HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt)
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimates
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:48:48 GMT
Keywords: blackbird mach 3


From kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt)

In article <1992Apr11.001721.18870@cbnews.cb.att.com> woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow) writes:
>From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)
>
>kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt) writes:
>>Also, NASA now has at least two SR-71 which will probably
>>be painted NASA white, thus making the plane the Whitebird.
>
>They have 3 SR71s but they are not white.  Remember they must be painted with
>the special black paint due to frictional heat at high speed.   Tail numbers
>of the 3 NASA ones are 17967, 17971 and 17980 (this one was based at Mildenhall,
>England prior to the USAF retiring them)

	sorry for excluding the  :-)  after my comment on the 'new' sr71
paint job.  i was kidding.

ken rolt    kdrolt@athena.mit.edu



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:55:38 GMT


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

>From thi@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Saigon Smuggler)
>It was mentioned by a netter in rec.guns that the US Navy/Marines have 
>requested DoD to take Beretta M9 (92FS) pistols out of their service
>dued to the gun's poor performance during the Gulf crisis.

I hadn't heard about this, but my first suspicion would be that this is
an attempt to use very limited combat experience to get rid of a weapon
that is disliked for other reasons.  The whole 9mm pistol business was
crammed down the services' throats for political reasons; there was little
technical reason to replace the (arguably superior) .45 automatic, and
the specs for the 9mm competition showed clear signs of being written by
people largely ignorant of pistol engineering and military pistol use.
(For example, the two-column magazine adds bulk and weight -- serious
problems in a weapon whose whole justification is easy carrying -- and
is hard to make reliable, while the larger number of rounds is not worth
much in what is essentially a light-duty weapon.  Soldiers typically
would much prefer a weapon that is *on hand* and *reliable*, even if it
doesn't fire quite as many times between reloads.)
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: mat%mole-end@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimates
Summary: Faster AND Further
Keywords: blackbird  mach 3
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:47:43 GMT
Organization: :


From mat%mole-end@uunet.UU.NET

In article <1992Apr10.014334.10616@cbnews.cb.att.com>, kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt) writes:
 
> From kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt)
 
> over a year ago, the last official USAF "public" flight of the SR-71
> Blackbird was conducted.  ...  It took about an hour and the avg speed
> was around 2100 mph.  The plane also topped off its tanks after takeoff
> ... and prior to the coast cross ...  they were 'nearly' empty when they
> made it to the East coast, and immediately met a [tanker] ....  So the
> speed used to cross the country was chosen so that they had JUST ENOUGH
> fuel to make the trip.  ... if the trip distance was much shorter, say
> 200-300 miles, ... how fast could they have gone?

I recall reading somewhere (*Air&Space*?) that, within some part of the
plane's upper speed range, it gets better `mileage' at higher speeds.
Something about the efficiency of the engine cycle.

> And finally, what is the true top speed of the aircraft?

I don't ever expect to know.

> ...  Also, NASA now has at least two SR-71 which will probably be painted
> NASA white, thus making the plane the Whitebird.

It would have to be a very rugged paint; somewhere over Mach 1 the
aircraft gets hot enough to anneal the titanium--much improving the
durability of the skin and the aircraft.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 uunet!mole-end!mat, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: F-15 & STOL
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:32:55 GMT


From bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

> From dfc@sunflare.Corp.Sun.COM (Dan Currie)
>
> 2000 feet! I thought the F-15 needed about 4000 feet. I don't think any
> USAF plane can take off in less than 3000, except for maybe the C-130.

        I saw a small, glossy, coffee table type book about an experimental
F-15 that was part of a STOL-thrust vectoring project. The plane has a set
of canards on the outside of the turbine air intakes and a set of thrust
vectoring flaps behind the afterburners. I'll see what I can dig up about
it's performance.


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                      Alias: Gareth Bull, The Opal Dragon
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisti
            Huet dich bauer, ich komm! - Watch out farmer, I come!
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:12:33 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


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

In article <1992Apr8.005538.15304@cbnews.cb.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>I hadn't heard about this, but my first suspicion would be that this is
>an attempt to use very limited combat experience to get rid of a weapon
>that is disliked for other reasons.  The whole 9mm pistol business was
>crammed down the services' throats for political reasons; there was little
>technical reason to replace the (arguably superior) .45 automatic, and
>the specs for the 9mm competition showed clear signs of being written by
>people largely ignorant of pistol engineering and military pistol use.
>(For example, the two-column magazine adds bulk and weight -- serious
>problems in a weapon whose whole justification is easy carrying -- and
>is hard to make reliable, while the larger number of rounds is not worth
>much in what is essentially a light-duty weapon.  Soldiers typically
>would much prefer a weapon that is *on hand* and *reliable*, even if it
>doesn't fire quite as many times between reloads.)

There's an enormous amount of folklore and sentiment built up around
the 1911 .45, however, the plain fact is that most of the pistols in
the US arsenal are near the end of their serivce life and the design
is very much outdated. Reliable twin column magazines have been around
in military pistols since at least the model 1935 Browning Hi-Power,
John Browning's last military design. Sticking with .45 when all of
our allies are using 9mm just makes one more case of the US being
the sole holdout against metrification in the world. 9mm has been
shown to be superior to .45 against light body armor. It scores
higher in one shot stops by police forces than the .45, now that's
with 124 grain hollowpoints which the military can't use of course.
As a weapon of last resort, having extra rounds when you are being
overrun has it's merits. Having ammo interchange with your allies
solves big logistic problems. And as a symbol of authority, the usual 
use of the pistol in the military, any sidearm is good enough. Personally, 
I would prefer the Glock 17 to the 92, but either will do the job for 
the military.

I'm somewhat of a Glock chauvinist because the US Glock factory is
only 20 minutes from here, I've been through the factory armorer's
school, and my personal carry weapon is a Glock 17. It replaced
a much modified 1911A1 that I'd carried for years.

Gary
From: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: sci.military Digest V9 #69
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:30:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>


> When would that actually be to their advantage?  It seems that dogfighting
> has lost its importance in today's Air to Air mission.

Didn't someone say just that in around 1950 ?   ;-)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimates
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:24:56 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
>Back when the B-70 was developed (same general speed range as the SR-71),
>there were two choices for paint:  Black or white.
>
>The XB-70's went with white, since visibility during testing was useful.
>
>The SR-71's didn't want to be easily seen.

Note that some of the early A-12s (the first Blackbird, predecessor to
the YF-12 and SR-71) flew unpainted for a while.

There are differing views on how to paint high-speed high-altitude
aircraft.  Black paint probably radiates friction heat away better, but
on the other hand it also absorbs sunlight pretty well.  The XB-70s were
white at least partly on the theory of reducing solar heating.  So was
the Avro Arrow.

The paint on the Blackbirds was almost certainly chosen at least as much
for stealth properties as for thermal properties.  It's alleged to be
pretty unusual in composition.  (This may tie in, somehow, with the
persistent claim that it is not black but very dark blue -- it *looks*
black to both the eye and the camera.)
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: janm@Prag.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F86??? Spotted in Ohio
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:26:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr14.002637.21215
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden


From janm@Prag.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)

AI4CPHYW%MIAMIU.BITNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU writes:

>I was out today (Saturday) working on my car and I saw what I think
>was a F86 fighter.  It had cruciform wings (they were at a 90 degree
>angle to the fuselage, not swept at all) with a large football shaped
>object at each wing tip.  It had a single tail with control surfaces
>at the top of the rudder.  And it was jet powered, but with no visible
>engine (the engine was contained within the fuselage I guess). I got

The F-86 had swept wings. Didn't the F-84 have straight wings with some
kind of pods at the wingtips? Come to think of it, doesn't the above
description match a T-33?

--
Jan Mattsson                    janm@student.docs.uu.se
Computer Science student, Uppsala University, Sweden
From: wxb4@po.CWRU.Edu (William Blighglover)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: How do I find the latest Navy ship launchings?
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:34:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


From wxb4@po.CWRU.Edu (William Blighglover)


	If you are anywhere near Maine, Bath Iron Works on the
Kennebec launches ships with much to-do, all the  while praying
they don't hit the highway bridge as they come off the ways.  I'm
not kidding.  They call the bridge the green magnet.  The Maine
Maritime Museum also has BIW ship launch information--I think it's
a great museum anyway- check it out!
-- 
William Zeus Bligh-Glover	wxb4@po.CWRU.edu
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
	Dept. Biological Psychiatry
Polymorphonuclear Phagocytes are very messy eaters.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
Subject: Red October
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:17:22 GMT


From budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)



I read Hunt for Red October while a Telecomms student at Naval Postgradueate
School.  Rather marvelled at the accuracy of his descriptions of
both SSIXS and ELF ... in all cases, where the dope was wrong it
was on the other side of the classification line.

The REAL fiction in the book is that Commanders inside the
beltway actually get listened to.  Got six years of experience
that proves that isn't the case...

I've since heard Tom Clancy a couple times as luncheon speaker
and he's very emphatic about being a patriotic American and not
about to compromise our legit secrets in a novel.  Which led
to a wonderful anecdote about Red October.  His manuscript was
making the rounds in the Washington navy and this captain objected.
Clancy invited him to lunch; they discussed.  The captain 
claimed that Clancy had some classified things in the manuscript.
After explaining in detail that his references were both unclas
and traceable, Clancy said "tell me what you are objecting to and
it's gone."  "I can't do that ... it's classified!"

Rex Buddenberg

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rutan: PondRacer and MudFighter
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:44:31 GMT


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

>From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
>On the Pond racer: Last I heard they were still having problems with
>the fuel system. She did fairly well at Reno last year until she blew
>an engine.

In fact, apparently not many people appreciated that she flew her
qualifying lap with one engine at flight idle...  That's going to be
an impressive aircraft once they get the bugs out.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Xref: sparky sci.military:5144 soc.history:3513
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: US SMG (Was Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:51:16 GMT


From Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>

The main SMG used by the US military (from what I've read and seen) is
the Heckler & Koch MP5 9mm.  There are many different versions,
including one with an integral silencer.

Allan
-------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [(|)K(-)/USMCR]
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
"Give, expecting nothing thereof."
All opinions are those of the author.
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Launching torpedoes at depth
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:45:44 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park


From sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)

In article <1992Apr8.010201.16540@cbnews.cb.att.com>, tek@pram.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) writes:
{This is pretty much correct. US submarines have not used compressed
{gas for sometime. Instead, they use water pulse ejection (ie pump
{water to eject torpedoes). It solves the pressure problem and is less
{noisy. 
{
{Swimout (having the torpedo leave under its own power) apparently
{requires a tube larger than the torpedo. This approach will be used in
{the one Seawolf submarine with its eight 30" tubes (and the standard
{21" torpedoes). (One LA class also has a 30" tube for R&D work.) The
{technique's main advantage is that is quieter than water pulse
{ejection. 

There is also some tinkering going on with electro-magnetic push-out. Think
"underwater railgun" with the projectile being the torpedo. MUCH quieter.
The computer modeling was quite extraordinary, considering it predicted the
EXACT performance of the bread-board prototype when it was built.
  For a country which has exported more comedians to the States than any
  other place on earth, the Canadians have very humorless grad students.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject: Re: Thor crowbars energy (was re: Offensive applications of SDI)
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:20:56 GMT


From sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)

I guess a good question would be: Is this energy effectively
transferred?

Obviously, if you hit the target, it's history.  But if you hit the
ground... It seems depleted Uranium would be an extraordinarily
effective penetrator. It might go through hundreds of feet of earth
and not do any damage to something on the surface.

I wonder what the effect would be to put a high explosive
along the axis, fuse it for proximity, and have the thing blow itself
to pieces about 50 feet from the target? (or 100, or 1000?)

Sean

-- 
                  |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey        | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Subject: M-134 minigun
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:56:21 GMT


From gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)

  Since there seems to be some interest in the M-134 minigun I'll 
add a little technical info. The gun fired the so called "NATO" 
7.62 mm round fed in a disintergrating link belt. It is driven by 
an electrical motor but the actual firing is mechanical, if turned 
by hand, it will fire! The rate of fire was normally set at 2000 
or 4000 rounds per minute with the rate controled by the operator. 
In most installations, between 1500 and 3000 round per gun were 
carried, giving up to one minute of firing at the low rate. The 
installation on the UH-1B/C models (two guns, one on each side) 
did not allow the operator to control the rate of fire but 
automatically maintained a 4000 rpm rate by firing both guns at 
2000 rpm or, if one gun hit it's limits, firing the one gun that 
could be brought to bear at 4000 rpm. In all installations I 
worked with, the gun was prone to jamming if the operator did not 
follow proceedures, and once jammed, they usually could not be 
cleared in flight. Normal loading called for one in five rounds to 
be tracer rounds. 

  The above is based on my personal experience both as a Cobra 
pilot in Nam and as OIC of the weapons maintaince section that 
repaired the weapons, and on the technical manual for the AH-1G 
Cobra. If anyone has any other questions on these guns, feel free 
to e-mail me direct. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
                         gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: glock@glock.chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto (BACL))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: torpedo launch depth
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:04:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr8.010406.16744
Organization: College of Business, University of Florida

From glock@glock.chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto (BACL))

Concerning the actual depth, I was unaware of the low limit posted.  
However, concerning swimout torps, their major assest is that they launch 
QUIETLY.  With a normal torp launch, anyone listening can hear the 
compressed air shoot out for miles.
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimatates
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:16:43 GMT
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division


From colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)




Correction:

I quoted the top speed of the Bird as 3,000 mph, which I got from an article
in the Smithsonian (that I have at work).  Well you folks and both of my
Military Planes books (at home) confirm that this must be a misprint in the
units, it should read 3,000 kph.  My most current book states: mach 3.43
(2250 mph / 3620 kph), they must have got this info from Mary ;-)

My older book stated the color as indigo blue and the newer one refers to
the heat-treated paint in black finish.  So I was wondering, did the original
paint prove inadequate, much like the peeling white paint on the XB-70?  The
picture in this book does indeed look blue-ish, and has the yellow NASA logo.
(Did I mention the book was old? ;-)

 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *  Sure to get `Flamed' if I didn't cross all my i's and dot all my t's ;-)
From: bburns@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Barry Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: smart tank mines
Summary: smart mines
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:01:01 GMT
Organization: U.S. ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY (AMSAA), APG, MD.


From Barry Burns <bburns@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>


In article <1992Apr15.040047.5919@cbnews.cb.att.com>, island!fester@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Fester) writes:
> 
> From island!fester@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Fester)
> 
> Several years ago in "Aviation Leak and Space Technology", I read an article
> about smart mines. Apparantly, they can distinguish between a friendly and
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> an enemy tank by the engine noise, and only arm themselves at the approach of
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      The current WAM concept can distinguish between different types
of engines (i.e. rear-exhaust diesel, side-exhaust diesel, and turbine)
with a probability distribution.  This is not used to distinguish between
friendly and enemy vehicles, as the smart mine is not that smart.  The
purpose of this is to load a different aimpoint algorithm from the ground 
platform to the smart sublet.  The thermal signatures of the different
engine types are very different, and the sublet needs to know what type
of engine energy its 'seeing' in order to compute a good aimpoint.  
       The WAM ground sensor has a database of Sound Pressure Levels (SPL)
of different targets, and associates each SPL with a particular vehicle
(and, therefore, engine type).  Its not infallible, and if not confident, 
will load a 'universal' algorithm.  As with any other US mine, all US troops 
should be aware of where a WAM or WAM - protected minefield is, and either
avoid it or turn it off before passing through. (The WAM use the remote control
safe and arming device developed in the MOPMS program).  If a friendly
vehicle passes through a WAM minmefield, fratricide is certainly possible.

============================================================================
Barry Burns  bburns@amsaa-seer.brl.mil         KEEP AN OPEN MIND
============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: raised section on 637-class sub
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:22:41 GMT


From Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>

The fairing forward of the sail could also be a wet shelter for Swimmer
Delivery Vehicles used by SEAL and Force Recon teams--unlikely, but
possible.

Allan
-------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [(|)K(-)/USMCR]
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
"Give, expecting nothing thereof."
All opinions are those of the author.