HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlbell@knuth.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: Stealth power failure
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:10:49 GMT


From rlbell@knuth.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)

A massive power failure of a stealth jet would be handled the same as a similar
failure in a conventional civilian airliner.  Several years ago, an AirCanada
737 was improperly fueled and lost all power while at 35,000 feet.  An 
auxillary turbine was exposed to the airstream to provide power for the
hydraulic and electrical systems while the aircraft was glided to an abandoned
airstrip for an emergency landing.  The nosegear failed to lock, but none of
the passengers or crew were hurt.  The pilot's reward for safely bringing his
unpowered aircraft back to the ground was a severe reprimand, because it was
his responsibility to ensure that the aircraft had sufficient fuel to reach
its destination with an adequite reserve.

[mod note -- this was not a 737, but was either a 757 or 767 ]
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Greg Spencer)
Subject: Expansionist China
Summary: What the hell is china doing
Organization: Elec Eng, Univ of Western Australia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:33:51 GMT


From spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Greg Spencer)

Reading the local papers here in Australia I am getting the feeling that
the region is becomming more and more unstable. Tiawan has just bought a
how pile of F-16`s china is buying heaps of Russian military equipment
including fighters aircraft carriers etc etc.  Also the is a land dispute 
over some small island between china Taiwan and Indinesia.  China has 
allready stationed troops on them and claiming ownership and the dispute 
could quite easily esculate!  The problem is that if it did, it would 
involve just about all the counties in this region leaving Australia just
south of a major War zone.  The question is, if this did happen would
china stop at indinesia or would they want to visit the almost completly
undefened Australia.  And if so, what would the U.S. of A do about it?
We have allready seen that relations between us and the US can be strained
just because it's election time in the states - would they be willing
to defened an alied country like Australia whose only real asset is a 
bunch of realy freindly people, during an election?


Who Knows

Greg Spencer


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:00:40 GMT


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

pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:


>From pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)

>fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:


>>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

>>Thoughts / comments / criticisms?
  Mobility for CP? It would take a lot of airlift or sealift(slow) to 
transport heavy and bulky CPs, like this is going to be, to the theatre.
Also tact mobility. Even the trasmission link would have a range limit.
The CPs would have to move sooner or later.
  Emissons. The CP would have to maintain a link(probably radio), to the
remote tanks. This would leave them open to DF and destruction by arty,
airstrikes etc. And if they are 'very heavily armoured / protected' they
would be slow and big. Even with air cover, AD, I owuld not want
to be in one of those sitting ducks.

>Just this - they have enough trouble trying to maintain a data link to a
>moving car in a non-hostile environment (just look at the TV camera pictures
>during a Formula I race some time.)  Add to the heat, shock and electronic
>interference of that environment: explosions, enemy jamming, battle damage,
>etc.
  I think maintain a link would not be too much of a hassle. They can use
redundent systems, shock-protect the equipment etc. Those in cars are not
mil-type stuff.
  Also if all comms were gone but remote tank still active, there could be
a fallback plan which the tank automatically returns to a pre-fixed point
for recovery.

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


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anasaz!anasaz.briand@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:56:02 GMT


From anasaz!anasaz.briand@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (Brian Douglass)

In article <BuDF4v.Ftu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:
>
>This is *highly* debateable*. There is considerable evidence to indicate
>that Germany would have had the atomic bomb several months before the
>U.S. did, were it not for resources diverted to the Luftwaffe for use
>against the bombers. 

I have to disagree with this.  A report, on television, I saw a few years
ago stated that the Germans never got out of the batter's box on an atomic
bomb.  Yes they were playing around, but were 10 years away at the pace
they were going.  

As I said, this came out a few years as part of the debate of whether or
not Japan should have been nuked.  Some were saying that the US
deliberately misled German progress and knew this in 42-43, in order to get 
the bomb and punish Japan.  The response was that, yes, Oppie and crew found 
out after April 45, not before, that the German's weren't close, but so what?  
There was still a war on and their weapon was still necessary until they were 
told otherwise.  So, onward development went.

Disclosure about when the US realized the extent of German progress had
just been declassified under a Freedom of Information Act request, that I
think was initiated by this report.  Sort of as a way of settling the
issue.

-- 
"... For I have sworn upon the alter of god, eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man."  Thomas Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:04:59 GMT


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

In article <BuBLLC.GB3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>I have read a lot of articles about the V-2 rocket.  Wow!  I can't believe 
>those Germans could acquire space age technology.  I read articles about the
>mass destruction it did to London.  Why didn't the Germans just concentrate 
>all of their production efforts to building the V-2 and attacking London as
>opposed to even getting involved with a situation like the Battle of Britain.

The V-2 wasn't a very accurate weapon: You could hit a city with it,
but not a factory or an air field. The whole point of the Battle of
Britain was to attack military facilities, to assist a planned
amphibious invasion (operation Sealion, I think). When they couldn't
sufficiently damage English bases during the air campaign, they 
canceled the plans for an invasion, invaded the Soviet Union instead, and
shifted the attacks on Britain to non-military targets. As a terror
weapon, the V-2 was very effective, but as a tactical military weapon
it was very lacking...
 
                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:29:19 GMT


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

In article <BuBLLn.GC1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mark Miller <msmiller@ctbu.rational.com> writes:

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

This is *highly* debateable*. There is considerable evidence to indicate
that Germany would have had the atomic bomb several months before the
U.S. did, were it not for resources diverted to the Luftwaffe for use
against the bombers. Imagine an a-bomb on a V-2 for a couple of seconds.
The most likely scenario is that Britain would have surrendered in late
1945. Since plans were also on the drawing board at Dornier for a "New
York" bomber, the U.S. would probably have been accessible by 1947.

In addition to this, Eisenhower regarded the bombing campaign as a means
to eliminate the Luftwaffe as a threat to his forces on D-Day. The entire
series of raids known as the "Big Week" was designed to ground the German
fighters (at least temporarily). Without the daylight bombing raids in this
period, D-Day would not have occurred - ever.

Put jets into combat in 1943, and there is no invasion, Germany can devote
much more of its resources into the Eastern front, London is radioactive
vapor by 1946, and we're all speaking German by now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | 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: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:37:14 GMT


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


Or68 dzation: Chalmers University of Technology


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


In article <BtyIKs.8zo@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>Why is the top of a tank still the weakest point?

  The thickness of different part of the tank is most not a question of 
"what do we want there" but "what *can* we put there" due to weight and other
limitations.
  Most modern tanks have very heavy armour on the glacis (front of the hull)
and the front of the turret, medium on the sides and light on top and bottom.
This is mostly due to weight constraints: having a 100mm thick glacis weighs
much less than a 100mm thick bottom, top side or back simply because the
top and bottom are large slabs while the glacis is small.
  The glacis is usually angeled so that a penetrator have to pass through
more than the 100mm in this example, and it isn't feasible to angle the top
or bottom(1) to defeat attack from above or below without making the tank
more vulnerable to 'normal' horizontal attacks.

  The total weight of the tank is a big issue too: It is one of the things 
that determines it's top speed and ground pressure. So a tank has to be made
as light as is possible to do while it still is capable of performing it's 
mission.

>With the advent of
>tank killing helicopters, airplanes, self- forging munitions, and
>Cessna pilots armed with Super-soaker water guns, I'd think that this
>would no longer be the case.

  It is probable that the top and bottom protection of tanks can be 
increased slightly by increasing the armour thickness and significantly by
adding things like reactive armour, but it will still be much thinner than
the frontal armour.

  One also have to remember that the top of a tank is usually a much harder 
target than the front (or the sides). Any old gun can hit the front, but
to hit the top you have to place the gun in a plane (A-10), or use a missile
or some other kind of smart munition. This means that armour protection
(passive or reactive) isn't the only way the top can be protected. We will
likely see an increase in AAA (to keep the aircrafts and choppers away)
and ECM and various countermeasures (to fool missiles and smart munitions).

>David L. Smith
>smithd@discos.com or davsmith@nic.cerf.net

-bertil-
(1) Yes, there are AT mines that use shaped charges to punch through the bottom
    of a tank.
--
"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,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 9 September, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:44:06 GMT


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

Wednesday, 9 September, 1942

Germany announces the beginning of military conscription in
Alsace-Lorraine.

Sir K. Wood informs the House of Commons that Britain is spending 12.5
million pounds a day to finance the war.

Hitler relieves General List, commander of Army Group A.

Britain renews her offensive on Madagascar, landing troops on the island's
west coast and occupying Majunga.

RAF bombers hit Dusseldorf, using two-ton "Blockbuster" bombs.

Iran declares war on Germany.

A Japanese submarine-based float plane drops bombs near Brookings, Oregon,
starting a small fire.

Senator George, chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee, proposes a
five percent "Victory Tax" for all Americans earning more than $624 per
year.  President Roosevelt outlaws double-time pay for work on Sundays and
holidays.

Reporter: George Patterson (patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com)
Reference: "Ghosts" calendar, 1992

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker   Moderator, sci.military  military-request@att.att.com
(614) 860-5294      Send submissions to military@att.att.com

"It is difficult to make the Russians comprehend the difficulties of ocean
transport, as Russia is essentially a continent while we are an island."
- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Escorts  (Was: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:36:35 GMT


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

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

> 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?

They did initially, mostly bcause no fighter had the range to accompany
them all the way to the target and back, and also because it was
thought at the time that the height, speed and defensive firepower
would be enough to keep losses low.  This was the case in actuallity
although a significant number of B-29's were lost operationally due to
engine failures and fires.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:56:42 GMT


From umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)

In <Bu9Hsu.GpL@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:


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


>I recently read an article that claimed if the Germans had their Me-262's
>up a year earlier that they could have changed the outcome of the air battle
>especially over Berlin.  I would appreciate any comments on this.

>			
>				Rob
   Well, maybe and maybe not. The obvious answer would be to say yes, if the
Luftwaffe had placed the ME262 into production as soon as they could have,
and produced it in strength, and had enough good pilots and fuel to fly the
things, they would have slaughtered the USAAF. Probably true. However some
reports from American fighter pilots indicate that the ME262 wasn't quite
as untouchable as we have been led to believe. The problem was that attacking
lumbering bomber formations at 550 mph left precious little time for 
sighting and firing the guns. The result was that many ME262 pilots would
throttle back to about 400 mph in order to actually have a chance of hitting
anything. At this speed, of course, they could in turn be attacked by the
piston engined Mustang, which was a heck of a lot more maneuverable that
the heavy ME262. With a Mustang on his tail, the ME262 pilot would naturally
want to shove the throttles forward and run away. When he did this it would
either 1)work ok and he could speed away, 2)take so long for the primitive
turbines to spool up that he would be blown away before he could build up
speed, 3)the engines would flame out from having the throttles advanced too
quickly or 4)one or both engines would burst into flames (the fuel control
system on a ME262 wasn't the greatest)

  Of course, if the ME262 _were_ able drive the USAAF from the skies, I think
the most significant result would have been that a lot more German civilians
and pilots on both sides would have survived the war, and that the war itself
would not have been altered significantly (The German population never
did revolt, as the bombing of their cities was supposed to make them do, and
German armament production continued to increase right up til the end of
the war, in spite of the Allied bombing) I didn't really want to start a
"was the allied bombing worthwhile?" thread, but oh well...

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: A-4 Skyhawk and F-4 Phantom, last produced in ?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:26:46 GMT


From toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)

When did M-D produced the last of these two aircraft, or are either
of them still in production?  E-mail response is preferred, but
beggars can't be choosers.

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
toby@u.washington.edu

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the prosperity of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall
not be infringed."  Do you conclude from this that only voters
may own books?




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jac1@ra.msstate.edu (Jennifer Cox)
Subject: Re: Homestead AFB situation
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:41:28 GMT


From jac1@ra.msstate.edu (Jennifer Cox)

ganglia.megatek!rstewart@uunet.UU.NET (Rich Stewart) writes:


>have enough electoral for Bush to give them any money for the 150mph
>typhoon that flattened it two weeks ago, but Florida...

I guess the pork only goes where it will do some good.

>The rebuilding of the military base in Florida has NO military significants.

The Senate Appropriation (sp) Committee agreed with you.  They voted
money for the cleanup and said it needed to be closed anyway.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Fly-by-wire systems: Gripen
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:41:19 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>


megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:

>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.

This is about what was said about Gripen years ago, mainly by people
who thought that we should have gone for a conventional layout instead,
because the pilot wouldn't survive a FBW failure, as the aircraft would
break up very rapidly. Finally, Saab admitted that at such a failure,
the canard would be totally decoupled, permitting enough time for pilot
ejection.

It's even more remarkable than that. At a recent air-show, one of the
test pilots said that the canard could be decoupled, making the air-
craft stable, thus permitting it to be flown home with a simple analog
control system -- no artificial stability.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Fly by Wire (was Re: Autofocus and the Stealth)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:19:24 GMT


From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)

In article <BuKoCC.A9J@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes, in part:

>I thought the whole reason for fly by wire was so combat fighters could be
>designed to be unstable and hence more manouvreable?
	In part.  Turns out that the electronic/hydraulic/whathaveyou
	control linkage arrangement can take POUNDS off the a/c, simplify
	contol routing, allows for better redundancy, etc, and, done right
	IMPROVE reliability.  It takes some trials to get it done right...

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@majsty.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
Subject: Re: China and Expansionism
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:14:39 GMT


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

shane <DEICHMAN@cisco.nosc.mil> writes:


>From shane <DEICHMAN@cisco.nosc.mil>


>  To try to assuage Mr. Spencer's fears that Red China is 
>going to sow their wild oats of expansionism in the near 
>future (thereby threatening the close U.S. ally of Australia),
>let me reiterate what I've said before on this newsgroup:

>	Red China is a threat to nobody (except defenseless
>	Third World nations like Tibet, who lack both the
>	ability and the wherewithall to maintain a robust
>	resistance movement).  Exclamation point. Ibidum.
[history stuff deleted]
>  While China IS purchasing the VARYAG from Russia/Ukraine 
>(allowing them the finance the continued operation of the 
>disputed Black Sea Fleet until they formally split it in 
>1994), I doubt they will use it as the U.S. Navy uses their 
>carriers (i.e., power projection).  The Chinese have 
  Then what are they buying the VARYAG for?? I believe they are
getting -27U(carrier capable) as well. I don't think the Chinese
will just buy the Varyag and then not even try a bit of power
projection. aircraft carrier == power projection.

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

  While it is true that the Chinese military isn't very effective, it
is still one of the most powerful in the South Chine Sea. I don't think
Aussies would have to worry too much but the countries around the south
china sea would be a bit worried. Remember the potential flashpoint of
the Spratleys.

/***********************************************************/
				Liang Tian Soon
				liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au
/***********************************************************/
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:11:01 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.


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


  Is the U.S. trying to sell the A-10s to some countries?

  At the beginning of this year I had the opportunity to be in Chile just
for the FIDAE'92 and I was impressed by the U.S. delegation, which
included 3 A-10s. At that time I did think that this looked like a neat
marketing campaign for selling the plane.

  They may be more then a couple of countries interested in buying a few
A-10s.

  Any data on this?

  Also, are the Russians succeeding to sell their Su-25, and, how does it
compare to the A-10? It seems to me that the Su-25 has a better
integrated decoy system.

  Speaking for himself.

  Juan Carlos 
Newsgroups: sci.military