HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "S.C.T. Martin" <martin@kawa.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: FUJITSU SOCIAL SCIENCE LABORATORY LIMITED, JAPAN.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:50 GMT


From "S.C.T. Martin" <martin@kawa.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp>


On 25 Jan 93 17:23:38 GMT, bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au said:

bull>         England has 3 Invincible class carriers, with no immediate
bull> plans for replacing them. All 3 carriers are conventionally powered
bull> using turbines. Names: Invincible, Illustrious, ?.

The third ship is Ark Royal (Also was the name of their last 'real'
carrier).

--
  _______________________________________________________________________
| S.C.T. Martin | Fujitsu S.S.L. Limited | martin@kawa.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it"-Oscar Wilde.|
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: triremes
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:03:19 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


From gawne@stsci.edu

On the general subjects of triremes, other war gallies, and early navigation,
a few reminisces:

Back a few years ago (no more than 5) some modern day Athenians actually
built a trireme using plans from some of the old boat houses still in the
harbor and such historical records as they could find.  I think their
intent was to duplicate one of the ships that fought in the battle of
Salamis.(sp?)  [The defeat of the Persian fleet by the Athenian fleet.]

I recall from the National Geographic article (no I don't have a reference
handy) that the initial sea trials found that the thing shipped water all
too easily when rowed at speed and that Aristophanes was not exaggerating
ing the opening scene of The Clouds when he showed sailors farting in each
others faces whilst rowing.  The water shipping problem was solved with
leather sleves on the lower bank or oars.  I don't recall what they did
about the flatulence.

As for open sea movement, I seem to recall that Greeks and Romans didn't
like to get out of sight of land (read the Odyssey and the Anead for 
amplification of this theme).  But the Phonecians apparently had no
difficulty getting around on the open sea.  This may have had something to
do with their association with Chaldean astronomers who may have lent
knowledge of the stars to their naval brethern.

I know that the Polynesians still sail all over the Pacific in open
canoes using nothing but knowledge of the sky and the sea to get them
where they're going.  Nope, not even compasses.  There's a 1972 National
Geographic article I used to recommend to my Astronomy 105 students called
"Voyage of the HoKuLea", good reading.

As somebody else has pointed out, the Ottoman-Turkish Empire continued 
to use rowed war ships into the 19th century.  They would mount a long
gun in the bow and obliterate an attacking ship by backing up onto a
beach to gain stability for fire.  The beached gun platform became as
effective as a coastal defense battery using this tactic.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 MSgt USMCR
From: mingos@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Stealth technology
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:04:04 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620


From mingos@vax.oxford.ac.uk


  Dear all,
  
    I gather from reading around that the stealth technology depend on the
 microwave (radar) signals being absorbed by a material comprised of metal 
 powder dipersed in a microwave transparent base.   First of all, is this 
 correct?  
    If so, I'd appreciate it very much if anyone could point me towards a 
 journal that discusses it, or if anyone could tell me of someone / some
 manufacturer/area of the armed forces that I could write to. I appreciate
 that they wouldn't be open to discussion of a secret nature, but it's not
 the secret stuff I want, just someone who could help  me to make sense of
 my own work research.
   I'm doing a D.phil in microwave chemistry, in particular using metal powders
 as the microwave absorbent material. What I'm hoping to get is a handle on the
 theory of the microwave absorbance for the introductory chapter of my thesis.
 
  Any leads, however bizarre and unlikely they may be would be appreciated.

			Many thanks in advance,

					Gavin
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: AMRAAM, CIWS, and Dale Brown
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:27 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <C143uo.3HI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>You're talking about the RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile). It didn't use the 
>Phalanx turret, it used the Phalanx mount. It's operational with both USN and
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^

Which ship classes have the RAM?
I didn't know that it was yet operational.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:03:13 GMT
Organization: Chevron


From hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

In article <C19o99.429@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:
|>>I think this would qualify as a land-attack version of the Harpoon,
|>>but I don't know whether it's in actual use or not.
|> 
|> It is and it is :-) They used SLAM to take out that pumping station that was
|> pumping crude into the gulf.

 Nope.

 TV-guided GBU-15's (?) launched from an F-111 did the trick.


 TRAVIS
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:26:53 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:


>From hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

>In article <C19o99.429@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:
>|>>I think this would qualify as a land-attack version of the Harpoon,
>|>>but I don't know whether it's in actual use or not.
>|> 
>|> It is and it is :-) They used SLAM to take out that pumping station that was
>|> pumping crude into the gulf.

> Nope.

> TV-guided GBU-15's (?) launched from an F-111 did the trick.

Oops, sorry about that. I do know they used them,though. Launched by an A-6
and guided by an A-7 (or is my memory on the blink again?)

cheers

--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
 -- Hobbes
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Keywords: B2s, Carriers
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:04 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

In <C1F6tG.KH1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:

>In Iraq, the coalition disabled large parts of the electrical and telephone
>networks, apparently to some benefit.  Is this considered strategic or not?

	Given that 1) US soldiers found Nazi phone lines to be quite useful
for talking over, and 2) electrical systems are much more spread out now
than they were during WWII, I don't find either fact particularly amazing.

	Still, today these are both strategic targets in that you can hit
major junctions and disable things for a large area.  I believe it was
Discover magazine that, within the last five years, had an article on how
easily a terrorist might disable the USA power grid with a handful of
explosives or possibly EMP devices.  Worth considering in this scenario.

	BTW: several small towns (population < 5000) have found that a
few Union Pacific diesel-electric locomotives can be wired up to the
power grid and supply the town until connection to the nation-wide grid
is re-established.  This has been observed in Iowa by myself as a
result of tornado damage to existing power lines.  While Iraq most
likely doesn't have these resources, it's a point to consider when you
contemplate taking out an area by cutting power or phones to it.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: oml@eloka.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:23:29 GMT
Organization: Eloka Consultancy & Project Management


From oml@eloka.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)

In article <C1D84A.989@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie writes:

>Does anyone know of any evidence confirming or disputing the existence of a
>German nuclear research programme? If there was one, was it very far
>advanced by the time the war ended? 
>
For a very reasonable account, read 'The Most Secret War' by Dr R.V.Jones, an
account of WWII British Scientific Intelligence by one of the men who lead it.

-- 

                               -= Owen Lewis =-
                                      @
Tele/fax     +44-(0)794-301731      ELOKA       Consultancy & Project Management
                            oml@eloka.demon.co.uk
From: drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:52:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T


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

In article <C17vx9.F80@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Stefan Kronkvist INF <skronkvi@aton.abo.fi> writes:
>
>Hello!
>
>I am looking for general aircraft-carrier information.
>
>1) How many carriers do UK,USA and France have? (names if possible)
UK: 3, Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal.
USA: A bunch. Let's see:
CV-59, USS Forrestal (now our training carrier)
CV-60, USS Saratoga
CV-61, USS Ranger
CV-62, USS Independence
CV-63, USS Kitty Hawk
CV-64, USS Constellation
CVN-65, USS Enterprise
CV-66, USS America
CV-67, USS John F. Kennedy
CVN-68, USS Nimitz
CVN-69, USS Eisenhower
CVN-70, USS Carl Vinson
CVN-71, USS Theodore Roosevelt
CVN-72, USS Lincoln
CVN-73, USS Washington

I guess that makes 14, plus 1 training carrier. Midway is in reserve.
Coral Sea may not be long for this world.

France: 2: Foch, Clemanceau. I believe that they are being replaced by the de
Gaulle class later this decade.

>2) What kind of aircrafts are they using at their carriers?

UK: Harriers & Helicopters
USA: F-14, F/A-18, A-6, E-2, S-3, plus helicopters
France: Etandards, F-8 Crusaders, plus helicopters

>3) What kind of defensive weaponry is usually fitted on a carrier (exept
>   for the planes of course)?

UK: Sea Dart, probably some other stuff.
USA: Sea Sparrow III, Phalanx (usually 3 each)
France: 100mm guns, probably some other stuff.

>4) Did UK use their carrier(s) at the 'Falklands-War'? 

They sure did!

>5) When is the average western carrier built (-50:s -60:s ...)?
These are guesses. "average" is difficult to judge here.
UK: early '80s
USA: '60s (We have had a constant, if slow, building program)
As the '50s vintage Forrestals, and perhaps some of the Kitty Hawks 
are retired, this figure will change.
France: '60s
>6) Are there any major differenses between British,French and US carriers.

Huge ones. US carriers are BIG and operate heavy strike aircraft, launched from
catapults and landed with tailhooks. UK carriers are FAR smaller, and launch
their Harriers off of a ski jump, and land them vertically. French carriers
use the catapult and tailhook scheme, but the ships and aircraft are smaller
than their American counterparts.

>
>If you have some information,please post it.All information will be
>apprissiated.
>
Haven't you ever heard of Jane's Fighting Ships? Check your local library.
You'll get far better info than you'll get from me working from memory.

			David R. Wells
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Internal/External (was Re: Scope of Action-US Military)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:46 GMT


From David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>

>From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>

>: >Yes, I have, though I thought since the Confederacy seceeded from the
>: >Union, they weren't considered a part of the United States any more (de
>: >facto, a foreign power, thus within the scope of the ability of Congress
>: >to declare war.)

The United States did not declare war. That would have implied a
foreign sovereign, which of course the US denied. It was an
insurrection.

>This discussion has led into another interesting area.  At what point in a
>rebellion does the issue stop being an internal affair, and in theory not the
>concern of third parties, and become a dispute between nations.

Practical answer: when third parties get interested for their own
reasons. France intervened in the American Revolution when it saw that
the US had a chance of winning if France intervened, and it could see
that it might accrue some benefit from intervention (whether or not
the US won).

Technical anwswer (I don't have the conventions immediately to hand,
so this is by memory): A belligerent need not be a sovereign to
entitle its soldiers to the benefits of the conventions or to the
customary international law of belligerency. I believe the test is
whether the soldier is subject to military discipline and conspicuously
identifies himself as a combatant. (One normally does this by wearing a
uniform, although the IRA has been trying to push the envelope on this
for years.)

>It could be argued that the Confederacy showed almost all the attributes of
>a sovereign state and, therefore, alliance with a European power would have
>not constituted interference with internal U.S. affairs. The critical area
>that the South never controlled was its own foreign trade, which the North
>kept under its control with the crude tool of a blockade.

Lincoln early on decided to treat the rebels as belligerents, at least
insofar as granting them the normal rights of prisoners. As I've
pointed out before, however, it's a very good idea to treat your
prisoners well. If you give them the choice of a (reasonably)
comfortable captivity, they're less likely to fight to the last man
and bullet than if you tell them you're going to hang them for
treason.

The Trent affair reinforced this decision ....

BTW, in the early stages of the war, Lincoln was somewhat careful
about what he called the "blockade". He was concerned that "blockade",
as an act of war, might be interpreted as recognition of rebel
sovereignty. He also was (correctly) advised that neutrals need not
respect a blockade if the blockade cannot be made effective. Until
well into the war, the USN did not have the vessels to make it
effective. If he called it "policing the coast", he didn't (in theory)
need to make it effective.

dhs   spencer@panix.com
From: CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:53:08 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


From CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu

In article <C17vrM.Exy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com
(T.M.Haddock) says:
>
>From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
>
>It has been reported that the Iraqi's fired something like 100 Exocets
>and numerous Silkworms, yet none are known to have hit any ships.  If
>the CIWS didn't stop them, what did?

Well, how about SAM's?  Kinda made for that purpose, and some of them are
supposed to be pretty damn good at it.  Off the top of my head, I could
also suggest gunfire (3 or 5-inch guns DO have an anti-air capability).
Chaff and flares also spring to mind, as do AAM's from carrier-borne a/c.


>The only way you could have "multiple missiles incoming from unknown
>directions", is to be on the open ocean at war with some other major
>sea power or somekind of surprise attack while in a inland sea or such.
>
>Besides, each CIWS station is responsible for only a small quadrant
>of the ship's perimeter and acts independently and automatically (in
>the case of Phalanx at least).  None of them cover a 360 deg circle by
>itself.
>
>And what about the Falklands?
>
>
>TRAVIS

OK, what about the Falklands?  The Argentines launched several abortive
attacks vs. UK ships, from aircraft.  Is Argentina a major sea power?  (Hmm.
Judgement call.). But some of the attacks were successful- _Sheffield_ was
the most famous, but _Gloworm_ was also hit- was that the one where a single
Exocet was launched from a FLATBED TRUCK by a jury-rigged fire-control system?
The point here is that CIWS is not all powerful, and I think it might be a
bit hyped.  Remember- it is a LAST-RESORT weapon.  Else why does the USN have
all those guided-missile cruisers to protect the carriers?

Finally, what constitues a >large< quadrant (aside from the semantic
problems there...)?  If I remember right, Improved-Nimitz carriers carry 3
or 4 (at most) CIWS.  That is at least 25% for some of them (definitely
more- the guns are not arranged symmetrically around the ship).  Iowa-class
BB's (I think) have 2.  Pretty damn big ships, there.  And Perry-class
frigates carry (count 'em) ONE.  As I said, last resort.  The idea is that
the carrier has a/c and CG's and DDG's to protect it.  The BB will also have a
surface AA escort group.  The frigate packs its own SAM's,and good luck.

Chris
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:15 GMT


From Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu

In article <C17w2s.FG5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
[...]
>     Also, did anyone think that the use of 45 missiles was a bit excessive-
> sounding for an attack on one (non-functioning) site?  Remember, the first
> day of the much more ambitious and wide-ranging attacks during DS only saw the
> use of 81 T-LAMs.  Was this overkill or just an insurance policy?

Neither.  It's an example of the drawbacks of cruise missiles for this
kind of target - spread out, not terribly hard, not terribly soft; the
kind of thing that calls for lots of biggish GP bombs in a moderate
concentration.  Like manned aircraft usually deliver, in fact.

The DS attacks (about 250 missiles, actually, I believe) were against
multiple point targets, which are much better for this kind of weapon. 
Dispenser/cluster-bomb type warheads fill in this gap some, but by no
means completely; it'll take a lot of development, especially in value
engineering before cruise missiles become the weapon of choice for this
kind of mission; I'd say the factors for the choice were political in this
case rather than tactical.  What politics were involved is fodder for
a whole 'nother thread, I'd say...   
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim (Random Dude))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Phalanx Firing Arc (was Re: Tomahawk cost)
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:03:54 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


From "Ted Kim (Random Dude" <tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>

In article <C1H2Cu.E1G@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
> I doubt that even the one CIWS (Phalanx?) mounted on the Perry-class
> frigates have a 270 degree view or engagement zone, let alone one of
> 360 degrees.

The Phalanx on a Perry class faces to the rear and has roughly a 300
degree firing arc. The front 60 is inhibited to prevent hits on the
ship. If a missile comes in from the front, the ship must turn to
unmask the Phalanx. As to how fast the mount can realistically turn
around and engage a new target, I don't know.

-ted

-- 
Ted Kim                           Internet: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:     ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3680A Boelter Hall                Phone:    (310) 825-8524
Los Angeles, CA 90024             FAX:      (310) 825-2273
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MD Norman <md_norma@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: 1st Infantry Div. in Desert Storm
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:30:37 GMT


From MD Norman <md_norma@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk>

 John Keegan in a review of a book on the Gulf War :
        
   The Gulf Conflict,1990-1991:Diplomacy and War in the New World Order
   by Lawrence Friedman and Efraim Karsh     pub. Faber

states : "In particular, the success of the US 1st Infantry Division's
          engineers in opening a way through the minefields, which
          professionals think as remarkable as anything done in the air
          war is not discussed at all."

Now I don't want to start a "yes it was, no it wasn't war", but could
anyone out there email me some references on this, as it has not been
discussed in any of the radio/TV analysis of op DS I have come across.
Something with good pictures would be nice.

Mike Norman                             md_norma@uwe.csd        JANET
Department of Chemistry                 md_norma@csd.uwe.ac.uk  INTERNET
Faculty of Applied Science
University of the West of England       phone 0272 656261 ext 2488
Bristol                                 fax   0272 763871
BS16 1QY
UK
                        
    Managers occasionally wore ties, but productivity
    went down on the days they did.
           The Cuckoo's Egg : Clifford Stoll
From: kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Historic Naval Ships of North America, Inc.
Summary: as above
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:10:51 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


From Kenneth D Rolt <kdrolt@athena.mit.edu>

A while back, someone posted request for museum-status naval vessels
both here and abroad.  I have a list complied by the

"Historic Naval Ships of North America, Inc."
  c/o U.S. Naval Academy Museum
  Annapolis, MD  21402-5034

It's extensive and hence too long to reprint here (i don't type that fast,
nor that accurately).  So contact the above for further info.   I think
they sent me the list for free in 1988.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
    |    R  2	      Real Monza !	     kdrolt@athena.mit.edu    |
    |    |__|				     grad student !!  :(      |
    |    |  |	'64 Chevrolet Corvair        mit ocean engineering    |
    |    1  3	       Convertible	     underwater sound         |
     -----------------------------------------------------------------