HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins)
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:05:59 GMT

In article <C1F3vy.Ez@ra.nrl.navy.mil> mcdermot@itd.nrl.navy.mil (John McDermott) writes:
>Does anyone know of incidents of B-52's using tail guns during
>the Vietnam war?  I seem to recall reading of one such action,
>with the added interest that the tail gun functioned automatically
>without the crew seeing the attacking fighter. Is this true?
>
>
>John McDermott
>
>

	I believe that there were 2 MIG-21 kills credited to B-52's
	in Nam. I assume the gun was used.
	Earl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: edhresko@hresko.eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC DAVID HRESKO)
Subject: Re: Tomahawk or SAM - My opinion
Originator: edhresko@c00553-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu
Organization: Techno-Geeks Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:17:13 GMT


	
	Try taking something with the mass of say, a Suburban, propel it through
the air at, say 550 mph and ram it into a hotel.  = damage!
-- 


Eric

******************************************************************************
Eric Hresko		* Mail:  edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu                        
Kanki House of Steaks   * Voice: (why would you want to call?) 1-919-821-5168
Dishwasher 2nd Class    * HK Rules!!! (But a FAL will do in a pinch)         
DISCLAIMER:  I don't wear sandals, eat granola, or tiptoe thru the Tulips    
                                                                             
At what temp will a frog become a superconductor?                             
				-Me at 3 a.m.                                
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: tz10956@meibm20.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych)
Subject: Re: The Gattling Gun
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:26:03 GMT

megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:

>In article <C15un1.MF4@unccsun.uncc.edu> ebstokes@uncc.edu writes:

>>	The A-10 carries the GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon.  It is as long and as heavy as a luxury auto, and the fuselage had to be designed around the gun. It fires 30mm AP projectiles at up to 4500 Rpm. Unlike other USAF rotary cannon, 

>The GAU-8/A Avenger 7-barrel 30mm gatling gun is also produced by GE. It's
>sole aircraft use was on the A-10 Thunderbolt II. It can fire between 7,000
>and 8,000 rpm, but is normally limited to around 4,000. The Avenger forms the
>basis for the Goalkeeper CIWS used by a few navies. 

The GAU-8's ROF is pilot selectable at 2100 or 4200 rpm.  Goalkeeper was 
designed by (I think) the Dutch, and the Soviets, er, Russians also have a
Gatling 30mm CIWS on their ships.  The Russian version is only six barrels
if I remember correctly, and lacks the autonomous track-and-fire capability
of Phalanx and Goalkeeper.

>There is also the Minigun 6-barrel 7.62mm gatling gun used by the USAF in 
>several Gunships, such as the AC-17, AC-119, and AC-130. It has also been
>mounted on helicopters, such as the UH-1 Huey and on various HH-3s, MH-53s, etc

>There is also the GEPod, a gatling gun pod which has a scaled down GAU-8/A, 
>I believe the GAU-13... with 3 or 5 barrels, I'm not sure....

>GE is currently supposed to be developing a 25mm Gatling for use on the F-22
>and future fighters, I'm not sure of the designation.

>There are other gatling types, a 3 barrel weapon I THINK the M197 mounted on
>the chin turret of AH-1 Cobras. The AV-8B Harrier carries a 25mm gatling in
>US service.

The Harrier carries a single barrel 25mm, not a gatling, doesn't it?

There is also a 5.56mm gatling, I don't know the designation. (Or if it was
even anything more than a demonstration model...)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu   The University of Illinois           |
|           tz10956@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu       at Urbana-Champaign...           |
|  The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  None of you understand.  _I'm_ not locked up in here with _you_.           |
|    _You're_ locked up in here with _me_! - Rorshach                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Iraq credited with 1 AA kill
Date: 28 Jan 93 23:23:23 GMT
Organization: Chevron


 That's right, an Iraqi pilot "splashed one".

 During DS, Capt Tim Bennett, F-15E flight leader, 335th Tactical Fighter
 Squadron, was part of a 12 ship package going after an airfield when they
 got bounced by 2 MiG-29 Fulcrums and 3 MiG-23 Floggers.  While the MiG-23s
 stayed up around 2,000 feet, the MiG-29's came down and tried to mix it up
 with the F-15E's at 600 knots and 100 ft altitude!

 One MiG-29 augered in while trying to maneuver for a shot.

 The other "MiG-29 came around and got into a beam position on us and lost
 his radar lock, but we think his radar was in automatic acquisition mode,
 and locked onto one of the Iraqi MiG-23 Floggers. ... The MiG-29 then shot
 a missile and destroyed the Flogger."


 Splash One, Dude!  ;)


 TRAVIS
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: 003166j@axe.acadiau.ca (JASON WILLIAM JARVIS)
Subject: Canadians leave CFB Baden-Soellingen
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:25:29 GMT

	So far as I can remember, the last CF-100 was grounded in 1982, but 
as I don't have any of my books with me, don't hold me to my words.  I seem 
to recall reading somewhere that they were retired from operational service 
in the late seventies, perhaps '78, but again, I'm not sure.  As a side 
note, I believe that Belgium also bought some CF-100s in the late fifties or 
early sixties, totalling around 100(?) planes.  I also think that the Clunk 
was widely considered superior to any all-weather interceptor of its day 
(mid-fifties), but then, I'm biased!

						Jason
From: megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:42:10 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: realsoon.wpi.edu

In article <1k118qINNb1d@bigboote.WPI.EDU> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>Pay attention!!!!! :-)  That's the B-25H (of WWII fame), not the B-52H.  The 

ARG! If this keeps up I'm going to see what a 75mm cannon will do to the
human body...

One more time for everyone whose emailed me, posted, etc...

I SCREWED UP! 

Apparently I was suffering from selective dyslexia and I swapped the 2 and 5.
Probably because I had just made a post about the B-52H carying the M61A1.

>Just as a point of interest, several models of the B-52 (jet powered heavy 
>bomber, vintage 1050's to God knows when) had a quad 0.50 in the tail instead 
>of the 20mm M61.

Only the H had the Vulcan, all others had a quad .50 cal mount. The D's were
retired a few years ago and still had them, and the G's had them right up
until the last year or so when the AF decided to remove the tailguns.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
Subject: Re: F-22 Name? (FAQ Question?)
Summary: Question on the F-23
Keywords: F-22 Name Black Widow
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:05:50 GMT

We at McDonnell Douglas always called the YF-23 the "Ghost" or the "grey Ghost"
both in reference to the aircrafts stealth and coloring.

Also MDC or rather John S. McDonnell like to name planes with supernatural names
re: phantom, banshee, goblin, voodoo, bat.  I personally have never heard of the
name "Black Widow" until I saw it here in this news group

**********************************************************************************
*Matthew Ward, formerly McDonnell Douglas F-15E program                          *
*            , formerly General Dynamics F-16A/B program                         *
**********************************************************************************

                                     _|_ 
                   \ /          --==(\V/)==--
		--=o0o=--          !  !  !
                   ' ` 
                     \_____/
               ---===<o(V)o>===---
                    '!  !` !`
**********************************************************************************
From: megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:44:28 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: realsoon.wpi.edu

In article <C1F3vy.Ez@ra.nrl.navy.mil> mcdermot@itd.nrl.navy.mil (John McDermott) writes:
>Does anyone know of incidents of B-52's using tail guns during
>the Vietnam war?  I seem to recall reading of one such action,
>with the added interest that the tail gun functioned automatically
>without the crew seeing the attacking fighter. Is this true?

IF this happened it could only be on a G or H model. Those are the only models 
with the remote gun system and the tail mounted radar and tele-optical system.
The earlier models had a real tail-gunner. Poor guy trapped all the way in the
tail manually guiding the guns, quite a rough ride at low level.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:39:16 GMT

I recall reading (in a contemporary issue of Air Force magazine) the
account of a B-52D tail gunner getting a MiG kill during the Linebacker
bombing operations.  It was probably a MiG-17 or -19.  He used the
radar to lay the guns (it was at night, I believe) and watched the
target 'bloom' on the 'scope as it blew up.  There was also an article
about a BUFF that took a SAM between the fuselage and an inboard
engine pod.  The crew nursed it back to 'friendly' territory where
they ejected safely.

Can anyone give us the numbers on how many B-52 tail gun kills there were and,
conversely, how many of the B-52s and other bombers were lost to NV
fighters as opposed to SAMs?  Were the NV interceptors ever a real
factor?  My impression is that it was mostly the SAMs and heavy flak
that did the damage to the B-52s.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: B-1B
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 19:18:59 GMT

excure me for not knowing, but what is the status of the B-1b??

All I can recall is that it took a bunch of birds and they grounded it 
a few years ago... what is its status now?

>>PLEASE EMIAL ME<<<
--
  |o| Marshal Perlman                       Internet: perlman@cs.fit.edu |o|
  |o| Florida Institute of Technology                        IRC: Squawk |o|
  |o| Melbourne, Florida                             Private Pilot, ASEL |o|
  |o| 407/768-8000 x8435                      Goodyear Blimp Club Member |o|
From: rdd@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.DaCunha)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:31:23 GMT
Reply-To: rdd@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.DaCunha)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

In article <1993Jan26.000104.13896@acuson.com> liuwu@acuson.com (Wu Liu) writes:
>[...]
>They were 40mm gun pods, mounted one under each wing.  Apparently
>very effective against Axis armor available at the time.  As I
>recall, one such Hurricane unit put pictures of flying can openers
>on their aircraft...

That's No. 6 Squadron RAF. The same symbol is used nowadays on their
Jaguars GR.1A.

>-- 
>Wu Liu                          Software Engineer, User Interface Group
>liuwu@acuson.COM                Acuson

--
                                    Rudnei Dias da Cunha
                       Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury
                          Canterbury, Kent  CT2 7NF, United Kingdom
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: type differences
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:54:01 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1jn0doINNor8@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.180929.25467@bernina.ethz.ch> FLY@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (VOEGTLI,CHRISTOPH) writes:
|>>Can anybody tell me the differences of the several versions
|>>(e.g. F-14 A,B,.. or F/A-18 A,B,...) of US fighterplanes
|> 
|> F-14A - orignal F-14
|> F-14B - currently used for former F-14A+ models. Basically A models with the
|>         F-110 engine and various upgrades. At one time was applied to the
|>         engine test aircraft
|> F-14C - Designator for proposed version. Never saw service
|> F-14D - F-110 engines, new electronics, internal modifications. Similar to the
|>         F-14B but with a revised electronics suite.
|> 
|> F-15A - original F-15
|> F-15B - two-seat F-15A
|> F-15C - electronics upgrades, detail work, cockpits, FAST Packs, etc.
|> F-15D - two-seat F-15C
|> F-15E - The Strike Eagle penetration attack aircraft. All 'E's are two-seaters
|>         and they are major modifications of the F-15D basically. New 
|>         electronics, beefed up fuselage. Conformal carriage for several weapons
|>         on special FAST Packs. 
|> 
|> F-16A - original production F-16
|> F-16B - two-seat trainer version of the F-16A  
                    ^^^^^^^
 JUST A TWO-SEAT VERSION, NOT JUST A TRAINER
                    
|> F-16C - new tail-surfaces, redesigned cockpit, elctronics upgrades, lots of 
|>         detail work
|> F-16D - two-seat trainer version of the F-16C
                    ^^^^^^^
 JUST A TWO-SEAT VERSION, NOT JUST A TRAINER

|> F-16E - designation sometimes applied to the F-16XL 'cranked arrow' wing 
|>         aircraft that competed with the F-15E. I've also seen it applied to the
|>         "Agile Falcon" design with an increased wingspan.
   F-16N - Navy version for their Agressor Squadron
|> 
|> F-18A - original F-18
|> F-18B - Two-seat F-18A I believe this was TF-18A at first, in the navies old
|>         numbering system. (T is for trainer)
|> F-18C - Revised electronics and cockpit, I don't think there were any mods to
|>         the airframe.
|> F-18D - Two-seat F-18C
|> F-18E - upcoming version. New engines, stretched body, wing increase from 400
|>         square feet to 500 square feet. New tail, new radar, new cockpit, new
|>         square engine inlets, more stores stations, more fuel. It's a new 
|>         plane basically based on the F-18. The only reason I can think of for
|>         keeping the 18 designator is political.
|> F-18F - Two-seat F-18E
|> 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: FLY@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (VOEGTLI,CHRISTOPH)
Subject: type differences
Organization: ETH ZUERICH
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:09:29 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

Can anybody tell me the differences of the several versions
(e.g. F-14 A,B,.. or F/A-18 A,B,...)
of US fighterplanes ?
Are they improvements ?

				Thanks for infos
						
						Chris
From: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:59:41 GMT
Reply-To: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 727647989@Kiev, janm@Kiev.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson) writes:
>exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams) writes:
>
>>Not simply a rumor. All AC-130's models "H" and later carry a side-firing
>>105mm recoiless (well sort-of, you don't want to stand behind it when it 
>>fires) gun.
>
>
>Are you sure about that? I thought it was a normal howitzer.
>--
>Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
>janm@minsk.docs.uu.se

The first 105's installed in Thailand had a recoil hole cut out of the
opposite (right) side of the plane. This was when they still flew at
about 5000'. Later guns were hard mounted but there were airframe and other 
compensations (rudder deflection, additional structural mods) added by the 
time they made the majority of the "H" models. This is all from memory (in
a previous life I worked on the damned things) so don't take it as gospel.

"When you need a gunship, nothing else will do - when you don't, *anything*
else will do." --Anon. gunship crewman.

---
= exudnw@exu.ericsson.se                                                =
= David Williams              "You can't win, you can't break even,     =
= Ericsson Network Systems     and you can't quit"                      =
= Richardson, TX 75081                                  my opinions...  =
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: IR Jamming (Was:Re: Air Force One
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:18:14 GMT

In article 2949@exu.ericsson.se, exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams) writes:
                 [...]
>>My question is - what are those things - some sort of anti-infrared missle 
>>device? 
>
>That's my (somewhat educated) guess. Those "pods" use an IR flash to blind 
>IR guided missles as they are headed for the engine exhaust(s) - that's why 
>they face rearward.
>
>Think how much energy these must expend to do this and you will know why they
>are as big as they are 8)
>
IR Jamming is a little more sophisticated than that- at least systems I've
seen. You can't "blind" an attacking missile- you'll just provide a better
target. Other than using flares to decoy a missile, you can use a fixed
jammer that uses a technique called range gating (at least it's called this
in radar). You need an oscillating IR source that varies at a rate close to
the rate of the scanning detector in the missile. The trick is to get the 
missile's IR detector to read a maximum when it's pointed *away* from the 
target, thereby getting it to track away from the aircraft.

Then again, I'm probably a generation or two behind state-of-the-art.

   --mike
From: Gone with the Lemming <ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu>
Subject: Re: Gatling/Vulcan/Chain Guns
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:09:52 GMT

>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:07:43 GMT, cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
>>>>> (Christopher J de Zorzi) said:

Christopher> Question (gawd, I used to know this...getting rusty): What
Christopher> exactly are the differences between Gatling/Vulcan guns?

Not much, really. They all use multiple rotating barrels to increase RoF
and some kind of motor-driven ammunition feed.

Christopher> Also, a definition of a chain gun would be most appreciated.
Christopher> (Isn't it much the same as a gat, but with only one barrel
Christopher> (chain feed allows the gun to keep firing without jaf a dud
Christopher> round is encountered)?)

Exactly. The term "chain gun" comes from the chain linked ammo belt.

Christopher> 	Also, I'm just about positive that the minigun used in T2
Christopher> was the 7.62mm version, not the 5.56 Six Pack.  (Given that
Christopher> the depicted firing rate was slowed WAY down.)  Any comments?

Again, you are correct. The minigun depicted in T2 could have been
scavenged from the Huey wreck lying nearby, or possibly from a Cobra
gunship. But it is a 7.62mm minigun.

--Rat                               PGP Public Key Block available upon request
||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat          ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
I'm so hip I can't see past my own pelvis.                  --Zaphod Beeblebrox
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: C-5 Galaxy's in Australia
Keywords: C-5
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:17:42 GMT

In article <geoff.10@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU> geoff@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU (Geoff Russell) writes:
>Currently there are two C-5's paked at our local RAAF base, one with problems
>preventing it flying. (It has the name "Empire State" painted on the lower
>forward fuselage).
>
>My question is where are the C-5's based in the USA and how many are 
>operational? 

The C-5 with the name "Empire State" is probably assigned to the
105th Airlift Wing, New York Air National Guard based at Stewart
International Airport, Newburgh, New York about 40 miles (64 km)
north of New York City.
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:10:13 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan21.150040.29754@ncsu.edu> edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
>
>
>	I should comment that the Crusader has the honor of being the first
>aircraft to land by itself (that is, made a perfect landing AFTER the pilot 
>punched out!!!)
>

Years ago, I took a tour of Griffis Air Force Base.  They were still flying 
the F-106 in an active duty SAC wing there, I think it was 1983 or so (Hey, 
when you're only twenty, 1983 is years ago).  Anyway, one of the -106's was on 
static display, but it didn't have a canopy.  The story, as I remember it, was 
that the pilot punched out in a nasty spin/stall, and the force of the seat 
leaving the aircraft was just right to kick the plane into level flight.  It 
flew around for a while before settling in for a wheels-up landing in a field.

That would be the ultimate embarrassment, to eject, and then have your airplane
recover and land itself.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: l115130@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Lehtonen Tero)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F/A-18 - afterburner in take off?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 15:02:21 +0200
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi

In article <1jpt7pINNmk0@bigboote.WPI.EDU> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:

>supercarriers, and are instead in the class of the French Charles de Gaule 
>class.  The class was originally planned at three, but only the first was sea-

How are the French doing with their new carriers, then? I think Rafale M just
finished its carrier landing/take off testing program, so they obviously have  
a suitable type of airplane, but what about the ships (two of them, wasn't it?)
themselves? They were supposed to be nuclear powered and bigger than current
Clemenceau-class, but what will they actually be like - or is the whole program
already cancelled?

	Tero Lehtonen, l115130@cc.tut.fi