HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:10:31 GMT


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

In article <BuDFBH.G5u@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>
>From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
>
>>From article <BuBLxI.GtA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23):
>> Standard Fly-By-Wire really. The F-16 couldn't stay in the air without it's
>> computers, it's dynamically unstable.

>That may be true for the F-16XL, but AFAIK it is not true for the
>standard F-16.  Fly-by-wire does not imply instability.

No, it doesn't, but its true in the case of the F-16. The F-16 
isn't just dynamically unstable, it is also unstable in the staic 
sense.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:36:27 GMT


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


I recently read an article that claimed if the Germans had their Me-262's
up a year earlier that they could have changed the outcome of the air battle
especially over Berlin.  I would appreciate any comments on this.

			
				Rob

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:01:34 GMT


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

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

>This brought to mind a question . . .


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

	Expensive, unreliable, inaccurate.  Died young.  The surviving rounds
	are now collectors items, as are the weapons.  (Full stability isn't
	achieved untill full spin speed is reached.  Which is AFTER it clears
	the muzzle.  Also, full kinetiic energy is not available at short
	range.)

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: km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org (Alan Barrow)
Subject: Re: Homestead AFB situation
Organization: km4ba's packet radio gateway
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:29:39 GMT


From km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org (Alan Barrow)

In <Bu0Coz.5p4@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes:
>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 

As one who was born and grew up in S Miami, and still goes to N Key Largo 
and Biscayne Bay near Homestead to fish, I would be suprised to see it closed
entirely.

I suspect that between Castro/Cuba, the drug war, and the caribbean that
a base in that location makes some sense.

It is an fairly active base, at least compared to others in FL and GA that
I have observed. I do not think that Key West NAS is large enough to
handle what Homestead could.

Of course, I may be biased, as I grew up when the "Cuban Missile Crisis"
was more than a nightly news item. 

I toured a Hawk missile base as a kid, and watched flights of F-4's head 
south/south East all day long. (They would fly over my house.)

When fishing off N Key Largo, I have been buzzed many times by F-16's 
screaming in at what seems like 100' and mach something. (You do not
hear them until they are past you.) when quietly sneaking up on 
bonefish, this will give you a heart attack.

I also see some Navy planes on the same course (A-6/A-7's???).

So, I can justify reopening that one easier than keeping a base open
in the middle of Kansas somewhere...

My thoughts anyway.....


 Alan Barrow  km4ba | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
 jab@               | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
 hpuerca.atl.hp.com | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
 ..!gatech!kd4nc!   | All those moments will be lost in time -
         km4ba!alan | like tears in rain. Time to die.          Roy Batty



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Kevlar Body Armour -- Plate Material?
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:28:56 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <BtpCDr.LIz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
[steel versus ceramic]
>Aren't ceramic plates more common?
>
>Ceramic is just as hard or harder than steel, at least when it
>comes to stopping bullets , but has the advantage of being much lighter.

Ceramic plates can be used, but they have a major disadvantage in certain
situations. Ceramics generally have poor ductility. They tend to stress
fracture on impact. That means that while they may offer good protection
from a single hit, follow on hits, as with an automatic weapon, find the
ceramic plate easier to penetrate. The steel plates are generally not
terribly thick, they're only load spreaders for the kevlar. It's ok for
them to deform under impact. It doesn't lessen their effectiveness
noticably.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:44:47 GMT


From merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)

Interesting theory -- but, how do you put it inside a B-43 bomb casing?
You are going to have to get your fission device, mirrors, fusion fuel,
and tamper into a cylinder length 12'6" and diameter 1'6".  With your
tamper approximately 3.5" thick plus enough Li6D for a fusion yield of
about 1 MT (plus secondary 1 MT U-238 fission yield) you are not going
to have much room for the open space required by your proposed array of
mirrors to reflect radiation pressure back to a secondary core.  Don't
neglect the core, tamper, and explosives surrounding the primary fission
trigger device in describing the origin and focusing of xray pressures.

Also, it should be obvious to the layman that your device doesn't scale 
very well -- just think about how large your device becomes and how hard 
it would be to machine and support mirrors capable of focusing on a fusion 
core of sufficient size to deliver say 20, 40, or 60 MT -- it won't work
-- it doesn't scale -- and that is precisely why DOE pushes this design.

n.b.  3.5" U-238 doesn't stop a very large percentage of 14.5 MeV neutrons
-- we're not going to get significant asymmetry from U-238 self shielding.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander-James Annala
Principal Investigator
Neuroscience Image Analysis Network
HEDCO Neuroscience Building, Fifth Floor
University of Southern California
University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:50:40 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <BuBLLC.GB3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>
>I have read a lot of articles about the V-2 rocket.  Wow!  I can't believe 
>those Germans could acquire space age technology.  I read articles about the
>mass destruction it did to London.  Why didn't the Germans just concentrate 
>all of their production efforts to building the V-2 and attacking London as
>opposed to even getting involved with a situation like the Battle of Britain.

The Germans not only acquired space age technology, they basically 
invented it, Robert Goddard and a few other visionaries aside. During
the Moon Race, it was a case of *our* German scientists being better
than *their* German scientists that allowed the US to win with Apollo.*
Nearly every liquid fueled rocket in the world today can trace it's
heritage back to the V2.

On the subject of the terror bombing of London, that was the major
mistake of the Battle of Britain. Hitler's petty spite diverted 
German attention away from significant military targets like the
coastal radar stations and the airfields and aircraft factories
in order to concentrate on punishing London. While the damage to
civilian assets, and the deaths of civilians, were costly to Britain,
they did not materially reduce her warfighting ability.

Gary

* Ok, I know this is an oversimplification, but there is truth in it.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:05:43 GMT


From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)


In sci.military, rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>
>                 ..............  Why didn't the Germans just concentrate
>all of their production efforts to building the V-2 and attacking London as
>opposed to even getting involved with a situation like the Battle of Britain.

Even though the V-2 had a guidance system, it still couldn't hit its
designated target with 100% accuracy.  Even if the V-2 veered off its
course just by one or two degrees, that would have been too much because
of the great distance it traveled.

The V-2 was a lot more accurate than a long-range artillery gun though;
if an artillery gun could have a range comparable to that of the V-2, 
the gun would miss badly to variations in wind velocity & direction,
air pressure, temperature, etc.  The V-2's guidance system continuously 
corrected its flight trajectory whereas the gun's projectile couldn't.

The aircraft was the only effective way to hit a designated target hundreds 
of miles away.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rich@jasmine.clearpoint.com (Rich Wernick)
Subject: Re: F-16 vs A-10 in CAS role.
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp, Hopkinton MA 01748
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:37:47 GMT


From rich@jasmine.clearpoint.com (Rich Wernick)

In article <BuDFCn.G9D@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP) writes:

 
 
  
  

   >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.

   True.  


The 104th TFW from the Massachusetts ANG fly the A-10. There was a special on them after
the Gulf War. They showed them in training in the mountains of New Hamphsire and 
Vermont. In one part of the special, they were up against the "Green Mountain Boys"
the, Vermont ANG, and their objective was to penatrate deep into enemy territiory 
without being detected. They were to destroy simulated targets on the ground buried
in the Green Mountains. The Vermont ANG fly the F-16. Because of the turning capability
and manuvering aspects of the A-10, they were able to destroy ALL the targets, and fly
back without a single F-16 simulating an air to air kill.  When they asked the flight 
leader how they performed so well, he said that NO F-16 would get down on the dirt
with an A-10 especially in a mountain region. He explained that during a confrontation
with several F-16's, that they backed off on the attack when the manuvering area got
to tight. He explained that the A-10 has a low heat signature. This made it difficult
for the F-16's to lock up on them. He explained that in this type of enviorment their
biggest threat is ground fire, not other fighters. He also said one of the biggest
advantages the A-10 has over any aircraft in the CAS role, is that it is extremely
quit. The enemy can't hear you coming, or know which direction you will attack from
again after you have already hit several targets.

He also mentioned as somebody did earlier that the A-10 did have a better air to air
record then the F-16. The only other aircraft to shoot down Iraqi planes was the
F-15 and F/A-18. 

Rich

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
Subject: Re: The Typhoon Class Submarines
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:36:41 GMT


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


I have not been following Russia lately but what is to become of the new 
Russian, Typhoon class submarines?  Are they going to be cancelled or what?
I would appreciate any comments.



			Greg 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:01:16 GMT


From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)


Wasn't there any attempt for the "mother" bomber plane to carry smaller
fighter plane(s)?  These fighter planes could be released whenever the
bomber(s) were attacked by enemy fighter plane(s).

I would surmise that this strategy had some serious drawbacks.

[ mod note -- I believe that Steve is thinking of 2 different programs --
the XF-?? Goblin, and the FICON/TOM-TOM programs.  

The Goblin program involved carrying a very small fighter in the after bomb
bay of a B-36, to be released when a threat was near.

The FICON program involved carrying a modifed F-84 in the bomb bay of a
B-36 to be used as a high-speed recon program.

The TOM-TOM program involved wing-tip to wing-tip coupling of a F-84 and a
B-36.  The F-84s would disconnect to engage enemy fighters.  The idea
behind this one that the F-84 could shut down it's engine, and be "towed"
by the B-36 on the way to the target.

Steve ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:55:33 GMT


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

In article <BuDF4v.Ftu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET
(24224-guthrie) writes, in part:

>>It would not, however, have changed the outcome of the war. Only the
>>amount of time it took.

>This is *highly* debateable*.  There is considerable evidence to indicate
>that Germany would have had the atomic bomb several months before the
>U.S. did, were it not for resources diverted to the Luftwaffe for use
>against the bombers.
	Not clear, at least from my reading of histories of both efforts.
	The amount of effort the US & UK put into the Manhattan Project
	was truly massive.  Perhaps the Nazi government could have done it
	with less.  Perhaps.  With the less_than_wholehearted support of
	the scientists and engineers not driven into exile, with leadership
	that disregarded nuclear physics on principal, it seems highly
	unlikely.  The indications are that the German's completed _one_
	_tiny_ reactor suring the war.  Compare that to Hanford Works.

>Imagine an a-bomb on a V-2 for a couple of seconds.
	Hard to do.  Don't have the weight of Little Boy or Fat Man
	handy, but they overloaded a B29 to get EITHER off the ground. Payload
	of a V2 was ~2,000 pounds.

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: thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping)
Subject: Brewster Buffalo info
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:37:20 GMT


From thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping)


I'm looking for information relating to that most under rated of World
War II fighter aircraft, the Brewster Buffalo  :-{)

General sources, especially with pictures, would be the best, but all
info is welcome.  

Also, to questions on the same topic:
	 
	1:  Are there any Buffaloes still in existance, flying or not?

	2:  Is it true that this was the only a/c to have seen active
		service on both sides of the war?  (Finland had some)

Thanks in advance...
			Bob.


-- 
@ "Our lives are better left to chance; +       PLEASE E-Mail to:           @
@  I could have missed the pain, but    +  bob.topping@um.cc.umich.edu      @
@  I'd have had to miss the dance."     +  phy_astrclub@emunix.emich.edu    @
@       -- Garth Brooks, The Dance.     +     ** RETURN OUR HURON! **       @

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: johair@afit.af.mil (John R. O'hair)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:58:48 GMT


From johair@afit.af.mil (John R. O'hair)

As an Air Force officer who at one time was involved with the design of
anti-tank munitions, I quote a maxim "Give me an armor design, and I can
design a warhead to defeat it." 

In the world of engineering, all you can do is attempt to design for the
most likely weakness or angle of attack. Sometimes your warhead (or
armor) will do what is designed to do and kill the tank (or stop you
from being killed), sometimes it won't.

I think the logical question is, "What is the most likely engagement
scenario in a war 15 to 20 years from now?" That is what we need to
design for.    

Crystal balls, anyone?

John O'Hair 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: V-1 rocket: why PULSED?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:27:46 GMT


From schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)

feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:


>The V-1 (buzzbomb? doodlebug?) propelled itself by PULSED explosions
>/burnings/firings, rather than by the continuous firing associated
>with  earlier and later attack rockets.

>Why was this?

I'm just guessing, but I think it is because you can have bigger
explosions if they are pulsed. And if you put bigger explosions closer
together you get more power in the same volume/weight jet.

Interestingly, I heard the Aurora [Mach 4/5] uses a form of pulse
technology.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: V-1 rocket: why PULSED?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:01:12 GMT


From feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)

The V-1 (buzzbomb? doodlebug?) propelled itself by PULSED explosions
/burnings/firings, rather than by the continuous firing associated
with  earlier and later attack rockets.

Why was this?
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: jhao@hila.hut.fi (Jixiang Hao)
Subject: Re: Chinese fighters gain mid-air refuelli
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:24:25 GMT


From jhao@hila.hut.fi (Jixiang Hao)

In article <Bu0Cos.5oB@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)
>>anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>>>China Obtains Technology for Aerial Refueling of Jets ............... 54
>  What is so special with the aerial refueling technology?
>
>  I understand that it gives a lot of flexibility in the design of the
>operations and allows for much greater range, so make some operations
>possible now. But, you can buy this technology from Israel/US/UK
>without too much problems. Or not?

In *Jane's World Aircraft 1985-1986*,  It mentioned that Refueling Techniques
Company (UK ?) were doing a feasibility study for China's Y-8 and J-8.

After 6 years development,  I would very much assumed that it was developed
by chinese itself under the help of some *World leading refueling comanpy*
like the one mentioned above.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Miso.Alkalaj@ijs.yu
Subject: Re: Osmium????? (Re: depleted uranium)
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:29:18 GMT


From Miso.Alkalaj@ijs.yu

OK, let's check some data on the heavy metals.

The reason Osmium would be nice for KE penetrators is its density
(22.48g/cm3); the reason why it isn't used is it's scarcity: it can
usualy be found as a rare 'impurity' in Rhodium ores - and Rhodium is
scarce enough. Osmium as a metal is not particularly poisonous - about
as much as Uranium (you can handle it, but you'd better not eat it,
depleted or not). But the Osmium tetraoxyde OsO4 is indeed very
dangerous - as are most of the heavy metal oxydes (including Uranium oxydes !). 

All heavy platinum-type metals would be well suited for KE penetrators:

Osmium, 22.48 g/cm3
Iridium, 22.42 g/cm3
Platinum, 21.45 g/cm3

(compare that to Uranium's 'meagre' 19 g/cm3 in alpha-phase). But
remember that they all cost almost as much as Platinum.

Miso Alkalaj (miso.alkalaj@ijs.si)
             (miso.alkalaj@ijs.ac.mail.yu)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Aircraft Carriers & In-flight refueling - what's so hard?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:19:11 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


> From Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann) 
> So what makes in-flight refueling and AC's so special and difficult that
> the Soviets never really mastered the latter and China just now managed
> to get the former?
> 
> I had thought it was more a matter of training and practise, but the
> remarks made it seem as if it was also a problem that only the high-tech
> West had managed to solve.
> 
> --  

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
like playing tennis. You can get the best racket & you still won't be able
to play worth a damn. You can get the best instructor & you will still
have to practice alot & for a long time anyway. W/o the instructor (the po-
sition the PRC is in) , you must learn by trial & error & that's a long, 
hard way to learn.

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


Newsgroups: sci.military