HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Bikini Islands
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:31:39 GMT


From jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)

rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:

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


>I use to love reading about the Bikini islands tests in the mid 50's and
>the early part of the 60's.(what a great way to let out our frustrations 
>on the Japanese and Germans).  I' am not a big proponent of nuclear warfare
>howver but i was wondering what ever happened to the Bikini Islands?  Are they 
>still dangerously radioactive?

Last I heard the native Bikinians were still living on another island the 
government moved them to after the tests.  Aparently this one lacks a lagoon,
which to a polynesian is something like your real estate agent trying to sell
you a house next to a freeway or without running water.  So yes, the islands
are still radioactive.
-- 
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a 
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener   

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: brett@digits.enet.dec.com (My name is...)
Subject: Re: Aircraft Carriers & In-flight refueling - what's so hard?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:00:37 GMT


From brett@digits.enet.dec.com (My name is...)


In article <Bu9H04.E51@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes...
>> So what makes in-flight refueling and AC's so special and difficult that
...
>Nothing hi-tech about it. It's a classic 'people-problem'. Before you can
>train someone to do something you have to be able to do it yourself &
>they don't know how to do it! Buying an a/c carrier doesn't teach you how 
>to conduct air ops. You need years of experience & they don't have it. It's
...
>BTW, the USN had one hell of a hard time , in the '50's, perfecting the
>techniques to utilize jet a/c on a/c carriers. The number of crashes dur-
>ing that time was so high that some people suggested the concept of oper-
>ating high performance jets be abandoned. I can't imagine it being any
>easier for the PRC
> 
>PHIL

Nothing to it :-) just buy yourself a decent set of high quality flight and
weather simulators and practise in something where the 'deaths' don't kill
the pilots.  This makes a HUGE difference to your training times and costs.

Actually, living in a relatively small organisation [a 125 person s/w dev
group] with relatively complex h/w and [usually field-testing] s/w requirements
suggests to me the problem is not the pilots and landings, it is the whole
ball of wax of supplies, maintenance, scheduling, laundry, food, sleep, ...
but I would have thought that the 'simple' process of merging a battleship
crew and an airport organisation would get there.

Just 'cause the USN took a long time doesn't mean other countries have too.
After all it was the Brit's who solved the three biggest problems - with
the steam catapult, the angled deck, and the mirror landing systems.  So if
you combine all the known-to-work solutions with computer-based simulations
and pulling the right talents from the right organisations, I would be VERY
surprised if you couldn't get the whole thing together in 5 years or so.

Of course, it is going to cost $$$, and require a flexible organisation.  The
$$$ aren't always available, and the military in many countries is not the
most flexible of organisations!  It usually takes 3 or 4 years of a decent war
to throw out the career dancers and prancers [see About Face, Hackworth] and
get enough of the peace-time-civilian competences and peace-time-maverick-
military types far enough up the organisation to do some good.


/Bevin

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: leem@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Homestead AFB situation
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:45:35 GMT


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

In article <Bu0Coz.5p4@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes:
:From     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>
:[mod note -- Here are the USAF bases in Florida from memory --
:	Patrick AFB Tyndall AFB Eglin AFBB

Add at least one base to your list, McDill Air Force Base.


Lee

"Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei."

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:19:30 GMT


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

In article <BuKotn.Aw3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian) writes:

> but the Mustang had TWICE the range of the Spit using the same engine. Why?

Because basically it was a flying gas tank. It had internal wing tanks
and a tank behind the pilot that "absolutely positively" had to be used
up first before the pilot engaged in combat because the aft shift of
the center of gravity while this was filled produced truely evil
handling.  The Spitfire, at least the early models, had just one tank
located in front of the pilot, and it wasn't a self sealing type which
produced lots of burned pilots.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
Subject: Re: The Bf-109E: A Copy of The Spitfire?
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:36:06 GMT


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


I have always been a big airplane buff since I can remember.  I was reading an 
article that claimed the famous german World War II fighter the BF-109E was
a modified copy of the Spitfire...I dunno by looking at them but I would like
to know if anyone had any information about this. 



				Rob

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: claffey_jor@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Stealth Fighter APU
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:05:10 GMT
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT


From claffey_jor@ccsua.ctstateu.edu


I would think that the F-117 would use an Auxiliary Power Unit, much like many
other modern aircraft. I'd even go so far as to speculate that it uses the same
APU as another US fighter aircraft, although I have no idea which one.

================================================================================
"Indiana" Joe Claffey                        = Disclaimer: All opinions
BITNET:   CLAFFEY_JOR@CTSTATEU               = expressed are my own, and
INTERNET: CLAFFEY_JOR@CCSU.CTSTATEU.EDU      = anyone else trying to take
Quote: "Make no small plans."                = credit for them is in big
                  - Daniel Burnham           = trouble!
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Al Spohn * Hilton 516 * 507-284-1666 <spohn@mayo.edu>
Subject: Re: Homestead AFB situation
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:45:40 GMT


From Al Spohn * Hilton 516 * 507-284-1666 <spohn@mayo.edu>

        >[mod note -- Here are the USAF bases in Florida from memory --
	>
	>        Patrick AFB -- HQ of Atlantic Test Range -- adjacent to Cape
	>Canaveral
	>
	>        Tyndall AFB
	>
	>        Eglin AFB
	
	Don't forget MacDill AFB and Hurlburt Field (unless they've been closed(!))
	
	I suspect the importance of Homestead's geographic location centers primarily
	on it's role in the anti-drug war, the details of which I'm not qualified
	to address.  It's previous role as the "tip of the spear" with respect to Cuba
	seems to have diminished somewhat as a result of world events and the F-16's
	at MacDill being only minutes away.

        - Al Spohn

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:32:52 GMT


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

In article <BuBLK6.G6t@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:

>BTW, a long time ago I heard somethign about a Gyro-Jet gun, using
>small rocket slugs instead of bullets.  Whatever happened to this?

There was a gyrojet handgun at one time I believe. It was stamped
sheet metal and had accuracy problems, which is why it died out. 
The gyrojet's inventor had a neat party trick.. stick a lighted 
match inside a paper cone (eg. a sno-cone container), drop in a 
gyrojet projectile and the thing would ignite and rise out of the 
cone.....



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re:  Homestead AFB situation
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:41:38 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bu9HC0.FMJ@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:
> 
> From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
> 
> In article 5p4@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM,     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil> () writes:
>>
>>From     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>
>> 
>   Well, as far as I know, having only 3 air bases in Florida does not
> allow for much flexibility in planning any military operation against
> Cuba.
> 

For Cuba it would be more than enough. We could always bring in some
carriers & with aerial refueling from other locales the Cubans wouldn't
stand a chance in the air.

>   If this administration wants to maintain the presure against Cuba they
> have to rebuilt that base. Even if they never actually use it military
> against Cuba, it is a very good way of sending a message to Cuba that
> the U.S. care about them.
> 

The embargo is what is pressuring Cuba. If the US keeps it up it's just
a matter of time.

>   Remember that if the Cubans decide to mount an attack against Florida,
> they can be there really quickly and do a lot of damage to some very
> important areas (NASA Cape Canaveral, for example)
> 

I seriously doubt that Castro is *that* crazy! 

>   Remember also, that during the GOP convention, Bush said that he will
> be the first US President to go to a free Cuba (non-Communist).
> 


More campaign rhetoric. I'm *sure* he'd like to be the first, though.

PHIL
PUGLIESE


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: WINGS - P51 Mustang ... really out to be about trains...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:30:04 GMT


From tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)

In article <Bu0Cuu.5uK@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:
>
>From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
>
>In article <BtspqA.13D@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> amichiel@mailbox.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
>
>
Lots of neat stuff deleted.

>My Dad served with the RAF's Tactical AF after D-Day.  Again by end-
>1944/1945 very little German fighter opposition was encountered.  The 
>Hawker Typhoon fighter-bomber pilots were always on the look out for a 
>train to waste.   During winter 1944/1945 they used to take a chance 
>on the weather and follow promising RR tracks -- the Germans  
>run trains under cover of bad weather during daylight.   HUGE clouds of 
>steam from the exploding boiler in the icy-cold winter air! 
>
 
I have also heard that the RAF and USAAF made life very hard for German
armor, to the point that tanks could only be moved after dark and had to
be very well camoflauged to avoid being destroyed.

Have fun
 
	Tom


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo)
Subject: losses
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:19:55 GMT


From nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo)

Subject: Additional Coalition Losses

About 8 -10 months ago, there were several postings containing statistics for
U.S. tank losses (categories for damaged/destroyed and type) during the ground
phase of Desert Storm. Anybody out there have stats on other coalition tank
losses/types? Especially the British (since their MBTs also utilize the
Chobham-type armor) and anybody else using U.S.-made M60A1s or 'A3s
(i.e.Saudi Arabia).

--

Mark Aldo   UUCP: (osu-cis)!dsacg1!waldo   INTERNET: waldo@dsac.dla.mil
Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center       | 614-692-8111
DSAC-ZTB, P.O.Box 1605, Columbus, Ohio (USA) 43216       | AV  850-8111
I'm not authorized to have an opinion....;-)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WINGS - P51 Mustang ... really out to be about trains...
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:11:17 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa


From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)

In article <BtspqA.13D@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> amichiel@mailbox.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:

A chap in our Accounting dept flew Spitfires with the South African AF in 
Italy.  He relates that the greatest fun he ever had was on "free-chase" 
assignments.  The flight simply buzzed around looking for interesting things 
to drop 250lb bombs on and strafe -- by this stage (1944-1945) to actually 
encounter a Luftwaffe plane was a very rare event in this theatre.   Trains 
too were seldom seen on the open track 'cos they mostly ran after 
dark -- during daylight they used get parked in tunnels or at station 
yards with *thick* flak defenses.  (The typical targets were road 
transport -- including, on one occasion, a poor bloke on a motorbike.)

My Dad served with the RAF's Tactical AF after D-Day.  Again by end-
1944/1945 very little German fighter opposition was encountered.  The 
Hawker Typhoon fighter-bomber pilots were always on the look out for a 
train to waste.   During winter 1944/1945 they used to take a chance 
on the weather and follow promising RR tracks -- the Germans  
run trains under cover of bad weather during daylight.   HUGE clouds of 
steam from the exploding boiler in the icy-cold winter air! 

Tragedy was though no one could tell who or what was on the train: troops,
munitions, refugees, little kids.......

Cheers,
Keith Coman
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:10:43 GMT


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

In article <BuF34D.87s@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

|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...

They came pretty darned close to destroying Fighter Command, though. They
just didn't realize it. Bombing London was a big mistake. It let Fighter
Command catch its breath and get its sector airfields (which controlled
the radar) fixed up. 

Sounds like the original poster didn't realize that the V2 wasn't around
at this time. Reminds me of the person who was comparing the early Spitfire 
I and II and the P-51D. He didn't realize that the Mustang wasn't opera-
tional back then. A better comparison would have been with the Mk IX
(same engine) or the Mk XIV (about the same time period).





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Japanese F-15 upgrade
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:42:19 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <BuF2ys.83q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se> writes:
> 
> From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
> 
> The Japanese will modify their F-15:s to carry 6 Sparrows + 6
> Sidewinders. Anyone know how? Putting Sparrows on the wing
> stations instead of tanks should be easy, and there are outer
> wing station, but they are now only for ECM pods aren't they, but
> they could be modified to take Sidewinders, couldn't they?
> 
> Or what do you think of the Sea Harrier FRS.2 approach, putting
> missiles on the tanks?
> -- 
>  Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se
> 
Putting missiles on fuel tanks for the F-15 is an old idea:  the conformal FAST
packs were extra fuel tanks that hugged the fuselage just below the wings.  I
believe the the extra area created was used to add more Sparrow hardpoints.

If the Japanese, because of political restraints (turning a defensive F-15 into
an offensive F-15) never bought the FAST packs, it would be relatively easy to
either buy American FAST packs or build their own.  Then you get roughly the
same payload as you've described above, a longer range/loiter time, and no
appreciable performance degradation.  Smart move for a JASD in the `new world
order.'  (wonder if FAST packs would allow JASD operations over the Kuriles?)

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:04:11 GMT


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

In article <Bu9H6p.Euz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L
Williamson) writes, in part:

>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
	Pretty much the same surfaces as usual, allowing for the quasi flying
	wing design.  The difference is that the F117 (and other "unflyable"
	a/c) have bizarre (nonliner and/or counter intuitive and/or impossibly
	fast) responses to control inputs.  The computer "smoothes" these,
	making the a/c flyable.

>and what happens if there is an engine mailfunction
	The emergencies (probably battery) come on line seamlessly, tho perhaps
	at reduced functionality.

>and the power shuts down?
	Only after the battery dies....  (I'll guess that there are 5 minutes
	or so in the battery.  If it's not restarted by then, Its probably
	going into the ground anyway....)
	
thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass	
01754				pierson@majsty.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM>
Subject: F-16 vs A-10 in CAS role.
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:45:28 GMT


From Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM>


>he Air Force never wanted the plane to begin with because it actually did
>what is was designed for. Now their making a pure dog fighter into a ground
>attack plane. Does this make any sense? If the Air Force wants a ground
>attack plane, and a dog fighter, tell them to buy the F/A-18.

I think you're getting the apples and oranges mixed up here.

To put the record straight, the F-16 has won many NATO and US bombing 
competitions. The accuracy of the CCIP system is superb. Secondly, the
F-16 can carry a reasonable bomb load a significant distance, fight it's
way to the target and fight it's way home. The F-18, in the other hand,
is also an excellent bomber, good ACM machine but uses way too much fuel
doing this. Loiter time for the F-18 is practically non-existant with
any type of useful CAS ordinance load.

I've got a friend in the 177th TFW who has been passing on info about
the A/C changes and weapons tests. The cannon pod works fine but you
have to get too close to use it. The F-16 was not made to take the
abuse (and AA hits) that an A-10 is and hence employing the gun in 
practice was not useful. The 177th was very successful with AGM-65s and 
iron bombs. One particular quote from the pilots was, "You drop a 1000lb
bomb on a tank and it pretty much stops." 

But, I agree with Rich, the A-10 is a much better CAS machine. When you
consider that it was purpose built to do this, that's not too suprising.

BTW - The 177th TFW is no more. With the force restructuring, there name
has been changed. I don't have the name right here but I can get it if
anyone is interested.

	Rick

-------------
Rick Lafford
Eastman Kodak Co.
lafford@serum.kodak.com
============================================
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Aircraft Carriers & In-flight refueling - what's so hard?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:27:09 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BuBLx3.GsD@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, brett@digits.enet.dec.com (My name is...) writes:
> 
> From brett@digits.enet.dec.com 

> 
> Nothing to it :-) just buy yourself a decent set of high quality flight and
> weather simulators and practise in something where the 'deaths' don't kill
> the pilots.  This makes a HUGE difference to your training times and costs.

If it was that easy surely the Soviets wouldn't have had so much trouble?
Since they couldn't do it & the US had such a hard time , I think it's
reasonable to assume the PRC will too. 


> Actually, living in a relatively small organisation [a 125 person s/w dev
> group] with relatively complex h/w and [usually field-testing] s/w requirements
> suggests to me the problem is not the pilots and landings, it is the whole
> ball of wax of supplies, maintenance, scheduling, laundry, food, sleep, ...
> but I would have thought that the 'simple' process of merging a battleship
> crew and an airport organisation would get there.

Well my group is smaller than yours as it turns out & one thing I've learned
is that you can't just scale up. There's how many men on a US carrier? Alot
more than 125 that's for sure. That merging process isn't very simple by
the way. Sorta' like just merging an IBM mainframe with a DEC one. Simple!
And then you've got the best of both worlds. Until you actually try to do
it & then all sorts of problems crop up.
 
> Just 'cause the USN took a long time doesn't mean other countries have too.
> After all it was the Brit's who solved the three biggest problems - with
> the steam catapult, the angled deck, and the mirror landing systems.  So if
> you combine all the known-to-work solutions with computer-based simulations
> and pulling the right talents from the right organisations, I would be VERY
> surprised if you couldn't get the whole thing together in 5 years or so.

Your likely to be surprised then. It wasn't just the USN, it was everybody!
Naval Air Ops just isn't an easy thing to learn, pure & simple. It sounds
easy but it really isn't. The problem is not in the hardware. It's getting
the organisation down right & that's a much harder problem. The Soviets
never did solve it & I see no reason to believe that the PRC will do any
better.
 
> Of course, it is going to cost $$$, and require a flexible organisation.  The
> $$$ aren't always available, and the military in many countries is not the
> most flexible of organisations!

The entire PRC hierarchy is not known for flexibility & that's sure to be
a BIG problem in the future. And not just for Naval Air Ops.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military