HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
Subject: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:44:19 GMT


From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)


	Some people have expressed their belief that the Mig29 is equal if not
superior to western planes. I find that hard to believe (more like imposible ).

	Obviously the US government would not officialy contradict this since 
by exagerating Soviet capabilities it has managed to get funds for its military
projects over the years. Always scaring everybody by attributing to the `enemy'
capabilities which it was only just aquiring, while the West already had the
very same capability already deployed, usualy years in advance.

	So how could the Rusians produce anything as good as the West when they
had less than 1/3 of the US military budget to spend, and they have gone 
bankrupt trying.

	I guess radar/missile/precision-attack/terrain-following/ECM  wise
the advantage must be overwhelming for the west, do any of you who are 
knowledgable on the subject care to comment? 

						Thanks, jd.



PS	How would F16 vs F18 compare for a small/medium size land based 
	airforce, which has to protect roughly equal size land borders
	and sea borders? Any comments?


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jcw@sysdiv.sdl.usu.edu (JC Wilkinson)
Subject: Re: AFROTC question
Organization: Utah State University (USU)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:36:31 GMT


From jcw@sysdiv.sdl.usu.edu (JC Wilkinson)

In article <BvE5zB.32M@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh) writes:
>Subject: AFROTC question
>From: yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh)
>Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:42:46 GMT


>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

	Having recieved my commission through the ROTC program, I think I 
can give you some idea of what to expect. The initial vision requirements 
for pilot candidates is 20/20 period. Once you have passed the initial 
physical and have been selected for a "pilot slot", the requirements are 
relaxed some.The next physical will be the commissioning physical during 
your senior year, and a little deviation from 20/20 is allowed. Once an 
individual has completed training and is an operational pilot, even more 
visual deviation is allowed from the desired 20/20. I know for a fact that 
the DO of an F-16 squadron at Hill Air Force Base actually had to wear 
glasses even for everyday tasks, and he still flew F-16's!!!!! So as far as 
being a pilot goes, if you can pass the first physical with 20/20 vision, 
you will pretty much have it in the bag. 
 	A friend of mine didn't pass his initial physical and he has 20/25 
vision. Although he is an excellent officer and a leader to be reconned 
with, he was not selected for pilot training. Unfortunately, it sounds like 
you are in the same boat. If you still want to work around aircraft, there 
are three options to be considered 1)Navigator, 2)Maintanance Officer or 3)
Non Rated Ops. Currently, very few navigator slots are being given out but 
there is plenty of room for maintanance folks. As a maintanance officer you 
would be going where ever the pilots go, ex. Red Flag, Operation Desert 
Shield etc. etc. etc. You wouldn't be flying the aircraft but at least you 
would be around them every day. Non Rated Ops means (in a nut shell) radar 
officer. The best of which would be operating radar on an AWACS. If you had 
that job, you would fly quite a bit, the only dissadvantage to this is that 
the radar scope would be your only window to the outside world.

Good Luck,

JC Wilkinson
2nd Lt. USAF 

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Monday, 28 September, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:36:08 GMT


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

Monday, 28 September, 1942

The German cruiser Hipper and four destroyers complete Operation Zarin
(Czarina), a minelaying mission off Novaya Zemlya.

Soviet troops conduct a limited attack across the Volga River near Rzhev.
Fighting near Leningrad becomes heated, while at Stalingrad intense combat
continues.

The bulk of the American 32nd Infantry Division arrives in Port Moresby,
and is immediately sent to help in the attack toward Wairopi.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"Out of every seven and a half dozen eggs produced in the United States
this year at least one dozen will be dried to supply lend-lease needs."
- New York Times, "Notes on Science"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: What happened at BARI (was Sidi Barrani)
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:54:24 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

This incident did not occur at Sidi Barrani. It happened at the
Italian port of Bari. The Germans mounted a sneak attack using
Ju-88s from the eastern front, staged from bases in Yugoslavia.
The intent was to cripple Allied logistics in Italy. (Which had
recently been invaded). The germans pilots were *quite* surprised
,from what I've read, to see a strange cloud emerge from one of 
the ships. The ship was there "just in case" the Axis decided to
use gas weapons. I still don't know how more people weren't killed.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Star Wars Defense System
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:55:49 GMT


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

In article <Bv1IqG.2M4@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bphdarcy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:
>Wow, now this seems just totally incredible.  The fact that the author 
>claims a BS in Physics and Astronomy is even more amazing.  Which Sci-fi to 
>base the weapon on I am not sure.  Could someone define exactly how these 
>weapons work?  Neutron collision could be an interesting concept, but then 
>why also develop a charged-particle beam weapon?  Of course if one excludes 
>Neutrons all the remaining basic particles are charged...

Actually, neutral particle beams are a real (theoretically real, that is)
weapons system. More exactly, it would be usefull to neutralize a 
charged particle beam (i.e. to eliminate the beam spreading and
the effects of the Earth's magnetic fields.) I think the idea is
to mix a proton and an electron beam, and allow recombination into
high velocity neutral hydrogen. As far as I know, however, this idea
is purely theoretical, and the article Mr. D'Arcy was replying to was
(as he points out) purely fiction. (Russian anti-satellite weapons,
however, might be a different matter...)

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gps-request@esseye.si.com (Andy Arkusinski)
Subject: GPS Digest
Followup-To: sci.electronics
Organization: Smiths Industries
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:18 GMT


From gps-request@esseye.si.com (Andy Arkusinski)

A new Global Positioning System (GPS) Digest mailing list is being formed. 
Submissions will be accepted on the following topics (but not be limited
to):


      - Basic GPS Operational Concepts
      - USAF Navstar News Releases
      - Constellation Status
      - Satellite Vehicle (SV) News
      - User Equipment (UE) News / Receiver Reviews
      - Differential GPS
      - General Aviation GPS Receivers
      - Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IHVS) Applications
      - Vehicle Tracking Applications
      - Marine Applications
      - Mapping Applications
      - Surveying Applications
      - Selective Availability (SA) - Anti-Spoofing (AS)
      - GLONASS (Russian Sat Pos System)


The GPS Digest will be moderated by Andy Arksusinski and Ken Jongsma.
Andy and Ken are senior engineers with Smiths Industries, a large 
international aerospace firm, with experience in military GPS applications.
Until the volume of messages dictate otherwise, messages will be
transmitted
in digest format on a periodic basis, with limited/minimal editing.

Requests to subscribe may be made to 

                       gps-request@esseye.si.com

Submissions may be made to 

                       gps@esseye.si.com



Andy Arkusinski                                 arkusinski_andy@si.com
Smiths Industries                               arkusinski@swdev.si.com
4141 Eastern Ave, SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49518-8727

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: leem@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:48:44 GMT


From leem@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Lee Mellinger)

In article <Buq5FA.K1G@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
:
:From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
:
:>From smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
:>
:>mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes...
:>>>by rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson):
:>>Acquire?  They developed it, based on Goddard's original experiments.
:>Wrong.  Goddard was working on solid-fueled rocket which resulted in jato
:>units while the V-2 is liquid-fueled which is the direct ancestor to the
:>Saturn rockets.
:During WW2, he was snatched up by the War Department, and did more work
:for them, both liquid and solid-fuel.
:The jato (or rato) bottles, among other things, fell out of the solid
:fuel work.
:
JATO (then called RATO, Rocket Assisted Take Off) was the first
development of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (then called the
Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory - California Institute of
Technology GALCIT) and directed by Dr. Theodore von Karaman.  There is
a picture in the administration building showing an Aircoupe equipped
with RATO bottles taking off from an airfield in Riverside county (I
believe that it is March AFB) in 1943.  GALCIT had been experimenting
with rocket propulsion since the min-1930's.

Lee
 
"Nothing blasts forever" -- Keats on ammo.

PS - note the machine this is sent through (hint, jato.jpl.nasa.gov)
 



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierce@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Pierce)
Subject: NATO / FLINTLOCK EXERCISE
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:24:59 GMT


From pierce@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Pierce)


Several military exercises were held by NATO, 'REFORGER'
being the best known.  Can someone give a breakdown of
the 'FLINTLOCK	
exercise.  Thanks in advance.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:48:38 GMT


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 read in the papers today that A Swedish surface ship (no details given)
>    dropped depth charges on a submarine contact in their waters for the
>    second time this week.  Can anyone shed some light on this?  Were the
>    charges dropped to shy the intruder away, or did they actually try and sink
>    the sub?  What surface ship was involved?  Speculations on the nationality
>    of the sub?
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.

As for the depth charging, they probably intended to force the intruder to
surface.  Most of Sweden's small combatants are equiped with several light ASW
mortars caled Elma.  Derived from the Carl Gustaf rocket these charges are
officially intended to do sufficient damage to a small sub to force it to
surface or risk sinking.  The normal instalation is  four fixed mounts of nine
tubes each.  The mortar has a range of roughly 300m and employs a shaped charge
to help defeat double hullled subs.
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever you're holding all the cards why does everyone else turn
out to be playing chess?"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:28:04 GMT


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

In article <BvFzu4.15B@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser) writes:
>
>From kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser)
|
|In article <BvE5ry.2tr@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM|, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
|| Was there ever an experimental Allied fighter that used an H engine? 
|| Its basically two flat engines with separate crankshafts tied by gearing
|| at the front so you have four vertical banks of cylinders.
|
|I think that the Napier-Sabre engine used in the Hawker Typhoon (and Tempest?)
|was an H engine. They had lots of problems with it initially catching fire, but
|rushed it into service anyway as the Typhoon was one of the few aircraft fast
|enough to catch the V-1 at the time. Presumably these aircraft were at one time
|experimental:-)

I recall reading that the Sabre was a V-24 of about 3000 hp. Has anyone 
written a book about flying the Tempest and Typhoon in air battle? They 
were excellent planes but haven't made it into the general conciousness 
as have the Spitfire and Hurricane. They supposedly didn't handle as 
gently as the Spitfire and were perhaps more like the P-47 in terms of 
size and power than anything else.


|If you are trying to indentify a specific type that never made it into production,
|perhaps you are thinking of the Martin-Baker prototypes. The MB 5 was designed
|late in the war so it might have used an H engine. On a side note, the MB 5 was
|considered by some people to be the finest piston engined fighter ever built, but
|the end of the war effectively killed its development.

The MB-5 (which looked like a huge P-39 with a Mustang-like airscoop under-
neath) used the same two-stage Griffon that was used in the later Spitfire 
marks.

I think the H-engine was American, but I'm darned if I can remember where I 
read about it. Its one of those factoids that bother you for years...




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 3 October, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:26:52 GMT


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

Saturday, 3 October, 1942

Army Group A makes some progress toward Grozny in the Caucasus, but the
impetus of the German advance has been lost to Soviet resistance and the
region's terrain.

German researchers at Peenemuende conduct the first successful launch of
the A-4 rocket.

Stalin writes to the Associated Press, stating that Allied aid to the USSR
has been insignificant compared the the mass of German forces engaged on
the Eastern Front.  

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"In order to amplify and improve this aid one thing is required: that the
Allies fulfill their obligations fully and on time." - Josef Stalin
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Organization: Physics Department, Monash University, Australia
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:39:50 GMT


From phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)

Having read the information on the Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk and the Macon
and Akron airships in the interesting posting from Joseph F Baugher I
thought the following might be of some interest.

	In February 1921 the Sopwith 2F.1 Camel N7352 was fitted with an
elaborate "airship and overhead wire landing gear for small craft".  It
did not undergo much development and judging from the photographs looks
like it would do Heath Robinson proud.

Source:	Warplanes of the First World War, Fighters Volume 2,
	J. M Bruce, 1968, Macdonald & Co. Ltd.
	SBN 356 01473 8

-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell
From: stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Stoffel)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:28:32 GMT
Organization: Annapolis Detachment, CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC


From stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Stoffel)


In sci.military, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
(in part);

>        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.

I stumbled across it by accident and watched part of it. The show included
an interesting history of the scud starting with the V2 (which it closely
matches in basic capabilities).  The history of the Patriot system was
also summarized.

The scuds used against Israel (and perhaps other targets) were modified
by Iraq to extent their range. The range extension also increased their
speed. One of the claims put foreward on the show was that the Patriots
were fused to explode near a slower moving missle and that they therefore
exploded too far behind the scud to damage it.

It was also stated that the scuds were of very poor manufacture and
often broke up on reentry. The Patriots radar was allegedly confused
by the multiple targets allowing the warhead to proceed to (more or
less) the target area.

One of the experts making the claim for detonation behind the scud used
videotape (network source?) as evidence.

To the shows credit, they did air rebuttals from both an Army spokesman
and from a manufacturers rep. (sorry, I don't remember any names). The
rebuttals included a detailed and (IMO) convincing argument against
the validity of using video tape for objects closing at several thousand
mph. There was also discussion of other actions, such as software mods.
made to the system during this period.

Sorry I can't be more detailed than this. I didn't see it all, plus
it was the rerun at some awful hour in the early AM. I continue to hope
somebody else will post a better description.

__________________________________________________________________________
Bill Stoffel              |  CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC  |First things first!     |
stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil |  Code 2759           | (But not necessarily in|
(410) 267-3825            |  Annapolis, MD 21402 |that order) - The Doctor|
_________________________________________________|________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:38:12 GMT


From tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson)

In article <BvAruy.9nA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:
>
>... Since most of the subs are pretty small (around 30 meters or so) 
>I don't imagine that they are nuclear.

Let's assume that these submarine activities against Sweden, Norway and a 
few other places were given high priority and a lot of resources. Remember
that crew saftey had *low* priority, and remember that the Soviet Union 
produced satellites with nuclear reactors. If the intruding subs are 
indeed 30 m long (I think I've heard slightly smaller numbers - a 
Swedish 1,000 ton submarine is about 50 m long), this is probably
sufficient to install a small nuclear reactor.

A nuclear reactor would give these subs an endurance far beyond what one 
would expect of a submarine this size. Indeed, there are indications 
that the intruders have gone into hiding for a several days when the ASW 
activities have been intensive. Usually, Swedish submarines are on 
patrol much longer than surface vessels after a ASW action has been 
called off. If nothing else, they can listen to the intruders when they 
leave.

If these activities have receieved the large resources that were 
necessary to develop these submarines, and to keep a more or less 
continuous presence in Swedish waters, this could probably explain this 
organization's (GRU???) reluctance to cease these activities, although 
the political situation seem to have changed. (Cynics, such as myself,
sometimes remind people that the strategic aims of Russia, whatever it's 
name, has remained unchanged since the days of czar Peter the Great.)

I've never heard any official speculation to the effect that those damn 
elusive subs are nuclear propulsed. But that may well be to avoid 
demands from environmentalists that the navy should stop their ASW 
activities...

> Recently the navy also fired torpedoes at the intruder. However, 
>the environment is _very_ hard for ASW work. With a depth between 30 - 100 
>meters, a lot of small islands, chasms, crags and brackish water the sonar
>performance is shot to hell.

Our best sub-finders are our own submarines. But weapons are usually 
launched from surface vessels. I.e. the unarmed man tries to tell the 
blind man with a rifle where to aim...

>All in all, it's not all that easy to find and kill something in archipelago.

Amen to that. Or perhaps QED :-)

Tomas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Eriksson                                          tomas_e@physchem.kth.se
            Surface Force Group, Department of Physical Chemistry,
               Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: meyer@handel.psu.edu (Andrew Meyer)
Subject: Military Computer Security Rules
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:49:05 GMT


From meyer@handel.psu.edu (Andrew Meyer)

I have a friend in the Air Force.  He used to be stationed at Ellsworth AFB, nowhe is stationed at Kadena AFB (Okinawa).  We coorespond fairly often through
U$ Mail, and I have tried to get him to use E-mail in almost every letter. (
sometimes to the point of taking up a page explaining everything I know about 
E-mail).  When he was home last, he told me that he was not allowed to login
to DDN (The Net to most of us) for unofficial purposes (like using E-mail)
because of security concerns.  My question is this...is this standard procedure
for the military?  The Air Force?  Is it just because he is an A1C?  Is it 
just because he was stationed at a SAC base?  Now that mail takes 5-10 days
for a one way trip, I'd very much prefer to use E-mail.  He has asked me for
suggestions on buying a computer (which he has been talking about since at 
least June), and I know how impatient you can get when you want to get a 
computer...and how you may not want to wait 10-20 days to get your questions
answered.  So what is the standard procedure reguarding E-mail in the AF?
(He was in "Personel Systems Managment", so he had good reason to be on 
the computers a lot...not just some potato(e) peeler who didn't have an 
account)  Thanks for any info. you can provide.


 -- Andy Meyer
 ( meyer@crayola.cs.psu.edu)
 ( meyer@satie.psu.edu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Buy the McDonnel Douglas F/A-18...half the plane for twice the money!"
"Replace your top-of-the-line air supeiority fighters and long range "
"strike aircraft with it today!"

"If a train station is where the train stops, what's a workstation?"- author
                                                                     unknown

Newsgroups: sci.military