HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Stephen M Jameson <sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com>
Subject: Spy Satellites for the UAE?
Organization: General Electric Advanced Technology Labs
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:57 GMT


From Stephen M Jameson <sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com>

I heard on the news this morning a report that the US is considering selling a
"Super-Secret Spy Satellite" to the United Arab Emirates.  Does anybody know
any more details than this?  I am primarily interested in the rationale and
logistics for such a sale, as I don't expect details of the satellite itself to
be available.

--
Steve Jameson                           General Electric Aerospace 
sjameson@atl.ge.com                     Advanced Technology Laboratories
                                        Moorestown, New Jersey              
****************************************************************************
**  . . . but I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow    **
**  for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that   **
**  which they defend . . .                                               **
**    -- Faramir, "The Two Towers"                                        **
****************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Vladimir Zhivov <vzhivov@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Pearl Harbour was not first!!!
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:18 GMT


From Vladimir Zhivov <vzhivov@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca>

In <By4LC6.CML@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jbutt@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:


>From jbutt@kean.ucs.mun.ca

>To all of you who think that the U.S. ws the first to be taken by 
>surprise in port. examine the following.
>Tatanto 1941 (?) RN launshed Fairley Swordfish Torpedo bomnbers and 
>managed to pretty much put the Italian Navy pout of comission for the 
>duration of the war.
>Cruxhaven Dec 25, 1914
>Royal Naval Air Service  While trying to distroy the Zepplin sheds at 
>Cruxhaven were foiled by fog. Moved to secondary target at Imperial 
>german naval base Wilhelnshaven and proceeded to bomb both the dock 
>facilities and the ships at anchor. As can be expected, 20lb bombs 
>will not do much damage, but the Germans were forced to expend a great 
>deal of effort to protect this base. Much of which would have better 
>served the German war effort on the western front.

>Jonathan D. Butt

Also add to the list: the Russians at Port Arthur in February of 1904
to open the Russo-Japanese War (1904-6). The Japanese (without
declaring war - precedent for Pearl) sent in destroyers/torpedo boats
into the harbour under the cover of night. Russian security measures
were atrocious, resulting in the loss of one battleship and two heavy
cruisers. The Japanese could have done better, but the torpedo fleet
was split up into several waves, with the result that only the first
wave enjoyed any success.
                                                  Vladimir

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: silber@cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: Dept. of Computer Sci - University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:27:54 GMT


From silber@cs.uiuc.edu


	I would argue that, once the war started, the High Seas Fleet had
failed its original purpose. Back when Tirpitz et. al. were starting the
fleet, its main purpose was as a "risk fleet". The idea was that the fleet
should be big enough so that it could engage in a sort of pre-nuclear form
of MAD. If Germany went to war with England, for instance, the German navy
might be destroyed, but the English navy would be so severely damaged that
it would be smaller than the next largest surviving navy (in this case
probably either the French or the Russian), putting the English at risk
from that country. This theory was all very fine when assuming the sort
of war that occured in the later 19th century, when great powers squared
off against one another one on one (or one on two). (Prussia vs. Austria,
Prussia vs. France, Russia vs. Turkey.)  By 1916, however, everyone but
the U.S. had chosen sides, and the British could probably have afforded
to lose half their fleet if they could sink the entire German navy.
	Another reason why the High Seas Fleet failed in its original
purpose was that the Kaiser, and many of the naval staff, became enamored
with actually giving England a run for its money in naval procurement.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Friday, 6 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:17:44 GMT


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

Friday, 6 November, 1942

Heavy rains in Egypt slow the advance of the 8th Army, giving the Axis a
badly-needed pause.  The Allies are further limited by a shortage of fuel,
but still manage to catch and destroy the remnants of the 21st Panzer 
Division, itself immobilized for lack of fuel.  Berlin radio warns of the
possibility that Field Marshal Rommel may have been captured.

General MacArthur arrives at Port Moresby to personally direct operations
on New Guinea.

Stalin again criticizes the western Allies for failing to open a second
front, stating that the USSR is fighting 240 Axis divisions compared to
only 15 being engaged in Africa.

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

"It is emphasized that then characteristic and noteworthy fighting
methods of German military leadership in Africa involve also the
possibility of the general's being taken prisoner." - Berlin radio
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:31 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

>From Bill Gawne <gawne@stsci.edu>

Concerning the opinion that Iraq was a third world country with a few neat
"toys", I'll allow they probably lacked the skill to use their equipment
effectively.  But:

	o  The Iraqi AAA threat was 3 times more dense than the anti-air
	   threat over Hanoi in 1968-72.  This threat drove a lot of US
	   tactics and resulted in a lot of premature detonations since
	   fuses with sufficient time delay weren't available.

	o  The Iraqi artillery using the South African G5 155mm guns had
	   the means to do far more damage to coalition ground forces than
	   they did.  The only reason we can conclude they held their fire 
	   when we came thru the breaches at 0 hour was they wanted to 
	   surrender as quickly as possible.  

This information is available thru non-classified media and I can assure
you its true.  The AAA threat in particular was *BAD*.  Fortunately we
made them keep the targeting radars turned off, but even shooting by eyeball
they kept our pilots flying so high that the bomb damage was significanntly
diminished.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Japanese Heraldry
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:05 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

In <By4LBw.CJ0@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>In article <BxyvBJ.G8D@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, sasrns@unx.sas.com (Neal Smith) writes:
>> but I was wondering if anyone could give me some sources on Japanese
>> heraldry during 1300AD-1600AD?  I would like books that are detailed
>> and have pictures.  

>did you try rec.heraldry?

	If rec.heraldry isn't available at your site, a query in
rec.org.sca will be met with pointers to appropriate references.  The
SCA (Society for Creative Anacronism) is a medieval recreation group,
and its members are suprisingly good at researching their heraldry and
history.  For those interested in medieval times, they are a tremendous
resource on everything from Japanese battle tactics to Mongol tent making.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Former Soviet Navy Posting Number 9:  'Golf II' class SSB
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:28:01 GMT


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


'Golf II' class SSB

Type:  Ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  2400 tons surfaced and 2950 tons submerged
Dimensions:  Lenght 98 m, beam 8.6 m, draught 6.6 m
Armament:  3 vertical launch tubes for 3 SS-N-5 'Sark' SLBM's
	6 533 mm bow and 4 533 mm stern torpedo tubes for a maximum load of 16 
	Type 53 dual-role torpedoes
Electronics:  One 'Snoop Tray' or 'Snoop Plate' surface-search and navigation 
	radar, one 'Herkules' high-frequency active/passive hull sonar, one 
	'Feniks' bow sonar, one 'Stop Light' ESM system with warning element, 
	and various communications and navigation equipment.
Propulsion:  Diesel-electric arrangement, with three deisel engines delivering 
	4500 kW (6035 hp) and three electric motors delivering 4125 kW (5530 
	hp) to three shafts.
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed 14 knots, range 11,125 km at 14 knots 
	surfaced.
Complement:  87

Number Built:  12 for Soviet Navy

Comments:  Built between 1958 and 1962, the original 'Golf I' class numbered 
	23 units.  between 1963 and 1968, 13 units were converted to 'Golf II' 
	standards, carrying the SS-N-5 SLBM instead of the original SS-N-4 
	system.  
	SS-N-5 'Sark':  Range 1400 km; CEP 2800 m; warhead, one 1 MT RV; 
	guidance, inertial.
	Type 53 533 mm torpedo:  Since my sources dont detail torpedoes, I can 
	only assume that the Type 53 is similar in capability to the US Navy's 
	Mk. 48.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Harri Koskinen <hakoskinen@tne01.tele.nokia.fi>
Subject: Re: Story of MiG-21F & BIS
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:22:56 GMT


From Harri Koskinen <hakoskinen@tne01.tele.nokia.fi>

In article <BxvFLB.8xC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Christer Olsson <co@chrom1.mednet.gu.se> writes:
> In article <Bxo176.62K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
> |> Finland has got an Air Force consisting of only 60 planes (about 30 Draken
> |> and 30 MiG:s).This means that almost 1/4 of all the MiG:s bought from the
> |> former Sovjet Union have been destroyed in crashes.
> How many Drakens has been lost? 
> 
It is quite exceptional that none of Drakens have been lost in the Finnish
Air Force while flying. One of them has burnt after landing.

-----
Harri Koskinen
freelance editor
Siivet Magazine
Finland

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu>
Subject: The Cessna In Red Square
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:28 GMT


From Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu>


Several days ago a poster to the net, when talking about the
utility of a 747 vs a B52 vs a B1, noted that perhaps the
FSU air defenses weren't up to what we thought they were, and
cited the Cessna landing in Red Square as an example of that
fact.

I thought that this wasn't a failure of air defenses, per se,
but rather more a problem with the senior decision-makers.  They had
a plan for dealing with an obvious threat (like a NATO aircraft
penetrating their air space), but did not know what to do with a situation
like this.  That is, they followed the plane throughout its flight, but
couldn't decide what to do about it.

I recognize that an aircraft like a Cessna could have carried
some kind of bomb, potentially destroying the Kremlin, etc.,
and for that reason perhaps the Soviets should have done something
about it.

Anybody out there remember more than this or have additional
information.  Like the shooting down of the KAL 747, I thought
this issue was more one of command and control, and not of their
ability to track and identify.  In this instance I am more interested
in the quality of the air defense technology than their c3I systems,
although I know they must work together.





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Bruce Burden <bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
Subject: Re: The use of unguided rockets in WWII
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:36:13 GMT


From Bruce Burden <bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>


In article <BxGrsF.75K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>
>From Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>
>
>
>Recently, in one of the threads, there is a mention of the 
>use of unguided rockets as air-to-surface weapons, in particular
>to attack tanks.  My question, is how do the pilots aim these
>weapons, since they are unguided ?
>--


	The trick was to point the airplane in the approximate direction,
    then carry enough rockets to get the job done. Once the rockets were
    launched, there was no guarantee that the rocket would go straight.
 
	The problem with unguided rockets is not limited to WWII, either.
    Note that the rocket pods used in Korea and Vietnam carried many
    projectiles as well, and are aimed the same way: point the airplane
    (or, in Vietnam, point the helicopter).



							Bruce


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden
  bruceb@mpd.tandem.com
  Tandem Computers Inc.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF)
Subject: Story of MiG-21F & BIS
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:42 GMT


From skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF)


                  
                        =====================
                          MiG -21 BIS CRASH
                             11.11 1992
                        =====================

Last wednesday a Sovjet-made MiG-21 from the Finnish Air Forse crashed a few
miles outside Ekenas in southern Finland.The pilot,a 21 year old Luitennant,
died in the crash because he failed to eject.

Last year there was also a crash with the same kind of plane.The Finnish 
Air Force has been flying mig-21:s since the 60:s and it has lost 10 planes
since that.Most of the pilots have managed to survive by using the ejection-
seat. 

Finland has got an Air Force consisting of only 60 planes (about 30 Draken
and 30 MiG:s).This means that almost 1/4 of all the MiG:s bought from the
former Sovjet Union have been destroyed in crashes.

I would like to know what kind of experienses other countries have had of
the MiG-21 (F and BIS models).

 
--------------------------------------/----------------------------------------
skronkvi@aton.abo.fi                 /   
                                    /           M I G - 2 1  B I S
Abo Akademi University             /            ==================
Finland                           /
---------------------------------/--------------------------------------------









Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Dave Hall (Sverdrup" <tohall@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Back to the future? [ILyushin IL-102]
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:33:58 GMT


From "Dave Hall (Sverdrup" <tohall@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>

In article <Bxyuuq.FEA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Maurice Blok <mgjblok@cs.vu.nl> writes...
> 
>From Maurice Blok <mgjblok@cs.vu.nl>
> 
>I just read a piece on CIS' newest tankbuster. Weird looking
>thing, it look like a Me-262 with a rear-gunner(!).
>And that what's so weird! A 21st century Tankkiller Jet with
>a rear-gunner??? Have they developed some kind of 
>to-the-rear firing missile?
> 
>Any comments?
> 

     Most all missiles I know of are stabilized by the flow of air over
an airfoil, producing lift. This lift is vectored into steering by 
maneuvering the airfoil. A pivoting fin is the general idea. Now, if
you fire such a thing backwards, it will have to come to a dead stop,
instantaneously speaking, as it moves back toward its rendezvous with the
target. No airflow. No control. Not possible. The rear ward firing cannon
is a different story. Bullets from rifled barrels are SPIN STABILIZED.


                      Just my opinion!


                              DH





> 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: Former Soviet Navy Posting Number 9: 'Golf II' class SSB
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:43:51 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

All Golf II-class were decommissioned and were or will be scrapped.
One is said to be earmarked for donation to a military museum. The
only operational Golf remaining is a Chinese built unit serving in the
Chinese Navy as a missile test platform. They are very similiar to the
Soviet Golf IIs, but have two missile tubes with Chinese built
missiles. There is a possibility that the Golf SSQs, three
communications subs converted in the 1970's, are still around. They
have better communications suites, obviously, larger sail, and no
torpedo tubes. If they are around, they are probably in Northern
Fleet, or it's successor under the C.I.S., but they have probably been
scrapped as well.

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: New Bombers (was Reorganizing the DoD (was New Carrier Plan))
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:18:00 GMT


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

In article <BxM5wu.4wy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:
>
>From mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
>
>Don't forget, though, Boeing proposed a 747 variant as a cruise-missile carrier
>to replace the B-52.  Would have given us a lot more value than the B-1 ever
>will...

I'd suggest that neither option is very cost effective. Any aircraft that
can't penetrate and drop iron bombs probably isn't very useful in today's
threat environment. Firing multi-million dollar cruise missiles only 
makes sense if they're nuclear tipped, or after an extremely high value
target. Most of the warfare we're likely to face in the near future 
will be better served by lots of iron bombs on the heavies, and guided
bombs on strike aircraft.

The B1 was designed to penetrate extremely strong air defenses, such as 
were claimed for the XUSSR. However, a Cessna penetrated those vaunted 
defenses, while the XUSSR *did* manage to down a 747 after a lot of 
fumbling around, so perhaps the B1 is more than slightly a case of
overkill for that mission and perhaps the 747 isn't really up to the job. 
About the only places where we're likely to encounter very strong air 
defenses today are over former North Vietnam or North Korea.

For most scenarios, the B52 fills the bill for a heavy. What we need is
a cost effective replacement for those antiques that can carry lots of
iron bombs for softening up ground troops. 

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: GPS vs "Friendly Fire"
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:47:28 GMT


From miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)

I'm curious.
Did "every" vehicle in DS have a GPS unit? If so, how could GPS be used
to prevent future "Friendly Fire" accidents?
With digital encoding of radio signals, and GPS together, why couldn't
all friendly units be tracked constantly, or at least "checked" before 
fired upon? I know computer technology is there. Am I way behind here?
Seems to me like a fire-system computer could do a .5 nano-second check
on a target in aquisition. Of course I realize that in many cases, there
is no time for anything other than kill or be killed.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:31 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <BxvFwo.9J6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
>
>> In article <BxICus.L1w@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Edward J. Rudnicki" writes:
>>> In terms of ship count, it was a clear-cut German victory:
>>> Strategically, Jutland was a clear-cut British victory:
> 
>I disagree, since basically, Jutland did not change the strategic
>situation at all, it just managed to preserve the status quo.  Coral
>Sea was the high water mark of Japanese expansion in the South
>Pacific, and they never tried again to get at Port Moresby.  I've
>never heard Coral Sea called a clear-cut US victory.
>
>

I view Jutland as a British victory, only BECAUSE the status quo
was unchanged. The Germans needed to chase the Royal Navy from
the sea, in order to break out and cause havoc on the sea lanes,
and thus starve England. They failed to do this. They got chased
back to Germany. The Royal Navy, while damaged, was still in control
of the seas (except of course for a few problems with U-Boats of 
course!) The British met their victory conditions, the Germans
failed to meet theirs. Looks like a clear cut victory to me.

Likewise with the Coral Sea. The Japanese failed to achieve their
objective, the capture of Port Moresby. It was an expensive
victory for the US, but a victory none the less.

			David R. Wells

Disclaimer: I don't speak for AT&T, and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Nigel Allen <ndallen@r-node.gts.org>
Subject: Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Kicks Off Countdown to Dedication in 1993
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:35:55 GMT


From Nigel Allen <ndallen@r-node.gts.org>

Here is  a press release from the Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Inc.

 Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Kicks Off Countdown to Dedication
in 1993
 To: National and Assignment desks, Veterans Affairs writers
 Contact: Mary Beth Newkumet, 301-649-6565, or
          Diana Hellinger, 202-328-7253, for the
          Vietnam Women's Memorial Project Inc.

   WASHINGTON, Nov. 11  -- On Thursday, Nov. 12, the Vietnam 
Women's Memorial Project (VWMP) will kick off its countdown 
to dedication of the first memorial in the nation's capital to 
honor American military women.
   At a special ceremony in Washington, D.C. at 10 a.m. EST, National
Park Service Regional Director Robert Stanton will join veterans from
all over the country in marking the site of the approved memorial,
300 feet southeast of the statue of the three infantrymen on the
grounds of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
   After a ten-year grassroots effort, the Vietnam Women's Memorial
will be dedicated next year on Veterans Day (Nov. 11) during a
three-day "Celebration of Patriotism and Courage," Nov. 10 to 12,
1993, honoring the women who served.  Work on the approval design, a
bronze sculpture-in-the-round of three military women and a wounded
soldier, is currently underway in Santa Fe, N.M., by sculptor Glenna
Goodacre.
   According to VWMP founder and chair Diane Carlson Evans, R.N.,
excitement about the dedication is catching on all over the country.
"We get calls in the office every day now from men and women veterans
and their families asking for details so they can make their travel
arrangements.  Many people are saving up now to be able to come next
year.  We're thrilled with the response because we want them all
here."
   The VWMP must finish raising $2 million for the design,
construction, landscaping, perpetual maintenance fee for the memorial
and next year's dedication ceremonies.  Tax-deductible contributions
can be sent to the VWMP, 2001 S St., N.W., Suite 302, Washington,
D.C., 20009.  Vietnam women veterans are encouraged to send their
service information and current address to receive updates on
dedication events.
 -30-

Newsgroups: sci.military