HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdr57@cas.org (sdr57)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Johnston atoll
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:49 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From sdr57 <sdr57@cas.org>


In article <Bvq479.Co7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> s026779a@edinboro.edu writes:
>
>From s026779a@edinboro.edu
>
>Destruction of Johnston Atoll
>
>       I'm doing research on America's aging stockpile of chemical weapons and the effect that burning such weapons has on the environment.  To that point I am looking for any information in regards to the various types and amounts of
>chemicals weapons stockpiled by the U.S. since WWI.
>
>       If anyone has any information on Johnston Atoll, located in Hawaii, or
>The Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, please forward to:
>
>       S026779A.edu Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
>
>
 Not exactly on Johnston Atoll, but the February, 1991 issue of
 "Ordnance, The Professional Bulletin of the Ordnance Soldier"
 has an article on the shipment of the munitions from Germany to
 Johnston Atoll. (Under DISTRIBUTION, it says "Approved for
 public release. Distribution is unlimited." and so there should
 be no problem with your obtaining a copy.)

 You might also want to try to get a copy of the report
 "Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program.  Chemical agent and munition
 disposal.  Summary of the U.S. Army's experience, SAPEO-CDE-IS-87005"
 Order No. AD-A193351 from NTIS. There is also an article in the
 journal Environ. Prog. (V. 8. No. 3, pages 167 et seq.) on Johnston.

 Also a bit of urban folklore for you: a "friend of a friend who
 was associated with the project" claimed that one of the reasons
 for locating the incinerator so far away from anywhere was that
 the requirements for the exhaust gases were made so stringent
 that, if the plant had been located almost anywhere in the CONUS,
 the exhaust would have had to have been cleaner than the air going
 in. (I have mixed emotions about believing this - I suspect NIMBY
 as a major factor in the site selection; on the other hand, I am
 also aware of some regulations for water treatment which mean that
 plants have to remove not only the chemicals that they put in but
 also chemicals that were there naturally in the first place, plus
 it is notoriously difficult to measure some of this stuff. I also
 regard it as in favor of the story that the FOAF was supposed to
 have said that the real problem wasn't in meeting the requirements,
 it was in proving you had met the requirements when the samples of
 your exhaust gases might well be contaminated. On the other hand,
 there has been agent disposal at other sites, notably CAMDS at Tooele,
 so this story seems a little flaky).

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:43:06 GMT


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)

>	Does anybody have any better guesses as to why interceptors are
>being fitted as bombers, how much ordinance they can carry, and what
>(if any) modifications have been done to the avionics for this?
>

With all the budget cutbacks, etc, Congress prefers to see multi-role
aircraft in order to fund them (e.g. F/A-18), regardless of whether or
not they are sacrificing capabilities.  My guess is that in order to
obtain additional funding for the F-14 (esp. the F-14D), the Navy is
making an attempt to pacify the budget-cutters bye creating a strike-
fighter out of the F-14.  It also appears that these strike-variants
can be converted whenever feasible between a pure interceptor and a 
strike-interceptor since these current conversions were accomplished
in a foreign port in the Med.

><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.>
>

- Craig

-- 
-----
Craig Huffnagle       			yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"Shaah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!" - Wayne Campbell
Think of a disclaimer, it applies.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:32:16 GMT


From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BvnELx.IDn@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
>Here is my latest hair-brained idea.  From what I read, a modenr
>carrier has about 16 ASW helocopters aboard.  Why cannot we replace
>these with F-18's (there seem to be enough).  This woudl trade ASW
>strength for air power.

Never be done. First helicopters are useful for more than ASW, such as SAR, or
cargo transfer. Many of the smaller ships carry the small Sea Sprite helo,
while the carrier has room for the Sea King and possible follow-ons. (If onle
the USN would by the EH101)

>I think this is a good trade. The most obvious uses for American
>carriers is off the coast of third world nations.  Although many of
>these nations have sub fleets, it is much more common to have an air

It seems that nearly every third world nation with a coast and the cash has
at least a sub. (ok, I'm exagerating.) Many purchased old US WWII subs, and
they're still going. Plus many European countries will sell small Diesel 
subs to anyone with cash. All it takes in one sub and a few lucky shots.

>our ASW capacity was built to counter the soviet threat.  Now that
>this threat has dissapiated, we have room to cut the ASW capability.

Well, the subs are still out there. The question is now, who controls them?

>Also, notice that many ships (crusiers, distroyers, frigates) can
>carry helocopters, only the carrier can carry attack planes.

And amny can only carry small choppers, like the Sea Sprite. The Sea Hawk
isn't very big either. The Sea King is fairly large. Plus at times Sea
Stallions, or Super Stallions, are carried for mine-sweeping duties. Only
carriers and landing craft can take those beasts.

>Why is this a budget cut.  By increasing the power of each carrier, we
>can perhaps make do with fewer.

Adding 16 F-18s isn't much, and you really can't lose ALL the choppers, you
need at least 2 bare minimum. One is always in the air when flight ops are
going, in case some one goes in. More likely you'd end up with 6 or so on
board.

Plus a carrier in a high threat area can out run its escorts (for the most
part) if it needs to retreat. Leaving your ASW helos behind on other ships
would be a bad thing.

BTW, the Navy is already talking of reducing the number of carriers at sea,
as well as keeping 2 of the 4 battleships in mothballs to cut costs.
###############################################################################
# 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#
###############################################################################
From: pmckenna@unix1.tcd.ie (P.J. McKenna)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Armour and anti-armour.
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:25 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin (student)


From pmckenna@unix1.tcd.ie (P.J. McKenna)

To whom it concerns -

	Armour is often quoted as being ( so many ) millimetres thick. Exactly
what does this mean? Is it the equivalent protection in some form of steel etc?
 
	How does the armour on a MBT vary according to the part of the tank? 
I've read that the top ( and bottom ) armour is the thinnest and the glasis the
thickest, but does anyone know any specifics?

	This seems to be the way that anti-armour weapons are compared, too.
Is this system the same as the protection one or is it a bit of chauvinism 
by the manufacturers? Is it true that for a HEAT warhead that shell diameter is
the major factor?

	Don't ask a lot of questions, do I? :-)

	I realise that the explanation may be a bit involved so email me your
response and I will post the consensus. A book reference would be O.K. from 
those who actually do more in a day than read News.

	Please bear in mind that I am new to the net so feel free to flame for 
breach of protocol, etc.

	Thanks in advance,
			   P.J.

 
--
              I, alone, am personally responsable for the opinions 
	       expressed above, except where indicated otherwise.
		( But then again I may have been brainwashed. )
		     P.J. Mc Kenna - pmckenna@unix1.tcd.ie  
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson)
Subject: Re: Some Swedish news
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:32:25 GMT


From yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson)

Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se> writes:


>From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

>The Swedish Army is negotiating with Germany about the purchase
>of 1000 second hand, Soviet made, dirt cheap APC:s. It is said
>you get two of them for the price of a Volvo 740.
>The news didn't say which model, only that it has a crew of 10.
>-- 
I believe this could be the MT-LB. This APC is hardly armored at all,
but has very good cross-country mobility, and is fairly reliable. I know
the Swedish Army have done tests on these, with the evaluation as above.

--
Yngve Larsson                               UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla
Dept of CIS                                       Internet: yla@ida.liu.se
Linkoping University, Sweden                          Phone: +46-13-281949

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:41 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bvytpv.y9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie) writes:
> 
> From andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie)
> 
> 
> OK.  People have been arguing on whether or not the Marines air force should be
> cut.  The argument seems convincing to me that the entire air force shouldn't
> be cut, but it is not so convincing why the marines need fighters like the
> F-18.  If their primary use is air cover, why not use AF or Naval assets
> instead, since that tends to be their specialty?  I have no argument with
> the Marines' having ground support aircraft, but air combat fighters does
> seem redundant.

The answer to this is simple & has happened hisotrically. The USN & USAF 
priorities may NOT be the same as the USMC's in any given situation. The USN
may decide, for instance, that it's time to split (remember Guadalcanal in
WWII?) The USAF may decide that they have more important thigs to do with
their fighter assets. Right now the CAS mission within the USAF is consid-
ered a "lesser" mission, presumably for "lesser" pilots. The only way the 
Marines can be sure of getting the support they need, especially in the sort 
of precarious amphib landing situations they may ne thrust into, is to have 
their own assets. The USN & USAF can & will make alot of promises but those 
promises have a way of getting set aside once the shooting starts.

PHIL



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the F-18L
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:14:05 GMT


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

>From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
>I just saw a reference to the F-18L.  What is an F-18L? ...

Back in the days when Northrop invented the F-18...  What's that?  You say
you thought the F-18 came from McDonnell Douglas?  Well, you're sort of
right.  The YF-17, which lost the USAF lightweight-fighter competition to
the YF-16, was from Northrop.  When the prospect of sales to the Navy
surfaced, Northrop -- with little recent experience of building carrier
aircraft -- decided to take on McD-D as a partner in a revamping of the
YF-17.  The deal was that two variants would be designed:  a land-based
one, and a carrier-based one.  The carrier-based one obviously had first
priority since the USN was to be the launch customer.  McD-D would lead
on the carrier-based F-18; Northrop would lead on the land-based version,
designated the F-18L.  The F-18L would delete the wing fold and redesign
the landing gear for less strenuous duty, leading to a lighter aircraft
with better performance.

As you have probably figured out, Northrop got the short end of the stick.
Land-based customers did buy 18s... but they all bought the already-flying
F-18 rather than taking a chance on being the launch customer for a new
version.  Pity; it would have been a better aircraft.
-- 
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: seb@tadtec.co.uk
Subject: Lake Baikal Monster
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:44 GMT


From seb@tadtec.co.uk

Re the request for info on the Lake Baikal Monster:
This is a cross between a surface effect vessel and an aircraft.  It made
the news here in the UK when a visit by a Russian (former USSR?) team to
discuss cross-channel use occurred.

The monster is effectively a jet-powered aircraft that specialises in
gaining extra lift by flying very low over the water.  This creates a
"cushion" of air which provides the extra lift.  As the original poster
mentioned, the beast is powered by two jet engines mounted over and in
front of the wings, close to the wing roots.  A load of 200 tonnes was
mentioned, if memory serves me aright, with a speed around 300-400 knots. 
The plan called for radar stations to scan the channel looking for gaps in
sea traffic through which the monster could dash, doing a crossing in about
10 minutes.  The ability to pull up sharply to 100-200 feet altitude and
then glide back down was specifically mentioned as a possible collision
avoidance manouevre.

The vehicle gets its nickname from the CIA, who spotted its test-flights on
Lake Baikal with the aid of a spy satellite.

Steve Barber, whose opinions should in no way be taken to reflect those of
his employer.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hards4@evans.ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)
Subject: Re: Best ASW platform
Organization: University College UNSW ADFA Australia
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:33:42 GMT


From hards4@evans.ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)


From hards4@evans.ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)

In article <BvxDuL.MC1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
   Someone from a alt.war wrote ...

   >It is a known fact that the best ASW platform is another submarine.
   >I would not want to enter a hostile environment with billion+ dollar
   >carriers having my subsurface elements not being up to the task of
   >defenses of those surface units.

   Ids this true???
It is, and it isn't. If you only have a single platform, I'd prefer a
submarine. ASW isn't a single platform job though - you use a combination
of submarine, surface and air assets working together.
Ideally you find the submarine outside the carrier defense perimeter (thats
means outside the range of his best cruise missile), and prosecute using
air assests, since they are relatively invulnerable to submarines. The next
best option is probably to find him with a submarine, and prosecute using
the sub only (co-operation between subs and aircraft is hard). 
If you find him on a towed array with a surface ship, then he is likely 
to be close - probably within torpedo range (at least his, frigates have
lighter torpedos with shorter range). By that time you are effectively
toast. 

   I would argue that an ASW carrier (like the Italians or Spanish have)
   is much better that the few submarines that you could by for the same
   cost.  You could probably buy two frigates for the price of a
   Centurion, or 1/2 of the carrier and airwing mentioned above.  I'd
   think both a better buy for straight ASW work.
I'll ignore the cost analysis - it is too difficult to compare without some
more specifics - Centurion isn't out of drawing board stage yet.
In my Wild Arse Guesses (tm) below, I assume pretty much compariable
technology, training and ability, and a fair ammount of agression on
the part of both parties (they don't both give up and go home). Any
percentages should be taken as spur of the moment guesses - I don't know
that much about ASW...

Two frigates (+ASW helos) vs a submarine, I'd give the frigates 20% to get
the sub and take no losses. 40% to the sub to get at least one 'can and
escape, and 40% to lose 1 'can and the sub.

ASW carrier with VDS + 4-6 helo's vs two subs. 60% to kill at least one
sub, and the carrier gets away. 20% to nail the ASW carrier and both subs
escape. Other 20% is at least one sub gets nailed by the helo's who just
had their airbase removed.

Sub vs Sub - 5% mutial kill, 47.5% to each of the subs to kill the other
and escape.

Also, remember than subs are useful for stuff other than ASW, and that all
arms purchases involve political and military expediency.

----
Brad Hards     EE4 - Australian Defence Force Academy      hards4@ee.adfa.oz.au
             "If it is stupid, and it works, it isn't stupid"
Disclaimer: If any of the above agrees with the opinions of ADFA or the RAAF,
                        it is purely coincidental.
From: HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA (HDKP)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: EH101 Helicopter
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:28:58 GMT
Organization: McGill University


From HDKP <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA>


Hi There!
    An interesting questioned was posed to me. Is it possible
to carry anti-ship armaments on the EH101 platform?
Futhermore, will the Canadian Armed Forces equip the EH101 with
Harpoon missile? Can anyone give me info on the Bell 412's that
that the Forces purchased recently, ie is it from the UH-1 series?




                         Thank You.
                         Andre Liu.
                         HDKP@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: : How good is the Mig-29 VS the F16/F18 ?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:25:53 GMT


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


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

In article <Bw0os2.LuD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN) writes:

>>>4) The Mig-29 can 'flip-up' in combat for a brief period, an angle of 80 degrees   to sight a target well above it's target window.
>
>>What is 'flip-up?'  If you mean pop up or a similar manoeuvre, aircraft
>>have been doing this since...since maybe WWI.  80 degrees is
>>particularly impressive; it's how long you can maintain it.
|
|  I think what Jeffrey meant is the 'Cobra' manoeuvre.  The -29 can
|point its nose about 80 degrees above its flight path while still 
|moving forward on its original vector. It can hold this for a 
|moment(?not sure?) before it has to snap the nose down in the direction
|of flight. The -27 can do this for about 100 degrees, it was the one
|credited for the 'Cobra', but I think the -29 can do it to a lesser
|degree.

This manuever is called "Pougachev's Cobra" and is performed at 
airshows in -29s. Not much use in air combat I'd think.. its done
at very slow speeds, otherwise the airplane will just follow its 
nose.. if you actually get it to pitch up quickly enough you'd 
bleed of huge amounts of airspeed very quickly.


|  It is said that this can give the a/c an advantage in ACM as it can
|do the manoeuvre, and acquire a target above it and maybe pop an
|AAM off. With helmet mounted sights and an AAM that can be fired 
|off-boresight(like the AA-11 Archer???), the pilot can do the manoevre,
|tilt his head back and acquire a target that was on his six and shoot
|at it and then revert to normal flight. (Firepower 41)

Assuming he was flying at 120 knots or so when it happens.. 


There _is_ a new X-plane being built with European involvement that 
will attempt flight at odd attitudes, and allowing control while 
stalled. Such an airplane can acquire and track targets in otherwise 
impossible situations.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:23:02 GMT


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

In article <Bvq3vp.CBE@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> wernick@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Rich Wernick) writes:

>My father worked on the radar for the XB-70 Valkyrie. Only two were built
>and one crashed during a test flight. An F-104 was sucked into the jet
>stream during the flight, causing the F-104 to roll across the back end of
>the Valkyrie. The chase pilot was killed, while the Valkyrie crew did
>eject. 

I remember reading about this incident. One of the two crewmembers was
able to eject, but he was unlucky in several ways. I don't remember the
details but he supposedly "cheated death four times" during the ejection.
He was supposed to roll his seat backwards into an ejection capsule and 
things started to go wrong from that point on. I remember the one about 
the shock cushion at the bottom of the capsule not inflating.

The Valkyrie at Dayton impresses you with its immensity. The huge air in-
takes are arrayed in a row under the wing. The bottom of the aircraft 
looks totally flat except for these huge angular intakes. The whole thing 
is painted white.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


From ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)


The Submachine gun is a personal defense weapon which has
essentially the same mission as a pistol.  The advantage of
the Submachine gun is that it is held with two hands and a
shoulder.

You must bear in mind that the pistol and the SMG "strike the
same blow"  and also that the pistol requires a GREAT deal
of training and the SMG does not.

Reliability of the Uzi is adequate (especially if maintained)

The Mini-Uzi has all the disadvantages of a pistol and an SMG.


The above constitutes a work of fiction and does not reflect
in any way shape or form the opinion of the US Government,
DoD or any body else.
Newsgroups: sci.military