Chinese will find enough common
sense not to do something really dumb.

-C

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:50:48 GMT


From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)

  What was the CEP and range of the V-2 (A-4) rocket?

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:51:08 GMT


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

>From yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
>
>During WW2 some of the British were of the opposite opinion.  They wondered
>why the Germans were building the V2 at all.  The V2 was an extremely
>expensive device for its day; it used fifteen tons of steel and propellant
>to deliver a ton of explosive to the target.  In addition it used some rather
>sophisticated electronics and precision mechanical parts.  The V1 -- the
>first cruise missile -- was more cost-effective, even though it was shot
>down 4 times out of 5.  Rocket propellant is much harder to make than the
>simple fuel (something like gasoline) that the V1 used.  

I suspect it takes more time/effort/energy/facilities to refine the avgas
used by the V1 than to produce the alcohol and liquid oxygen used by the
V2.

The Red Army, btw, was delighted to have captured a trainload of alcohol
destined for V2 use near the end of the war.  Some probably wondered
why the Germans were transporting so many thousands of liters of vodka,
though.  (It was ethanol, not denatured, and probably produced from
potatoes.

>And inertial
>guidance systems are harder to make than autopilots.

Both weapons' guidance systems relied on gyroscopes, though maybe not
the same types.  (The V1 also needed a compass for azimuth direction,
but I don't remember if it was magnetic or gyrocompass.)



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:41:45 GMT


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

In article <BtusMK.JGp@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes:

|P-factor (though it's called something different) is also why you
|can't make a conventional helicopter that flies faster than about 200
|knots or so.  Say the rotor is going around clockwise.  Then the rotor
|blades are going forward (adding the aircraft's airspeed to their own)
|on the LEFT side of the aircraft, and going backward (subtracting
|etc.) on the RIGHT side of the aircraft.

Yes! This is a rather extreme form of P-factor, which gets worse and 
worse as you add to the velocity of the relative wind. If you think 
about it Airwolf was silly because eventually the airspeed would equal 
the speed of the receding blade and you'd be producing lift off one side 
of the rotor disk only. They could at least have made it a twin rotor 
helicopter  9-)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:48:54 GMT


From fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)

Here's a little more pure speculation:

Remote-control tanks.  Remember Atari's old Tank Battle
arcade game?  Construct a very heavily armored / protected
command post, and use remote operators to drive / fight
the tanks.  Reduced mass due to less crew protection systems,
no interior noise requirements, ability to use toxic fire-
fighting systems, smaller profile, more fuel space,
or combinations of above.

Thoughts / comments / criticisms?

- JWL IV

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Why the single-engined for SE Asia ? (was Re: F16 vs Mig29 for Malaysia)
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:01:29 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


In <BuF2xz.7zp@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eoahmad@ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:


>From eoahmad@ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)

>Malaysia is offered by USA for 30 F16 at bargain prices. At the same
>time Mig29 is also offered, I believe at cheap prices. Even if Mig29 were

[Comparsions between the MiG29 and F16s deleted]

I can't understand why all the South East Asian countries are all buying
the F16s ?  Example, recently Taiwan, Singapore, and now Malaysia.
Most of these countries are in the Pacific and surely their aircraft 
would spend a lot of time over water.  The last thing you want is to
have a single-engined fighter losing an engine and crashing into the
sea.  I thought Australia's decision to buy the F18 was very wise.
So why F16s ?
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: claris!qm!James_Zuchelli@decwrl.dec.com (James Zuchelli)
Subject: Question on Aurora
Organization: Claris Corp
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:32:44 GMT


From claris!qm!James_Zuchelli@decwrl.dec.com (James Zuchelli)


Since Aurora is a highly speculative craft, definately there is something
there but who knows exactly what, what can one ask or post about it?  Since,
it is a secret project is one free to post whatever one wants or are their 
limits.

How free and open is discussion on projects like this?

I only know what little I have read here, in magazines and the papers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is my personal opinion and does not represent that of Claris Corp.
or my employer.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Subject: F-15H?
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:37:38 GMT


From holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)


So what's this two-seat air-superiority version of the Eagle?  Did the
Air Force change its mind about how many pairs of eyes should be in an
air superiority fighter?

[ mod note -- I'v haven't heard anything about the F-15H (unless there was
an F-15F and an F-15G that never made it into service, the next major mod
would make the F-15 the F-15F).  I imagine that you are refering to the
F-15E Strike Eagle, which is designed for strike missions as well as being
able to perform the air to air role -- Steve ]
--
Brian Holtz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Subject: Fighter escorts (was Re: The German V-2 Rocket)
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:41:11 GMT


From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)

>From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
> Luftwaffe.  The big attrition of the Luftwaffe really didn't begin to
> roll until Doolittle took over and ordered the fighters to go seek the
> Germans out instead of hanging around the bombers waiting for them to
> be attacked.

As far as I recall, the German fighter commanders wanted to do it like
this in the Battle of Britain (i.e., hunt the British fighters on
their own), but were ordered to stay close to the bombers.  I've seen
several references to this over time.

--
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:10:52 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


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

ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:


>From ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)

>Just for reference, production of the A-10 was terminated in 1982, with a 
>total buy of 707 aircraft; quite a sizeable number, actually.  Does anyone
>have figures on the A-10 attrition rate?

I seem to recall a figure of 2-3 aircraft lost per year in training accidents.
Don't remember where I saw it, though, so I can't confirm it.  Anybody?

Tom Zych  tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Stealth power failure
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:10:37 GMT


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

In article <BuF34t.89E@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> cbarilleaux@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Cyberpreppie) writes:

|	The F-16 uses a fly-by-wire system like the F-117, though it is not
|NEARLY as computer dependent as the F-117. So, a simple question is: what does
|an F-16 pilot do if his power goes out.

I've heard that the F-16 is tail heavy enough that if the 
computer goes out or goes awry it will be too unstable for 
a human to fly.

|	As I recall, the F-16's control surfaces are moved by electrical servo
|moters. So, having power out is just a tad bit of a problem.
|	If I remember correctly,  the A-6 has some sort of system wich
|a "windmill" can be deployed to generate backup power. Am I right? Do other
|aircraft use such a system.

This is the "RAT" (Ram Air Turbine) system that was discussed on 
sci.aeronautics a while back. Apparently they built one into the
767 but not into many of the earlier Boeings (eg. 747).

|The pilot was supposed to press a red button, then eject--a delay was
|placed to allow the pilot adiquate time to bail out. 

|	At least that's what they told the pilots...

I doubt they would have lied to them about this.. after all after the
first few times the pilots would catch on, or even worse, rumours would
start flying..

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: techsy005@spacm1.spac.spc.com (Fred Franceschi)
Subject: Was it Aurora
Organization: Security Pacific Automation Co., LA, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:28:07 GMT


From techsy005@spacm1.spac.spc.com (Fred Franceschi)

I live in an area (Saugus) between Los Angeles and Palmdale/Edwards AFB.

On Sunday, 13 Sep, at 0730, there was an interesting contrail
(or set of contrails) overhead.

The contrail started, went a fair distance, and stopped. The contrail
looked like that of a single engine jet aircraft, with "puffs" to one side
but touching the main contrail. Most puffs were evenly spaced and about
1/2 thumb apart (extended arm). In a couple of places, there were two
puffs almost touching.

The sky was clear a few minutes earlier. I went inside, then came out
and saw the contrail. I did not see it being created or see the aircraft
that made the contrail.

Speculation:  Was it Aurora or Aurora with a chase plane?

This reminds me of the time I saw an SR71 that had taken off from Palmdale
in about 1971-72. The shape was so strange and the thing disappeared so
fast that I did not know what I had seen until many years later, when SR71
photos were released.
-- 

Fred Franceschi
techsy105@spacm1.spac.spc.com
    
My statements may not be my companys.
Brilliant, witty saying goes here.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Subject: Re: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:14 GMT


From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)


>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>
>>Maybe also for night arrasment missions (do not let 'em sleep).
>
>The Americans did this to Japanese air bases during WW2.. Send a 
>bomber at night to drop _one_ bomb once every hour or so..
>

  And the Germans, dunring WWII, in the Eastern front used the old
[bi]planes for this purpose on the supply lines o f the Russians.

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos

Newsgroups: sci.military