HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bville.gts.org!ian.evans@dciem.uucp (Ian Evans)
Subject: WHO HAS LAUNCH CONTROL
Organization: Baudeville BBS - Toronto, Canada 416-283-0114 2000+ conferences
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:01:21 GMT


From bville.gts.org!ian.evans@dciem.uucp (Ian Evans)

In sifting through my mail in another net, I came across this tidbit
which seemed contrary to what I had always believed.  Is there anyone
who can confirm the validity of this gentleman's statements re: the
chain of command.  I always thought the President had the codes via the
aide with the 'nuclear football'.

        "Sorry, the President doesn't know them (the codes needed to
        fire the missles) either. Launch control resides with the
        Strategic Air Command in Colorado, authorized by the Joint
        Chiefs, with the _approval_ of the President.

        As Commander in Chief the President has sole authority to
        approve launch of a first strike IF AND ONLY IF the Joint Chiefs
        concur, and only if the United States is at war.  Under all
        other circumstances launch control resides with Congress.

        In the event of a first strike against the United States by a
        foreign power, Presidential appproval _IS_NOT_REQUIRED_ to
        launch a retaliatory strike after enemy missles have reached
        ground zero (detonated).

        Each missle silo has sufficient targetting and launch control to
        initiate launch under these circumstances without any outside
        authorization or communication whatsoever.

        In fact, in the case of an enemy first strike 'landing' on the
        United States, standing orders direct that each intact missile
        must be immediatly launched against the aggressor after
        confirmation of detonation of even a single enemy nuclear
        warhead within the United States.  This is called "Mutally
        Assured Destruction" and is the basis for detante and the cold
        war with the Russians over the past 30 years.

        This is why launch control of each silo is under human control.
        SAC has continuously refused to allow the complete automation of
        launch control. After a SAC initiated launch sequence, either of
        the operators at each silo can abort launch of the weapons at
        that station.  Without an automated launch order, both operators
        acting in agreement can launch against any of series of
        pre-targetted destinations."
                                                                                                 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)
Subject: In-flight refueling in WWII
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:30:24 GMT


From umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)


   During the early days of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany
during WWII, the USAF did not have fighter aircraft with sufficient range
to escort the B17s and B24s on deep penetration missions. Did the concept
of in-flight refueling ever occur to anyone back then? It wouldn't have
been too difficult to stick some bomb bay tanks into a '17 or Lib and let
the P-38s and Thunderbolts take a drink now and then. I think someone must
have thought of the concept as far back as the 1920s or 30s and yet, at least
in the USAF, the earliest experiments to my knowledge took place in the
1950s. Anyone care to share some insight on the origin of in-flight
refueling (and why it wasn't used during WWII) ?

Curt

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Detroit Diesels in Mil Vehicles
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:36:25 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BuDEww.FHv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM 
(Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:
> 
> Detroit Diesel 6V53T engine and a Allison MT653 automatic
> transmission.
> 
>   Are those the same engine and transmission used by the original Mowag
> design and/or by the U.S. version?
> 
>   Aren't they civilian engines, and as suchs, not subject to export
> restrictions from the U.S?

The LAV in the current USMC inventory does indeed use the Detroit Diesel
6V53T.  While the engine is commercially available, the injector used for
the LAV application is (I understand) a military special application designed
to get a LOT more fuel into the compression chamber thus producing more
power (also more air pollution) than the civilian version is capable of.
If memory serves, the civilian injector is the DD C-55, and the military
injector is a P-70.  I don't know anything about the LAV transmission.
I am certain that the mil-spec injectors can not be purchased from any
Detroit Diesel dealerships.  They must be requisitioned from the factory
via military contract.  

My knowledge of LAV engines comes from a few years I spent with a 4th
echelon maintenance shop where we overhauled all sorts of ordnance tracked
vehicle engines.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dzimmerman@condor.navsses.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: NSWCCD, Naval Ship Systems Eng Sta, Phila PA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:32:58 GMT


From dzimmerman@condor.navsses.navy.mil

>...when the engines shut down....



I have no direct knowledge of the F117, but I've heard and read reports
that say that it's a composite of parts from several different aircraft
underneath the skin.  So....  The fly-by-wire system reminds me of the
F16.  In that aircraft if main power fails the APU comes on.  Essentially
it's a little propellant bottle and turbine that spins the generator for
about ten minutes.  The aircraft is completely flyable for that time.
After that fails the various systems have backup batteries that last
for varying amounts of time.  The radar craps out in seconds, the
avionics and flight control systems in a minute or so.

My guess is that the Stealth Fighter uses some similar system.
   
   Dave Zimmerman
   (My opinions are my own...mostly)



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:18:34 GMT


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

In article <BtnHD9.1t9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:

>Maybe also for night arrasment missions (do not let 'em sleep).

The Americans did this to Japanese air bases during WW2.. Send a 
bomber at night to drop _one_ bomb once every hour or so..



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Stealth power failure
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:25:46 GMT


From shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)

The F-117 probably has an EPU, an emergency power unit, just like the
F-16s.  All the unstable modern fly-by-wire aircraft have this.  We
have three different aircraft with a version of the F-16 EPU here at
Dryden--the various F-16s (AFTI and XL), the X-29s, and the X-31s.

The F-16 EPU burns hydrazine to keep the computers and controls
working.  The X-29, being experimental, has a much smaller hydrazine
tank.  It's designed to give the pilot enough time be sure he's in the
seat envelope and pointed away from civilization before he ejects.
The F-16, with its bigger tank, has enough time to make an emergency
landing at a likely spot.

Planes like this do not use batteries.  Too much dead weight, when
you can pack so much energy into the hydrazine tank.  Remember that
you need to run the control surfaces, which means that you have to
power the hydraulics.  There isn't enough room to carry the batteries
that would do this and still carry any kind of weapons load.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: maxc0452@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Legene)
Subject: Re: Expansionist China
Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:37:02 GMT


From maxc0452@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Legene)

spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Greg Spencer) writes:


>From spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Greg Spencer)

>Reading the local papers here in Australia I am getting the feeling that
>the region is becomming more and more unstable. Tiawan has just bought a
[stuff deleted]
>could quite easily esculate!  The problem is that if it did, it would 
>involve just about all the counties in this region leaving Australia just
>south of a major War zone.  The question is, if this did happen would
>china stop at indinesia or would they want to visit the almost completly
>undefened Australia.  And if so, what would the U.S. of A do about it?
>We have allready seen that relations between us and the US can be strained
>just because it's election time in the states - would they be willing
>to defened an alied country like Australia whose only real asset is a 
>bunch of realy freindly people, during an election?

 Good question all right.  Because New Zealand stopped allowing
nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed U.S. Navy ships into New Zealand
harbors (said they didn't want to be a target) the defence pact
between U.S., Australia & New Zealand iss just about dead.  "Defend us,
but do it as we tell you too" didn't go over realy well with U.S.
government.  That's supposed to be "really"   ^^^  curse this
keyboard.
  With the U.S. economy reeling from defence cutbacks, however, I'm
sure the U.S. would be glad to sell all sorts of materiel to
Australia.  Or some kind of independent defense pact might be worked
out w/out including New Zealand.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: The Bf-109E: A Copy of The Spitfire?
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:53:22 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <Bu9Hs9.GoE@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
> 
> 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. 
> 

No it's not.  The Spitfie was a derivation of the Supermarine racers which won
an international challenge for 3 consecutive years.  This occurred justprior to
WW2 whereas the Me-109 was involved in the Spanish Civil War at thistime, so
the Spitfire actually came after the Me-109 (or it's early variants at least)

regs

Rob



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: amlsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Andrew Smith)
Subject: siege weaponry mailing list started
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:06:49 GMT


From amlsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Andrew Smith)


			SIEGE MAILING LIST
		   (Plan, hopes and dreams....)

	The siege mailing list is intended for the discussion of
pre-black powder methods of attack and defence of fortified positions. 
While the discussion of the downfall of the great siege engines caused
by the advent of portable, and powerful cannons, is important, I would
like this to be somewhat minimized.

	My thoughts is that this would be used to discuss the myriad of
topics applicable.

	Physics			Mechanics
	Materials		Construction
	Transportation		Terminology
	Historic evidence of use  - Manuscripts
				  - Texts
				  - Archaeological data

	Historical reconstruction
	Common myths, and misconceptions
	and so on.


	I would also like to be able to compile a database of books,
references, and data for later use.

	
	I would like to ask all who wish to participate, to try to
re-define the commonly (incorrectly) used words such as catapult and ballista.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
		Instructions for siege mailing list
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To get onto the siege mailing list, just follow these real simple
directions.... hey, I got them right!  

Send mail to :    siege-request@bransle.ucs.mun.ca
and include a single line saying:

subscribe siege <your name here>

That's it!

Then to mail to siege simply mail your articles to:
siege@bransle.ucs.mun.ca

Don't forget, "i" before "e" except after "c".  :)

The affairs of the list will be archived on the FTP site at
bransle.ucs.mun.ca. Simply FTP in, give "anonymous" as a userID
and your full address as the password.

The archive will be under
 /pub/sca/siege.current  (current for the month)
 /pub/sca/siege.<date>	 (monthly archive)

Actually, there's a whole lot of good stuff there, so you might want to
look around anyways...!

----
Sebastian/Andrew Smith
amlsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: marusso@pilot.njin.net (Mark Russo)
Subject: WW2 fighters
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:28:20 GMT


From marusso@pilot.njin.net (Mark Russo)



I'm looking for information on WW2 fighters, using Internet
as a resource. I'm interested in the techinical aspects,
such as engines and radio. But any leads would be helpful

                           Thank you
                                            Mark

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM>
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:51:45 GMT


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

dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (George Patterson) writes:

>In addition to this, Eisenhower regarded the bombing campaign as a means
>to eliminate the Luftwaffe as a threat to his forces on D-Day. The entire
>series of raids known as the "Big Week" was designed to ground the German
>fighters (at least temporarily). Without the daylight bombing raids in this
>period, D-Day would not have occurred - ever. 

What I think is 'debatable' is the wisdom and strategic soundness of 
sending essentially undefended bombers deep into enemy territory. Though
the bombers had a significant impact on the civilian population, the
effects on the German military/industrial systems could have been 
achieved by other means. We're talking deep strike daylight bombing here.

One wonders what might have happened (and how many fewer bomber crews
might have died) if we had started bombing military facilities in the
occupied countries, within fighter escort range, rolling the attacks
inland as German airbases and facilities were demolished. This would
have tied up the German fighters, deprived them of operational bases
within walking distance of the bomber streams and made life tough for
the Germans in France prior to D-day. 

If this was effective, we should have lost fewer aircrews and aircraft
and thus had a more rapid build-up. Might be an interesting strategy
to model.

	Regards,
	Rick

------------------------
Rick Lafford
Eastman Kodak Co.
lafford@serum.kodak.com
=======================================================


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: China and Expansionism
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:32:37 GMT


From bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

> From shane <DEICHMAN@cisco.nosc.mil>

>   While China IS purchasing the VARYAG from Russia/Ukraine
> (allowing them the finance the continued operation of the
> disputed Black Sea Fleet until they formally split it in
> 1994), I doubt they will use it as the U.S. Navy uses their
> carriers (i.e., power projection).  The Chinese have

        It should also be noted that the Chinese navy is
somewhat lacking in the types of ships suitable for escorting
a carrier, especially anti-sub and anti-air ships. Add to that
their lack of underway replenishment capability, and the purchase
of the Varyag could turn out to be "more thunder than lightning".
If China intends to aquire the technology for ASW, AAW escorts
and underway replenishment in time to make best use of the
carrier, they really will be "pushing sh*t uphill".


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: janm@Dublin.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)
Subject: Escorts  (Was: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Uppsala University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:01:01 GMT


From janm@Dublin.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)

Al Crawford <awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes:


>On the subject of these bomber missions (I seem to recall the unit charged
>with this was known as Tiger Force but I'm quite possibly utterly wrong)
>can anyone remember just what they were going to do about fighter escorts? I
>think the Tempest was to be used but I'm not sure.

I was under the impression that there wasn't much need for escorts towards
the end of the war. Didn't the B-29s fly without escort?
--
Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
janm@bern.docs.uu.se or janm@minsk.docs.uu.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:19:49 GMT


From jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)

>>Remember that everyone thought that the aircraft would stay fast and
>>only missiles would work and there would be no more furballs.  The
>>F-104 is the living embodiment of this theory.  It doesn't turn worth
>>a damn, even though it does have a gun.

>What about even earlier interceptors like the F-89D which was armed 
>with a large number of rockets which were fired in salvoes? The idea
>was to make beam attacks, not attacks from behind...

I'm trusting fuzzy memory on something I should look up, but I think
"interceptor" (not to be confused with air-superiority fighter) and
"rocket" (as opposed to guided missile) are the key words here.  The
F-89 was supposed to knock down the slow and clumsy bombers of its
day -- perhaps they were even still thinking of bomber _formations_.

The F-104 was a fighter, albeit of a design philosophy that, as Mary
Shafer points out, has been discredited.  Flinging unguided rockets 
at Soviet B-29 knockoffs in the hopes of hitting something mission-
critical before they got to Chicago was not its role.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sasrpj@unx.sas.com (Bob Janka)
Subject: Re: Carrier Fighters 
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:14:28 GMT


From sasrpj@unx.sas.com (Bob Janka)


In article <BuF3C7.8Ls@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
|> 
|> From daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk
|> 
|> In article <BuDFBs.G6y@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis) writes:
|> > 
|> > 	I heard a few years ago from a reliable source that at some time in the
|> > 	early '90s the USnavy would start production of the " F14-D " and the
|> > 	" A6-F ", have both of these projects 'sunk'? 	
|> > 	<more deleted>
|> > 	Also heard of a proposal called E7 to replace the E2, but maybe it was
|> > 	just wishfull thinking.
|> > 
|> 
|> Both the F-14D and A-6F programs have been cancelled. The E-7 is a replacement
|> for the EC-130 Tacamo Hercules used to communicate with submerged submarines.
|> 

   The actual replacement for the EC-130G/Q Hercules (TACAMO) is the E-6A 
TACAMO II. This aircraft is described as having 75% commonality with 
the E-3 AWACS operated by the USAF. 

   According to my source ( Air Force Magazine, Jul 1990, there are NO 
entries for an E-7. 

   The same issue has an entry for the Advanced Tactical Support Aircraft
(ATSA), intended to replace E-2C Hawkeyes, EA-6B Prowlers, and ES-3A 
Vikings (ELINT) by late 1990s.

Bob Janka                         SAS Institute, Inc.
sasrpj@unx.sas.com                SAS Campus Drive
(919) 677-8000 x 7788             Cary, NC 27513
Opinions expressed are my own...
From: daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier Fighters
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:09:42 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620


From daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk

In article <BuDFBs.G6y@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis) writes:
> 
> 	I heard a few years ago from a reliable source that at some time in the
> 	early '90s the USnavy would start production of the " F14-D " and the
> 	" A6-F ", have both of these projects 'sunk'? 	
> 	<more deleted>
> 	Also heard of a proposal called E7 to replace the E2, but maybe it was
> 	just wishfull thinking.
> 

Both the F-14D and A-6F programs have been cancelled. The E-7 is a replacement
for the EC-130 Tacamo Hercules used to communicate with submerged submarines.

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: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Subject: Re:  Homestead AFB situation
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:26:22 GMT


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>
>
>I will admit that I am not familiar with the USAF basing in this region,
>and thus I ask sci.military readers who may know more about this area
>and the USAF details than I do to contribute their knowledge. Are there
>unique and important aspects of Homestead AFB's location that make it 
>important for national security reasons to have a USAF base located at
>that precise spot? Or could the mission of aircraft based there be 
>performed just as well by aircraft based at other locations? Does
>Homestead AFB have any intrinsic reason to exist, EXCEPT to provide
>employment for the area? 

  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.

  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.

  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)

  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).

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos
 

Newsgroups: sci.military