HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pstinson@pbs.org
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:58:10 GMT


From pstinson@pbs.org

In article <BvnFvn.KIt@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>  
> If nothing else, the Battle of Midway proved beyond a doubt that the day of the
> battleship was over, and that the aircraft carrier was the weapon to develop. 
> Later in the war, the great Japanese battleships of the Yamamoto class, hailed 
> by the Japanese Navy as the gratest naval weapons ever developed, were made 
> short work of by aircraft.  
> 
A strange conclusion considering that 4 aircraft carriers were sunk during the
Battle of Midway and not one battleship.

One of those Yamato class ship required 69 hits to sink her, which is not
exactly "short work".   I don't believe the Franklin took half that many hits
and it was just one more hit away from being lost.  The Enterprise was saved
early in the war by the firepower of a nearby battleship.

In short, the role of the battleship may have changed, but its days were not
over and the aircraft carrier is hardly invincible.  The submarine can lay just
as strong a claim to being the real weapon of the future.  In fact the U.S.
fleet submarines of World War II were responsible for more tonnage destroyed
than all the aircraft carrier task forces.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Black Sea Fleet Answer (Thanks)
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:05 GMT


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

Thanks to everyone who responded to my question on the status of the fleet. 
Here is what I found.

The two Moskava-class ASW cruisers are being decommissioned for "both doctrinal
and economic reasons," the single remaining Kynda class cruiser is likely to be
decomissioned soon, seven Kashin class remain but are aslo likely to be taken
out of sevice in the near future.  Similar things are happening with the
smaller combatants such as frigates.   The submarine force consists largely of
Foxtrot and Whiskey class DE subs nearing the end of their useful life. 
(Apparently nuclear subs in the Med come from the North Sea Fleet.)

Likewise, the fleet has made almost no active deployments in the past year. 
One cruiser (the Kerch, a Kara class) spent ten days in the Med in February and
a support ship spent roughly a month there in late January and February.

Sources: Jane's Defense Weekly: February 8 and May 9 1992
-- 
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: stephan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:32:21 GMT


From stephan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont)


MegaZone23 (megazone@dolomite.WPI.EDU) wrote:
: >		F15D	F18A/B	F16A/B	MIG29
: Weapons are a bit wrong....
: >Weapons:	4xAIM7	2xAIM9	2XAIM9	6XAA10	
:                +4xAIM9 +2xAIM7 
They still are...
Some ten years ago there were pictures of American F16 carrying 2 extra 
sidewinders close to the wing-tips, but I'm not sure if they are in-service.
Didn't the Bahrain AF buy Sparrows for their F16's? And the Egypt AF too?
Wiring any aircraft to carry more sidewinders should be very easy, since
they are fire-and-forget (just duplicate the wiring for the wingtips and
make a switch between in-board and wing-tip missiles). The reason why that
isn't done is probably that pilots will then start using much more missiles,
and the supply is limited.

: will carry it. The F-16 has carried AIM-7 in tests, but it was decided to 
: wait for the AIM-120
For the USAF.

: The 16C has a better thrust to weight ratio as a more powerful F110 engine
: was installed, and the last of the F-15s had F110s or PW22? (220, 229?) 
: which are again a bit more powerful.

The F-16C started with the same engine as the F-16A and was much heavier, so 
had a worse TTW-ratio. Most F-16A's can also be fitted with the newer, more
powerfull engines, and will then have an even better TTW-ratio.

: Looking at the stats I really wonder why the F-16XL was never adopted...

Because the F15A/B/C/D was at the end of the production cycle and the F16 was
not.

Stephan Eggermont
stephan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:29 GMT


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)

In article <Bvytpv.y9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie) writes:

|> 
|> From andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie)
|> 
|> 
|> OK.  People have been arguing on whether or not the Marines air force
|> should be
|> cut.  The argument seems convincing to me that the entire air force
|> shouldn't
|> be cut, but it is not so convincing why the marines need fighters
|> like the
|> F-18.  If their primary use is air cover, why not use AF or Naval
|> assets
|> instead, since that tends to be their specialty?  I have no argument
|> with
|> the Marines' having ground support aircraft, but air combat fighters
|> does
|> seem redundant.
|> 
|> 

Somewhat (tounge in cheek) the main reason is the Air Force 
pilots tend to get lost over any kind of water. :-) Also from
pride, you wont find better pilots than Navy/Marine corps.
(who else in their right mind wants to land on a moving airport)
The AF pilots are too book bound, look down on close air
support (cas) and quite frankly after working with both
would much prefer to call in USMC/USN or A-10 driver
(personally A10 drivers deserve eligibility for a CIB in my book)
than any of the others, the AF accepts "collateral" damage
too easily for me. A couple of "short" 500 lbers can really
make you wish  you unpacked the stingers from the track
before you called em, and at least the A10 drivers wave
as they go by as long as the bushes aren't too high. No,
for my taste if I call in AF close air I mark it
with smoke at least 3 k out and mark all FOUR
sides so theres no margin for error. I do have to admit
that the AC130 has gotten much better.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I by my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
From: birmingh@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:36:02 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab


From birmingh@fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <Bw2Jn7.Aqv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:

> This explanation pretty much sums up what riles me the most about the
> "Patriot bashers". They apparently did just enough research to come
> up with data to support their preconceptions & then didn't bother to
> check to see if their analysis was actually performed with valid data. 
> Which it seems was NOT the case. This is really lousy science, to say the
> least!

         While you have a point that the data may not have been as valid as
    one might have liked, it must be remembered that this was (at the time
    of the analysis) the *only* data available. Neither Raytheon nor the
    Army were forthcoming with anything better, choosing merely to boast a
    100% success rate, which, if I may quote you, seems was NOT the case. I
    don't think it's lousy science to say "Okay, if you have a
    hundred-percent success rate, why does this videotape appear to show
    three misses?" Nay, lousy science is saying "trust us; it works."

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuclear Powered Aircraft
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:18 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


From Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <Bw2Jn0.AoG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> H.S.Doyle@newcastle.ac.uk (H.S. Doyle) writes:
>
>With all this recent discussion on nuclear powered aircraft, I was wondering how
>exactly could a plane by propelled by a reactor? My first thought was electric
>propellers with the electricity being generated by the reactor, then I thought
>of direct steam-turbine drive for the props, with the steam being provided by
>heat from the reactor. Then finally I thought of a ramjet-type propulsion with
>the air in the jet tube being heated directly by the reactor's heat, and thus
>expanding with sufficient force to provide thrust. So which one is feasible? Or is
>there another method? What system were they thinking of back in the 60s when the
>idea  of nuclear propulsion was being researched seriously?
>Post up any replies as I'm sure others will be interested.
>Thanks.

I think that the idea of nuclear/electric propulsion of aircraft is
ludicrous considering the power to weight ratios required. And *steam*
powered aircraft. :-) :-)

I believe that the systems envisioned were based on nuclear/thermal
jet and rocket propulsion. But then I could be all wet since I don't
have good references on the subject. As a baseline, a B36 would need
about 25 megawatts electrical to duplicate it's internal combustion
engines.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:40 GMT


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

mccd@rosie.uh.edu (R. Golshan (713)-743-1540) writes:


>From mccd@rosie.uh.edu (R. Golshan (713)-743-1540)


>      I went to the Houston airshow this past Saturday.  Apparently the Apache 
>helicopter is now  equipped with a new IR jammer.  I asked one of the pilots
>about the device that was installed on the top of the helicopter, and was told
>that they have installed the device on the helicopter about  one week ago.  I 
>was told that the device is a Radar Jammer, however, due to the way it appears 
>I beleive it is more likely that it is a new IR jammer.  It was a relatively 
>small cylinder which had ten mirrored sides, and had three mirrors on each 
>side(A total of 30 reflectors).  It looked exactly like a Disco light!  It 
>seems like a new counter measure against Stinger missiles.

It is. It sounds it's the AN/ALQ-144. The "mirrors" should be the heating 
elements (carbon). I didn't know they were going to be put on the AH-64.
--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jjian@tsoft.sf-bay.org (City Hunter)
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 7958
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:36:55 GMT


From jjian@tsoft.sf-bay.org (City Hunter)


From jjian@tsoft.sf-bay.org (City Hunter)

I remember reading in a magazine a few years back that Japan, even though it
doesn't have a navy, Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces can be considered
as one of the world's most capable navies. I don't have the details of Japanese
fleet (No Jane's handy) but I do know that while Aegis technology is too expensive for most European nations, Japanese do operate some Aegis destroyers similiarto Arleigh Burke class of U.S. And although they don't have any carriers, one
class of their cruisers are capable of carrying 4-6 Sea Kings. So capabilities
wise, would they rank, say, as Indian navies?


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Re: subs
Keywords: eric -nuclear winter
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:29:59 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)

In article <BvxDun.MCu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> elada@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC  LADA) writes:

>	Hi agian.  I was just wondering what kind of self-defense/offense 
>mechanisms the boomers have.  Do they have any torpedos, or anything non-nuke
>that can go out and kill any ship or attack sub that following them, or is there
>only defense standing still and staying quite.  Also do todays subs really have 
>any advantage over ships.  Can military satalites track the subs under-water?   
>What about that new SEAL underwater delivery vehicle(or something like)  Can 
>that be detected at all?   And finnally do subs still pop up under the polar-ice
>caps(now that the Soviet Union is no longer?) What kind of subs did/do this(
>boomers or attack)
>

The Ohio class boomers have, in addition to their 24 Trident I/IIs, four 21 
inch torpedo tubes, which can fire the full range of US submarine weapons; 
however, I do not know if the sub has the fire control systems for an anti-ship
missile (the Harpoon series.)  Also, boomers (SSBN's) are usually much quiter 
than attack subs (SS/SSN's), and so they are much sneakier.  However, they are 
not as fast or maneuverable, so they dont normally go hunting for trouble.  

A few systems on some military sattelites can track subs, but there is no 
guaranteed, reliable sub-hunting sattelite as yet.  Sensitive IR imaging 
scanners can sometimes pick up the heat signature of a sub form orbit, but only
if it is shallow enough to radiate through the comparatively cold water around 
the sub.  
In addition, every sub in motion leaves a cone-shaped wake, which eventually 
reaches the surface.  This disturbs the surface of the water by a few inches, 
and can be detected by a super-sensitive radar recon sattelite.  However, the 
sub must be near the surface, or the position information is already quite old 
by the time the sattelite picks it up at all.
There has been some experimentation with blue-green lasers which can penetrate 
the water, both as a communication and a detection medium.  However, I do not 
know if anything ever came of this research.

Subs that can surface through the polar ice:  Most American submarines have 
sail-mounted bow planes which would be damaged by surfacing through ice.  
However, later models of the Los Angeles class SSN and the Ohio class SSBN have
hull mounted planes.  Also, the planes on most SSBN's can be rotated vertical 
to allow them to surface through a thin layer of ice.  Any substantial layer 
would still cause some damage, however.  The planned Seawolf class would also have had the hull-mounted planes, allowing the under-ice capability.

None of the information in this article came from classified sources, and it 
is all readily available to the public.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Intstitute




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: Titanium (was Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?)
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:42:55 GMT


From yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)

Christopher.W.Page@dartmouth.edu (Christopher W. Page) writes:
>In article [snippity] ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>> I didn't mean the capability to develop the ability to build titanium 
>> hulls. I meant the capability to build them now. There are alot of 
>> specialized techniques involved from what I've read. I'm sure the US could 
>> develop the ability if the desire was there but the US does NOT currently 
>> have that ability.
>
>I'm not sure I'd agree with that...I'd bet the U.S. has spent a lot of
>time researching and investigating the methods for building
>titanium-hulled subs

According to Kelly Johnson [*], the vital piece that the US is missing is a
large hydraulic metal-forming press.  I do not recall the capacity he stated
would be necessary; perhaps 1000 tons.

Since we did not have such a press, the titanium engine cowling on the SR-71
had to be machined.  The titanium hulls on the Alfas were formed in the
USSR's immense metal press.  Machining titanium is extremely difficult due
to its hardness.

He also seemed to think that titanium is expensive because the US has no
titanium industry.  In other words, that it would be possible, given
sufficient investment, to significantly lower the price of titanium.  That
the thing that is lacking is the will to invest huge amounts of money in
such an industry.

>  I wouldn't put it past the Navy to have a titanium-hulled
>design or two waiting for the day when massive titanium deposits are
>discovered somewhere in the U.S. :)

Without a titanium industry, who do you suppose is looking for titanium
deposits?


[*] Kelly Johnson was the head designer of the SR-71.  This information comes
from his autobiography.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:46 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

In article <Bvwr6n.K7K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>In article <Bvq4K0.D6r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:
>
>I'll have to find out more about engines, as I can't find the reference 
>for the Sabre being a V. It may indeed have been an H. It was sleeve
>valved. 
>
  I've been doing some reading up on this and plan to send in a detailed 
post.  At this stage, let's try to summarise the engine situation.

1.
In 1939 RAF combat a/c were largely powered by Rolls-Royce and Bristol 
engines.   Napier had produced no engines of great importance since their 
'Lion', they were trying hard to interest the Air Ministry in their (as yet)
totally undeveloped Sabre, which was to be a 24 cylinder H.

2.
At outbreak of war RR was producing purely V-12 Merlin engines.  The Vulture
a 24 cylinder X engine -- think of 2 V's back to back) was under 
development, as was the V-12 Griffon (think of it as a 2nd generation 
Merlin).

3.
The Air Ministry *before outbreak of war* in 1939 was trying to think ahead 
for logical replacements to the Spitfire and Hurricane, as well as more 
advanced heavy bombers.   There were wobbly plans that the new generation 
fighters  and bombers would have advanced engines to match.   New fighters:
Whirlwind -- RR Peregine engines, Tornado -- RR Vulture,  Typhoon -- Napier
Sabre.  New bomber: Avro Manchester -- RR Vulture.   The point to note is 
that at outbreak of war and during the crisis of 1940, *all* of these engines
were still at various stages of their development, and the Sabre was the 
least developed of them all.

4.
During 1939 and 1940, Lord Beaverbrook (Minister of Aircraft Production) and 
RR (the leading engine producer) were of the view that top priority should 
be given to  the Merlin and Griffon for fighter aircraft.   Focused 
resources, and a commonality of design meant that large numbers of Merlins 
could be produced NOW (at the time they were needed most) whilst a little 
later the Griffon (as the new engine at the most advanced stage of 
development) could be phased in.  Other compelling arguments were: the Merlin
could be developed further and was not as obsolete as was thought; and the 
Griffon had the same basic dimensions as the Merlin, so that it could be 
introduced into mainstay Spitfire and Hurricane fighter with little or no
modifications required to their airframes.


OK.  The X-24 RR Vulture and H-24 Napier Sabre in 1940 were sidelined in 
favour of the V-12 RR Merlin and Griffon.  One was subsequently cancelled 
(the Vulture), the other (the Sabre) was suspended until 1942 and its 
development never really caught up the lost time.

Cheers,
Keith Coman
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: the F-18L
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:56 GMT


From daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk

In article <Bvq3uK.C50@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
> 
> From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
> 
> I just saw a reference to the F-18L.  What is an F-18L?  I've heard of
> A-E, but not this one.

It was a proposed land-based version of the F-18A (ie with carrier-related
equipment removed) which Northrop would have built for non-US customers. Since
everybody ordered the F-18A the -L never got beyond the paper stage.

Dave
-- 

David Hastings                      | "Imposition of order=escalation of chaos"
VAX Systems Programmer              |                     
Oxford University Computing Services| "Just when you think you've won the 
daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk              |        rat race, along come faster rats"
               

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuking the Reich?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:20 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


From Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <Bw2Jsu.AyF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> DWOLFF@res-c4.prime.com writes:
>
>Suppose the US had completed the atomic bomb early enough to use it on
>Germany, say mid-1944.  Would it have been used?  What would be the first
>targets?  Berlin is an obvious answer... but is it right?

By mid-1944 everyone knew the war in Europe was won. It was just a matter
of grinding it out to it's conclusion. Actually, the war was over December
11, 1941. Only the mop up remained. :-)

My personal opinion is that the atomic bomb would *not* have been used
in Europe if it had been ready in 1944, though it certainly would have
been used on Japan. This is a political rather than military assessment.
There was a strong racial element to America's attitude toward Japan
that was missing from the attitude toward Europe. Most Americans were
of European ancestry, those whose opinions counted at any rate, and
they would have been loath to destroy the land of their ancestors with
nuclear weapons.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.military