HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:39:28 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

glock@chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto) writes:


>I know that the US looked into helicopter ejection seats, but determined 
>they are too much of a hassle to bother with.  Basically it involved blowing 
>off the main rotor to prevent the pilot from being la machined.  Pilots, in 
>general, did not like the idea of their main rotor having the ability to 
>"blow off."  It would be very nasty if the electronics that control this 
>explosive were accidently triggered.


Since helos have the aerodynamics of a grand piano without their rotors,
and since autogyro is only allowed with rotors, it seems, overall, safer
to stay with the aircraft and add some armor for the crew than to rig up
ejection seats.  Even if you had explosive "Jesus bolts" to get
rid of the rotors, there is little way to ensure they won't go off by
accident if an electrical problem happens, and anything that weakens
the rotors certainly weakens the reliability of the aircraft.

[mod note -- an autogyro is a type of flying machine, and a un-powered
descent in a helicopter is an auto-rotation

Steve]

	However, why use ejection seats?  Why not mount the crew in a
capsule, similar to those used on the Space Shuttle and certain
bombers, and just let the capsule fall off or be ejected forward via
rocket assist, then deploy a parachute?  The loss of the capsule would
slow the helo, and the rearward shift of the CG would pull it into a
climb, thus slowing it further.  With fly-by-wire becoming the norm in
control, a capsule need only be connected by electronics, and couplings
can be easily disconnected unlike cables.  The only problem, again, is
one of surviving an electrical problem.  Defense-in-depth design?

	Thoughts?  Comments?  Anybody done it before?  It seems such
an obvious idea I'm suprised it's not been done yet.

< 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.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dennis womack <dennis@medusa.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Re: Need info on laser designator wavelengths
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:37:05 GMT


From dennis womack <dennis@medusa.dseg.ti.com>

All laser designators and range finders are Nd:YAG, operating at 1.06 micron.  Various instruments can, however, be shifted to eye safe regions (or others in-between) at 1.5 microns.  There are the potetntial for laser waepons that have many choices; the most popoular of which might be CO2 at 10.6 microns.
... Dennis



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jim Haynes <haynes@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Interesting Article on Japanese WWII Radar
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:23:15 GMT


From Jim Haynes <haynes@cats.ucsc.edu>


A friend just told me that there is an interesting article in the latest
IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine by a pioneer of radar in Japan.
It seems they had invented the cavity magnetron some time before the
English; but the idea of pulsed radar was new to them.  And that their
scientists considered nuclear weaponry as too difficult for even the U.S.
to achieve (within the time frame of the war), so they worked on a different
magic weapon, intending to use very high power microwaves to shoot
down aircraft by disrupting the control systems.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Subject: Silencers (was Re: Sonic Sniper Locater)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:39:19 GMT


From Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>

In article <C0E5pq.6z9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu> writes:
> 2)  Yes, most bullets are supersonic, which is why they make scary "cracking"
> noises when they go overhead.  One of the functions of a silencer is to
> decelerate the bullet below Mach 1 (on rifles, that is).  Most pistol rounds are
> subsonic, making them much easier to silence (rifle silencers suck).

Minor correction. A silencer muzzles (sic) the blast from the propellant.
It does *NOT* decelerate a bullet to subsonic speeds. A silencer will slightly
reduce muzzle velocity of bullets, but not by a factor of 3 (mach 3 to mach 1).

A silencer for sub-sonic ammo (e.g., .45 ACP) can be VERY effective, and indeed
the noise of the bullets hitting the target may be louder and/or more
noticeable than the sound the the firearm. The particular example I ran
into was a silenced UZI, shooting at a (defunct) car. The bullets splatting
into the side of the car were louder than the sound of the UZI action cycling,
even though I was closer to the UZI than the car.

A silencer for supersonic ammo (any rifle ammo) is much less effective. It
is useful in that hearing protection probably isn't required to fire the
rifle, but it doesn't hide the fact that someone just fired a shot. These
silencers also probably don't last as long; one guy with an M-16 emptied
a 30-round magazine and the last several shots were noticeably louder than
the first few. I suspect the various diaphragms had ruptured or torn.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:25:55 GMT


From dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh)

Given that you want a lot of armor between the pilot and any unfriendly bullets, how practical would it be to armor the seat so that it (and the pilot!) could survive ejecting through the rotor?

Possible problems are that you rather put the armor between the bullets and
the critical systems instead of putting the critical systems between the armor
and the bullets. Also ... stopping the prop may require a lot more armor than
you'd want to carry on a helicopter (I think the spec for the Apache's rotors are
that they can cut down 4" diameter trees without damage).
-- 
... He was determined to discover the		David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.		...!seismo!cmucs!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.	_Mort_,  Terry Pratchett

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Dueling Battleships
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:22 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
> 
> 
> 
>         With regards to two battlelines facing off why not concentrate
>         all your fire upon one target with the view to killing it
>         quickly be fore it qould have any affect upon your group and
>         move to the next target once the first had been silenced...

There are problems with correcting aim by observing the fall of shot - 
it is not possible to distinguish between the shell splashes made by 
many different ships all shotting at the same target.  One of the 
reasons (not the major one by any means) for the demise of the mixed- 
sized gun armament of pre-dreadnought type ships was that it was also 
difficult to distinguish between the splashes made by differnt calibre 
guns - an 8" or 9.2" splash looks much the same as a 12" one.
-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: glock@chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto)
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: College of Business, University of Florida
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:26:00 GMT


From glock@chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto)

In article <C0HvLv.Fto@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh) writes:

>Has there been any thought to putting AMRAAMs on an apache? Since the missile
>is self-guided, the apache shouldn't need its own radar. Of course, deciding
>when to fire without some form of radar could be a problem (can the AMRAAM be
>fired "blind" in response to a spotting report from someone on the ground?).
>Having the AF give the army some of its newest toys might also be a problem.


I seriously doubt this will ever happen.  The weight restrictions _probably_ 
make it impossible.  It was the same problem with putting Sidewinders on it; 
I am unsure if that ever happened or not.  I believe Stinger missiles can be 
used from an Apache (there are relatively small).






Joe

****************************************************************
**                 GLOCK@chip.cba.ufl.edu                     **
**                                                            **
**     "When the going gets tough, the tough get a GLOCK."    **
****************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:40 GMT


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

In article <BzzCrI.L5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes:

>When it encountered aircraft at medium
>altitudes, the tactic was to rapidly pounce using it's superior diving
>and climbing ability rather than staying level and engaging in a turning
>contest.

In spite of this I've come across accounts of Thunderbolts turning inside
FW-190s. I don't think the wing loading was _that_ high. It also had a 
very high roll rate. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Thomas A. Russ" <tar@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: USC-ISI
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:35:38 GMT


From "Thomas A. Russ" <tar@isi.edu>


In article <...> labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:

 > 	With regards to two battlelines facing off why not concentrate
 > 	all your fire upon one target with the view to killing it
 > 	quickly be fore it qould have any affect upon your group and
 > 	move to the next target once the first had been silenced...

There are at least three problems with this tactic:

	1)  With many ships firing at the same target, it makes
spotting the fall of shell much more difficult.  Without being able to
reliably sight the fall of shots, adjusting fire to land on target is
almost impossible.  To some extent, this can be ameliorated by using
different color dyes, but there is a limit to the number of colors
available.

	2)  It is much, much easier to target an enemy ship if your
ship is not under fire.  This is a combination of morale, lack of
physical damage and vibration, and lack of a need for evasive
maneuvering.  By not targeting the other ships, you give them "free"
shots at your battleline.

	3)  Assuming parallel steaming lines, you will be engaging the
ships at an average range that is longer than that at which the enemy
is engaging you.  For example, the distance from the rear of your
column to the head of the enemy column is potentially much greater
than the distance between the two battlelines.




--

Thomas A. Russ                                             tar@isi.edu    
USC/ISI, 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292      (310) 822-1511

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Hovercraft in Somalia?
Organization: Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:23:13 GMT


From "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil>


In article <C0Jpx3.8yK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>
>From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
>
>Any idea of their capacity? 
>
Not in tons, but each will carry one but not two M-1s

>Their tactical deployment tactics? 
>
>Are they armoured to an extent?
>
No, they are all aluminum except for the rubber skirts.

>Could they perhaps be armoured 

of course but with a equivalent decrese in capacity.

>and use their combined sea/land capability to
>transport troops not only up to the beach itself but onto the beach and into
>some form of cover thus avoiding the dash across generally exposed ground (as
>most beaches tend to be?)
>
Absolutly.  In fact the base in Camp Pendleton is across the beach, up
a long steep ramp and across and airfield (dedicated to LCACs).  As
long as the ground is reasonably smooth there are completely
functional on dry land.  As long as there are no gullies for us to
lose our cushion, we could go up the beach and keep on flying with
only a slight reduction in speed (and visibility due to flying dust).

They are great for going over soft or marshy ground because the
footprint is so soft.  The LCACs have on several occasions run over
seals while hitting the beach with minimal damage to the animal.  I
know of at least one occasion where they have run over a beachmaster
(man directing traffic) with no significant damage.

>Any responses would be appreciated
>
>Rob

Your welcome,
Greg

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:49:12 GMT
Full-Name: NONUSER


From lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)

In article <C02w58.GHB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dave Heisler <dheisler@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu> writes:
>I had this idea the other day, lets say you have an airport
>or base that comes under sporadic sniper fire. How do you
>locate the sniper?
>
>I envisioned this: hundreds of self powered radio linked
>microphones scattered about the ground. A control unit that
>knows the position of all of them (relative to control unit
>or maybe use gps) and can calculate direction of sound orgin
>based on the timing of the received sound pulse as radioed by
>the microphones. (thinking about it maybe you could get by with
>2 or 3 sensor microphones)

Three or four mics, if you're dealing with a relatively unobstructed space
with a uniform temperature.

>1) Combine direction of orgin with an overhead satelite view.

Your basic microphone doesn't sense direction, just time.  Two together give
you a hyperbola via constant time (distance) difference.  If your mics are
relatively close together, you can approximate it with two bearings.

>2) Programmable microphone filter/amplifyer for detecting other
>   things like tanks, airplanes, etc.

Yeah, a filter would be good.  Especially if you need to handle supersonic
bullets (are any/all bullets supersonic?).  We wouldn't want/need the device
to tell us where the bullet *hit*.  :^)

Tanks are harder.  Sure, you can isolate the sound of the tank engine at
each microphone, but since it's a periodic function, there are multiple time
(distance) differences that will match them up.  To determine which is
correct, you need to wait for it to rev its engine, or (better yet)
backfire.  You can solve this problem by installing your microphones in
pairs.  The distance between a pair of mics should be less than half the
smallest wavelength you want to measure (that would be about a meter for a
V-8 engine running at 2000 rpm).  That way you can just match up the nearest
peaks.

Airplanes are tougher still, because you get a serious Doppler effect that
screws with your filtering and matching.  With pairs of mics near each
other, you might be able to get bearings, but by the time you get the info,
the aircraft could have moved.  It's best to use radar.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Soviet Air force Sniper Pilots
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:45:53 GMT


From Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>

"Sniper Pilot" is sort of like a merit badge -- enough training, demonstrated
expertise, going through the Soivet equivalent of Top Gun/Red Flag, and you get
the designation.  It is not a seperate organization or anything, but rather a
proficiency decoration.  In WWII, it was given to aces.  (Can't do that anymore,
not enough Korean ariliners to shoot at.)

				E

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Aryk Nusbacher <nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Swiss military preparedness!!
Organization: University of Toronto - Office of the Provost
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:26 GMT


From Aryk Nusbacher <nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca>


What are the Swiss air force flying now?

AJS Nusbacher


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Landing craft
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:45 GMT


From gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)


>   Could someone post a list of the standard abbreviations for various
>   amphibious landing craft, such as LCM, LCVP, etc?  Thanks.

    LVTP Landing Vehicle, Tracked Personnel (replaced by AAV)
    AAV  Assault Amphibious Vehicle
    LCAC Landing Craft, Air Cushion
    LCM  Landing Craft, Mechanized
    LCU  Landing Craft, Utility
    LACV Lighter, Air Cushion Vehicle
    LARC Lighter, Amphibious Resupply Cargo
    LASH Lighter aboard ship
    LCVP Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Schmitt <shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: Man Machine Systems Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:17 GMT


From Mike Schmitt <shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>

: Who were the heavy Guard cavalry with the brass-colored cuirasses and red
: plumed helmets? I've heard them referred to as Carabiniers a'Cheval but 
: were they perhaps Horse Grenadiers or (this would make more sense, since 
: Carabinieri in Italian = Gendarme in French = Police in English) the Elite 
: Gendarmes? Were they used as heavy cavalry units or were they indeed used 
: as military police? 

  According to my resources no Guard Cavalry wore the cuirass.

  The Horse Grenadiers wore a bearskin hat and blue 'surtout' jacket.
  The Dragoon Guards wore a helmet w/leopardskin trim, red plume, black 
     horsehair mane, and green jacket.
  The Polish Lancers wore blue lancer's jacket (kurtka) and czapkas.
  The Dutch Lancers wore red
  The Guard Chasseurs a Cheval wore a busbie (which the French called a
     'colpack') with a green hussar's jacket.
  The Guard Elite Gendarmes wore a bearskin hat with a dark blue jacket.
  
  The Cuirassiers wore a silver cuirass, helmet with black trim, black
     horsehair mane, red plume, and blue jacket.
  The Dragoons wore a bronze helmet with leopard trim, black horsehair mane,
     and a green jacket.
  The Lancers wore a brass helmet with leopard trim, and black wool crests,
     and green jackets.  (Elite companies wore a red wool crest) 
  The Chassuers a Cheval wore a green jacket.  The 1st Regiment wore a crested
     helmet, the other regiments wore the shako, elite companies wore the
     busbie.
  The Carabiniers wore brass helmets with red crest, brass cuirasses and 
     white jackets 
  The Hussars wore a blue 'standard' hussar uniform with shako.

  The Guard Elite Gendarmeries were responsible for security and protection
  of Napoleon's headquarters.



 
  
-- 
Mike Schmitt - Disclaimer: These opinions are not my employer's.  My opinions 
are protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America.  No mission too difficult, no sacrifice too great.  Duty first. 


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@qucdn.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:25:58 GMT


From Graydon <SAUNDRSG@qucdn.queensu.ca>

Why not set up an ejection seat with an altimeter, a drag orientation
system, and a rocket, and fire it *forward* (and a little up?)

The forward toss doesn't have to be as hard as the standard fixed
wing eject, and the second rocket (that gives you chute altitude)
only goes off if needed, and can be a slow (relatively) burner.

Anyone ever tried this?  (probably too hard for the backseater in
a two seat helicopter, and probably too much to get out of the way.)

Graydon

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jfb@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Number Forty-One in the Series--Seversky/Republic XP-41
Keywords: Supercharged P-35
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:23:17 GMT


From jfb@ihlpl.att.com


The last aircraft on the Seversky P-35 contract (36-430) was delivered 
in 1938 as the XP-41 (company designation Model AP-2) with a revised 
wing and a 1200-hp R-1830-19 air cooled radial engine with a 
medium-altitude two-stage turbosupercharger in place of the standard 
850 hp R-1830-9 engine.  The supercharger was located in a ventral 
position just aft of the wings and had its air intake in the left wing 
root.  Overall length was increased from 25 feet 2 inches to 27 feet 0 
inches.  In addition, this aircraft had a fully retractable 
undercarriage, the legs and wheels folding inward into the wings and 
fuselage.  The canopy was somewhat lower than that of the standard 
P-35, and was more aerodynamically streamlined.  

The XP-41 made its first flight in March, 1939, shortly before the 
Seversky company threw out Major de Seversky as its CEO and changed 
its name to Republic Aviation Corporation.  A maximum speed of 323 mph 
at 15,000 feet was attained.  Maximum range was 1860 miles.  Empty 
weight was 5390 pounds and maximum loaded weight was 7200 pounds.  
Armament was the same as that of the standard P-35--one 0.50-in and 
one 0.30-in machine gun.  

The XP-41 showed significantly better performance than that of the 
standard P-35, but the Army preferred a parallel Seversky/Republic 
development, the high-altitude AP-4 which was eventually to emerge as 
the YP-43, and the XP-41 was not developed any further.  

Sources: 

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William 
  Green, 1964.  

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  

  United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and 
  Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.  

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: High level bombing
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:45:55 GMT


From Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>

I don't know, what do you consider high level?  Incidentally, the best place to
look for an answer is in the Strategic Bombing Survey for the Pacific, which
includes hit diagrams for each Japanese ship hit by bombs.

					E

Newsgroups: sci.military