HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:27:48 GMT


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

In article <BvI77u.MG5@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>Hardly: Titanium is _extremely_ expensive. The Soviets produced their
>own, but most western nations lacked this natural resource. That made
>titanium cheaper and more practicle for them to use to make a hull. In
>the west, the benifits were simply never worth the cost.

Is Titanium all that rare a metal? The very common mineral Ilmenite
(FeTiO3) is present in large quantities all over the place. A simple
gravity separation would be sufficient for beneficiation.

I always thought that Titanium was expensive not because it was rare 
but because it was hard to refine and machine.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Re: Patriot Basing media, etc.
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:45:27 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)

In article <BvE5LL.2ow@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
> 
>Anyone seen much about THAAD, which looks like a follow-on to Patriot? 
>

>From the little that I have seen regarding the THAAD system, it is more than a
Patriot follow-on.  While the Patriot was designed for the defense of point 
targets such as communications nodes and air bases, and was designed to engage 
aircraft, the THAAD is being developed to engage tactical ballistic missiles 
over a larger area.  I believe it is being designed to be much faster and 
longer ranged, with the hope of destroying the incoming TBM's before they 
reach the immediate theater of operations.  

Keep in mind that I have only seen a very few articles on this concept, and 
none within the past six months.  The project may have been one of the many 
budgetary casualties of the past year.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Christopher Gaeth <cgaeth@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>
Subject: Looking for Info on the V-22 Osprey
Keywords: v-22,opsrey, help
Organization: U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:48:20 GMT


From Christopher Gaeth <cgaeth@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>


Hi Folks,
	I'm looking for any and all info on the V-22 tilt-rotor.  Especially
on how it transtions from "helicopter" mode to fixed wing mode, what kind of
control the pilot has in helicopter mode, typical speeds in both modes, etc.

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Chris


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director, AMSAA                 |  MINDS ARE LIKE PARACHUTES, 
AMXSY-PF ATTN: Mr. Chris Gaeth  |  THEY ONLY WORK THEIR WHEN OPEN.
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD     |  
21005-5071                      |  
(410) 278-6229                  |
cgaeth@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


From ciss!ncrcom!att-out.att.com!inel.gov!news Thu Sep 24 13:37 EDT 1992
Received: by lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM 24 Sep 92 13:37:16 EDT
Received: by ciss.DaytonOH.NCR.COM; 24 Sep 92 13:36:24 EDT
Received: from att-out.att.com by ncrcom.DaytonOH.NCR.COM id aa28321;
          24 Sep 92 13:34 EDT
From: news@inel.gov
To: military@lawday.daytonoh.ncr.com
Received: by att.att.com; Thu Sep 24 13:25:48 EDT 1992
Received: by mica.inel.gov
	(4.1/INEL-MH-10.0) id AA04356; Thu, 24 Sep 92 11:29:55 MDT
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Subject: Re: What happened at Sidi Barani?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:54:32 GMT


From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)

>From th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
> Several people have emailed me to ask what happened at Sidi Barani.
> In 1943 an allied ship carrying mustard gas in artillery shells and
> aerial bombs was badly damaged either by accident or by enemy action.

I remember reading of a similar incident in Bari, Italy, but cannot
remember where I read it.  Some time after the Allies landed on the
Italian mainland, the Germans flew a night bomber attack against the
port of Bari, which was a major supply center for the Allies.  The
port was brightly lit, which allowed the Germans to sink 11 merchant
ships in the harbour, allegedly the largest amount of tonnage sunk in
a single air attack during the war, except for Pearl Harbor.  A ship
loaded with gas ammunition (don't remember what form) was also sunk,
and several hundred US soldiers were killed in an adjoining troop
transport.

It has been years since I read this.  Can anybody corroborate this (or
point out any errors)?

--
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham)
Subject: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:48:45 GMT


From jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham)

randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>My point is that whenever the marines need air support, there are
>always available air assets of the air force or naval carriers to
>provide it.  That the marine corps has it's own air force seems a
>needless duplication of function.  In this day and age, every dollar
>wasted is a dollar less spent on the important things.

>Let me turn the question around.  Given that something needs to be

One of the most striking reasons could be found if you asked the guys on the
ground.  I have read stories, testimonials, and seen citations of
reports(though I could not begin to name them) where the infantry folks, FA
folks, and anyone else who was got in a near and dirty fight that Marine
Aircover was by far better than airforce.  The reason:  Marine pilots flew
low, slow, dirty and stayed around to do the job right.  Air force pilots have
been and are traditionally loath to fly near the ground.  When they do they
are flying at 400-600knots and you only have 2-3 seconds to aquire and engage
a target.  

My impression is that it is far more romantic, glamourous and healthy to have
plenty of air around you as a pilot than to be near the mud with the foot
soldiers.  But foot soldiers love the ones who get dirty with 'em.
He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave.      --- Sir William Drummond

Michael Lanham       mjlanham@eos.ncsu.edu   &  jumper@catt.ncsu.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jcw@sysdiv.sdl.usu.edu (JC Wilkinson)
Subject: Pilot Training Advice
Summary: How Best to Prepare for Pilot Training
Keywords: Pilot Training
Organization: Utah State University (USU)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:49:07 GMT


From jcw@sysdiv.sdl.usu.edu (JC Wilkinson)

	I was recently commissioned a 2nd Lt. in the Air Force and am now 
waiting to go to UPT. I completed the Flight Screening Program at Hondo and 
ended up being #1 in my flight, even though I entered the program with only 
six hours in a Cessna 152. This tells me that I have the potential to do 
well at pilot trainig, but I want to do all I can in the future to prepare 
myself as well as possible for T-37's and T-38's. I am about 12 hours away 
from getting my private pilot license but wonder if that is a wise goal to 
pursue. Will 20 or 30 hours of civilian flying teach me habits that I will 
only have to unlearn at pilot training, or will that experience with TCA's, 
patterns, landings etc. be benificial?
	I suppose that their will be a few student pilots report for 
training with standard T-37 manual-type-info engrained in their heads. It 
seems that it would also be benificial to know local procedures. I have 
requested Laughlin AFB in Del Rio, Texas as my first choice for UPT, Does 
anyone have or know the local procedures for that base? If not, who could I 
contact that might?

Thanks in advance for your response,
JC Wilkinson

    <No Pain No Gain, No Sweat No Jet!!      F-16!!!>

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu
Subject: WWII TO&E's?
Organization: CSU, DOMINGUEZ HILLS
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:55:08 GMT


From rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu

I'm looking for books on the TO&E for combatants in europe during WWII. 
If any one can send me refrences or other information it would be
most welcome.

Rod Holmes
rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wilderbj@ss1.sews.wpafb.af.mil (Bruce J. Wilder)
Subject: Re: AFROTC question
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:36:10 GMT


From wilderbj@ss1.sews.wpafb.af.mil (Bruce J. Wilder)

yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh) writes:


>From yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh)

>	I'm a freshman in AFROTC.  I have 20/800 vision, my major has absolutely
>nothing to do with anything technical, and I'm female to boot.  Do I stand *any*
>chance of being let near a plane?

The real question is:  Can you see the plane?  :-).  Seriously, though,
if you mean to fly or navigate, no.  You may have a chance of getting an
an ops position that will get you on or near the birds.  With a non-tech
degree you are severely limiting yourself in today's Air Force.

FYI, I believe the current eye sight requirement (no flames please :),
is 20/20 corrected for both pilots and navs.  Uncorrected far vision for
pilots is waverable up to 20/50 and for Navs 20/200(?).  Near vision in
both cases must be 20/20 uncorrected.  If any body else has more (or
better info) or more info on AF ops jobs please help me out here.

Bruce J. Wilder
wilderbj@fse2.enf.wpafb.af.mil

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: Help on IR difference - PASSIVE vs. ACTIVE
Organization: Chevron
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:50 GMT


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

 In article <Bv1IKF.2Dv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, narlochn@kirk.msoe.edu writes:
|> 
|> From narlochn@kirk.msoe.edu
|> 
|> I know this is a slight matter, but what is the real 
|> difference between ACTIVE and PASSIVE IR.  

  The only real difference is that ACTIVE IR is emitting
  its own IR source to be reflected or absorbed by the
  target.  Remember those big red spotlights on the fronts
  of M-60 tanks in the 60's and 70's?  

  PASSIVE IR is more sensitive in that it can detect the
  lower amounts of IR emitted by the target itself.

  Stories from the Gulf - M1A1 tankers said they could 
  tell if a solider had his sleeves rolled up or down
  at 1500 meters.

 TMH


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Active/passive IR
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:56:30 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
>Active IR is decidedly outdated. It requires you to have a light
>source (with an IR filter) which you shine at whatever you
>happen to want to look at, and you to have a detector sensitive
>to this light.

Correct except for the "outdated" part.  In its crude original form,
using what amounted to IR searchlights, it is long gone.  The modern
variants use lasers instead, and are very definitely not outdated.
Modern Sidewinders, for example, use an active-IR system as a proximity
fuze, because it's more precise and less easily jammed than an RF fuze.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:54:58 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)


Later on, the Japanese decided that they wanted Midway Island, part of the 
Hawaiian chain, and they sent most of their fleet to attempt to take it.  Their
basic battle plan was as follows:

	1.  One attack carrier and several escorts were sent to the Aleutians 
	in the north as a diversionary attack.
	
	2.  One attack carrier, seven (?) battleships, several crusiers, many 
	escorts, and the amphibs were sent straight in toward Midway.

	3.  The remaining five Japanese attack carriers and their assorted 
	escorts were sent around behind American forces, with the intent of 
	holding the US fleet in place to allow the battleships to pulverize it.

The major tactical error that the Japanese made was assuming the supremacy of 
the battleship, when it had been demonstrated only a few months earlier in 
the Battle of the Coral Sea that the airplane could succesfully destroy ships. 

Adm. Chster Nimitz, commanding the US Pacific Fleet had available 2 fully 
fucntional attack carriers, one carrier that had been damaged at Coral Sea, 
and a small handful of escorts.  He also had full knowledge of the Japanese 
plans, through cryptography.  He made the decision that the Japanese carrier 
force was the primary threat, and so he decided to send his forces against 
them.  

Though the Japanese had numerical superiority in carriers, they were short on 
qualified carrier pilots, due to high losses at Coral Sea.  Therefore, the 
Americans had no real trouble with the Japanese carriers.  Even though we lost 
one carrier, the previously damaged one, we destroyed four of the Japanese 
carriers, and damaged the other.  Without adequate air cover, the amphibious 
attack on Midway could not have been carried out with any degree of success, 
so the main Japanese fleet returned home, harrassed the whole way by American 
aircraft.  

If nothing else, the Battle of Midway proved beyond a doubt that the day of the
battleship was over, and that the aircraft carrier was the weapon to develop. 
Later in the war, the great Japanese battleships of the Yamamoto class, hailed 
by the Japanese Navy as the gratest naval weapons ever developed, were made 
short work of by aircraft.  

Please excuse the lack of specifics such as ship names, and dates.  I am 
sitting in front of a terminal at the computer lab, and so I am writing this 
from memory.  If I got any major details wrong, please post a follow-up 
correcting me.  

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Re: Canadian Frigate Program
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:35:34 GMT


From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)

In <BvFzKx.Iw@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> HDKP000 <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA> writes:


>From HDKP000 <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA>


>  I would like to know any information regarding the
>City Class frigaes of the Canadian Armed Forces.
>I am especially interested in tthe weepons systems and
>ASW capabilities.

   The following is from "Sea Classics", Volume 25, #7, July 1992.

   The Canadian Patrol Frigate, or CPF, will be able to protect itself while 
   carrying out its primary ASW mission.  An integrated combat system will
   include the Phalanx close-in defense weapon and the vertical-launch Sea
   Sparrow missle.

   The article gives a bit of an overview on the CPF as well as the TRUMP 
   upgrade to the 280-class destroyers (Tribal-class).

   According to the 1990-91 data annex from Larry Bond's Harpoon naval war- 
   game, HMCS Halifax is armed as follows:

   Displacement: 3866 tons standard
   In Service: 1990
   Propulsion: CODAG (Combined Diesil and Gas)
   Max Speed: 30 kts
   Crew: 225
   Weapons Systems:

   2 mk141 launchers with 4 Harpoons each
   2 Mk48 VL Sea Sparrow with 8 RIM-7M missles each, 1 forward & 1 aft
   1 Bofors Mk2 57mm/70 gun forward
   1 Mk15 Phalanx CIWS aft
   2 Triple-tube 533mm torpedo tubes with Mk46 torpedoes
   Helo pad with 1 CH-124A Sea King Helo (Canadian designation for SH-3A)

   Sensors:
   SPS-49 Radar
   Raytheon 1629C rada
   SAR-8 IR sensor
   SQS-505 hull sonar
   SQR-501 CANTASS towed array
   Sea Giraffe 150HC radar

   Fitted with stabilizers, has Bear Trap helo recovery system, fitted with
   bubbler noise reduction system (quieted).

   HMCS Halifax was in drydock when I was in Halifax last May, but should be
   operational by next year.  The other 11 CPFs are building, and will enter
   service 1996.

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: adpgate!martin@uunet.uu.net (Martin Golding)
Subject: Re: some civil war firsts.
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:55:57 GMT


From adpgate!martin@uunet.uu.net (Martin Golding)


: From sysadm@pro-cajun.cts.com (John Mire, System Administrator)

: Speaking of civil war firsts, did there exist a pistol that was supposely
: favored by the CSA calvary that had seven shots instead of the usual six? 

It was French. Not exactly a "civil war" first.


: [mod note -- I believe you are referring to the LeMat revolver -- 6 pistol
: shots, and one shotgun shell in a barrel mounted under the revolver barrel
: Steve ]

Navy Arms makes a reproduction of the cavalry version, it's absolutely
beautiful, it's on the cover of last month's American Rifleman, and it's
9 (nine) shot, plus the shotgun. (When you wrap the wheel around a shotgun
barrel, you get lots of room for 44 (45?) calibre chambers.) J.E.B. Stuart
is rumored to have carried one.

It's a single-action cap-and-ball (muzzle loader), with the rod for the
shotgun barrel stored in the handle of the swage (what's the technical term?
the thingamabob that mashes the oversized bullets down on the powder).
The firing pin is pivoted on the hammer; you select the shotgun barrel
by rotating it down with your thumbnail.

I just wish I trusted my gun cleaning skills enough to fire the thing.


Martin Golding  |    email: [motcsd!]mcspdx!adpgate!martin

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kckbxr@wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood)
Subject: AFOSI info.
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:33:55 GMT


From kckbxr@wam.umd.edu (Robin Hood)

I hope that this is the right place to get information.  I am a cadet in  
AFROTC who is very interested in an AFOSI assignment.  If someone could  
please send me some information about OSI, I would be very grateful.   
Thanks in advance.

C/1Lt Bill Schlichtig, AFROTC

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Organization: University of Turku
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:48:27 GMT


From ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)

In article <BvArun.9M9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes:
>
>From saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)


>This is a pretty marginal-sounding amount of energy to direct at a tank.  The

>places).  So let's say 10^8 joule is the energy of a pound or 2 of explosives.

RDX gives about 6 MJ/kg. So, 100 MJ is about equal to 17 kg of RDX or
25 kg of TNT. Quite a lot, considering it is kinetic, not thermal
energy. It would certainly blast a tank with ease. Even if there were
no penetration, the tank mechanics would be ruined.

>                                             Steve      saj@chinet.chi.il.us

ArNO
    2




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:40:09 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) writes:


>From jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham)

>randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>>My point is that whenever the marines need air support, there are
>>always available air assets of the air force or naval carriers to
>>provide it.  That the marine corps has it's own air force seems a
>>needless duplication of function.  In this day and age, every dollar
>>wasted is a dollar less spent on the important things.

	One thing overlooked: the Air Force and Navy use very expensive,
well-maintained airports (although one floats) because they launch very
high-tech and sensitive aircraft, the Navy's being less-so than the AF,
but still much more than the Marines.  A Marine air squadron will fly
off of a gravel road if necessary; nobody else will, and that means a
reduced response time from airport to front lines.

>One of the most striking reasons could be found if you asked the guys on the
>ground.  I have read stories, testimonials, and seen citations of
>reports(though I could not begin to name them) where the infantry folks, FA
>folks, and anyone else who was got in a near and dirty fight that Marine
>Aircover was by far better than airforce.  The reason:  Marine pilots flew
>low, slow, dirty and stayed around to do the job right.

	In talking to various Marine friends who are veterans of everything
from World War II to Desert Storm, my impression is that they could give a
whit about anything but ground support and keeping their own aircraft
overhead.  Strangely enough, veterans of both WWII/Korea and Korea/Vietnam
actually felt the best ground support was from machine guns and napalm
on prop-driven planes, with the preferred plane being (get this) the WWII
warbirds like the F4U, P51, and even a P47.  The Vietnam veteran even
preferred this to an F4 Phantom dropping napalm, as the F4 drops and leaves
while the props and helos can stick around for a while.  Most figure
helos and A-10's would provide the best of both worlds.

	To summarize, the former Marines I talked to want F-18's to keep
the skies clear, and A-10's to give them the ground support they need.

	Being former Navy, I have to insert this: *ALL* of them wanted
an Iowa-class battleship supporting them if they are near a coast.  The
Vietnam veterans even preferred naval artillery to Army artillery due
to the greater firepower of the naval guns, but every one who had seen
an Iowa-class fire remembers those incoming rounds fondly.

	Perhaps the opinions of the ground-pounders should be taken
into account?  I'd bet the Marine Corps would be willing to operate
the Iowas if the Navy doesn't want them anymore.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Friday, 25 September, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:43:50 GMT


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Friday, 25 September, 1942

Hitler dismisses Colonel-General Franz Halder, Army Chief of Staff, and 
replaces him with General Kurt Zeitzler.  Hitler also assumes greater
power over the army, leaving Zeitzler in control of only the Russian
Front.

The Japanese cruiser Yura, on a re-supply mission to Guadalcanal, is 
damaged by USAAF B-17's.

British Mosquitos attack the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo, Norway.

The US Maritime Commission announces that 488 cargo ships have been
built in the last year.

Colonel Sergueyeff, a Red Army spokesman, claims that 25,000 Germans have
been killed in the past week at Stalingrad, as compared to 12,000 Germans a
month killed at the WWI battlefield of Verdun.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"And Stalingrad is not the fortress that Verdun was." - Colonel Sergueyeff
Newsgroups: sci.military