HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carey@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Charlie Carey (carey@moefine.lerc.nasa.gov))
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Sverdrup Technology Inc., NASA LeRC Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:32:27 GMT


From carey@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Charlie Carey (carey@moefine.lerc.nasa.gov))

In article <Bvq40x.CED@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang )) writes...
> 
>From kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang ))
> 
>In article <BvnEtI.Iv0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa) writes:
> 
>>Hello out there,
>>
>>I was in a recent discussion with another co-worker, and I mentioned some things about
>>the B-70 Bomber that was built (I believe one or two prototypes), and it being a reason 
>>for the Mig 25.  Then, the co-worker disagreed that the B-70 ever existed, and that no
>>plane ever had any atomic power capabiltity so far. 

Look up the NB-36 it was flying nuclear reator test bed, INTENDED to become
a nuclear powered aircraft. It never did. No useful load with the shielding
required.


>	However, one ( XB-70 ) crashed during initial testing. ( I believe 
>there was a collision between it and a Northrop F-5 chaseplane. ) Shortly 

It collided with an F-104 during a photo flight. Theme: planes with GE
powerplants. No technical data was to be gathered on the flight, PR
was the prime objective.

>	It was not nulear powered. To my knowledge, there has never been
>a plane with nuclear propulsion. Now, there may be some obscure one with 
>a neuclear electrical generator, or atomic clock thou. I only know of 

See remarks on NB-36 above. 
BTW the idea is not dead, the reactor is now on the ground and power is beamed 
to the aircraft, either directly (for a point defense fighter) or via space 
based mirrors for longer ranged flights. Laser/Maser power tranmission is the
power transmission scheme usually proposed. It is feasible, if you can get
enough energy on an ICBM to destroy it, you can get enough on an absorptive 
surface to heat air in the "combustion" chamber.
Wouldn't recommend inverted flight without telling the ground station 8-)

>HTH.
> 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: I Woodrow <woody@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: DEFCON 1
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:37:00 GMT


From I Woodrow <woody@castle.ed.ac.uk>


From I Woodrow <woody@castle.ed.ac.uk>


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


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


>I just saw a show on TDC about nukes.
>They said that the USA went to DEFCON 1 four times:

My belief was always that DEFCON 1 meant your forces were actually fighting.
>From 5 which is normal; down through higher state of readiness, deploying
forces etc etc.  I would have thought that 2 would be the highest state they
could get to without being at war.

Am I wrong ?   Can anyone clarify what each level means ?   


-- 
W@@DY_______________________________________________________________________
 /Ian Woodrow, Computing Service, Uni of Glasgow, GLASGOW G12 8QQ, Scotland \
*  <Dog 'n' Bone:  041-330-4800         | e-mail: woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk>      *
 \__________ FAX:__041-330-4808_____________________________________________/
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: What's a choca?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:38 GMT
Organization: Amherst College


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

In the book "Frontiers" about South Africa, there is a contemporary
mid-nineteenth century reference to the Bristish uniforms.  It included
comments abou the "choca".  I don't know what this is and it's not
in any of the dictionaries around here.  The book makes it clear that the
choca was awkward, useless, and uniformly disliked - a lot like Congress.
But it doesn't tell me what it was
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet Carrier Ulyanovsk - its fate
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:36:14 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BvxDuu.MFA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes:
> 
> From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
> 
> 
> 	     Ukrainians Slice Up Carrier Ulyanovsk
> 	      -- Defense News, Sept. 21-27, 1992
> 
> An aircraft carrier being built in a Ukrainian shipyard, Ulyanovsk,
> has been cut up for scrap, Victor Antonov, Ukraine's minister of defense
> conversion, told a Washington news conference Sept. 17.
> 
> A second aircraft carrier is 68 percent complete and lacks electronics,
> weapons systems and aircraft, but sale of the carrier to India or China
> "is a fairy tale scenario," said Antonov.  Russia is the only realistic
> potential purchaser.
> 
> Antonov was in Washington seeking investment in former Ukrainian defense
> industries.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Norman Polmar the Ul'yanovsk class was to have been at least
2 ships. The first was due to be launched in 1991 & the other was to be
laid down immediately following. (Apparently Nikolayev South has only
one construction dock big enough to build a ship of this size. The same
routine was followed with the Kievs , which were follwed in turn by the
Kuznetsov & Varyag). Polmar also indicated that the lead ship, probably
the 68% one above, was to be named the Ul'yanovsk & the 2nd was unnamed.
I would imagine that a change of names has taken place since Ul'yanovsk
was the birthplace of V I Lenin. It would seem fitting, perhaps 
to assign that name to ship that was never completed before it was
scrapped. In any case it appears that at least one of these nuclear pow-
ered 75,000 tonners will be completed. I wonder what they plan to name
it?

PHIL
From: jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: subs
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman


From jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <Bw2J5z.9wu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad  
Barret Wemyss) writes:
> Also, the planes on most SSBN's can be rotated vertical 
> to allow them to surface through a thin layer of ice. > 

Uh, sorry, but this is incorrect. Most of the SSBN's do NOT have the  
vertical rotating sailplanes to allow under-ice penetration. Plus, you  
need some other special equipment to do this tricky maneuver, such as hull  
mounted cameras and sonars which look upward, thereby allowing the sub to  
find a thin layer of ice to punch through. 

(Former Electronics Tech, USS James Monroe, SSBN 622 (Blue), 1977-1982.)
--
************************************************************************
 the Lost Cause                       jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
(hardwaire guy extraordinaire)       MACTech,NeXTtech; NeXTmail accepted
                      "Everything is relative."
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer)
Subject: Carrier operating limitations
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:29 GMT


From danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer)


Much was made of the fact that during the Falklands the British were
able to operate Harriers in weather that "no other carrier aircraft
could operate in."

Which leads to the question:  Just what are limiting weather conditions
on large-deck US carriers?  What's the minimum visibility, what's
the maximim sea state?

I know that 20 years ago work was being done on automatic landing
systems.  My impression is that they're widely available now.  What
type of limits do they have?
-- 
    Dave Anderer        danderer@brahms.udel.edu       (302) 831-8805
Instructional Technology Center, University of Delaware, Newark, De.  19716
		"Sinners can repent; stupid is forever."

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:13 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>|	Could this be known as a W-24, being two V-12's in a common
>|crankcase with the crankshafts geared together?  Two banks of cylinders
>|stick up at about a 45 included angle, with the other two banks
>|sticking out to the sides at what looked to be about a 150 degree
>|included angle.  Let's see if I can't do this in ascii:
>|
>|          *        *
>|           *      *
>|        ****  OO  ****
>|
>|	The * are cylinders, the O are crankshaft centers.  Note that I
>|have not canted the horizontal cylinders, but they aren't quite level to
>|my recollection.  Let's see, four manifolds, four turbochargers, I think
>|24 carbs, about 6' long by 4' wide total.  I've seen one in running
>|condition in a garage here in Iowa.

>Are you sure this is the airplane motor from the Vultee pusher? Six feet 
>long sounds about the right size.... sounds more like an X-motor though.

	I have no idea *what* it is -- I've never even heard of such
a beast before I saw it sitting on a wooden engine stand in a garage
in a junkyard.  The owner says it's a W-24, and remarks that "there are
only six of 'em left, and mine's sitting there making money."  Has
anybody ever heard of a W-24?

<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: Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:14:18 GMT


From Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>

In article <BvnF6y.JCs@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
>
[deleted for brevity]
>	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.

A feeling shared by the Army, I'm sure; give us helos and A10s, and
something to keep other aircraft away from them.

>
>	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.

    Want an Iowa?  ALWAYS.  Nothing like sustained 16" fire to make the
other side reconsider holding this beach.
    Willing to operate?  I doubt it, not their mission.  Not their budget,
either.
    I bet the navy still wants Iowas, but wants other things even more.  The
porper folks to operate the Iowas are the folks who are already trained to
do so.  They are the most expensive part of an Iowa anyway.

Neil Kirby


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: page@nosc.mil (Ward C. Page)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:27 GMT


From page@nosc.mil (Ward C. Page)

In article <Bvq40x.CED@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan ( aka. Wolphgang )) writes:
>
>	It was not nulear powered. To my knowledge, there has never been
>a plane with nuclear propulsion. Now, there may be some obscure one with 
>a nuclear electrical generator, or atomic clock thou. I only know of 
>one weapon system, the Doomsday Pluto missile which was to be nuclear pro-
>pulsed. ( Thank god they never built that deathly weapon! )


Around the same time as the XB-70 there was a project at Convair (now GD
in Fort Worth) to convert a B-36 to nuclear power.  A reactor was built
and placed in a B-36 and actually flown with the reactor operating. However,
the program was canceled before the reactor was hooked to the props and
used as a power source.

Ward Page
NCCOSC RDT&E (NRaD)
San Diego, CA
page@cod.nosc.mil

-- 
Ward Page
NCCOSC RDT&E
San Diego, CA
page@cod.nosc.mil
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: DEFCON 1
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:36:00 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bw2JnC.AsI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Paul Stacy <jfriday@helena.stat.uga.edu> writes:
> 
> From Paul Stacy <jfriday@helena.stat.uga.edu>
>>	4) The Reagan assassination attempt (why? Beats me!)
> 
> I'm sure that it was a precautionary thing.  They didn't know if Hinkley
> was on his own or perhaps had foreign sponsorship for what he did.
> 
 Did Bush order the DEFCON state, or did Al ``i'm in charge here'' Haig order
it illegally?  I could see Haig doing that-- he seemed to have an unusually
militarily-centered outlook, even for a General.  And since Bush was out of
town at the time, he might have gotten away with issuing the order, only to
have it rescinded later by the real authorities.
 
 i was only 13 at the time, though, and don't remember it that clearly. 
Anybody know exactly who did what and when concerning the DEFCON status?

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
From: bentrup@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John Bentrup)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Question about aircrew bailing out
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:32:41 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL


From bentrup@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John Bentrup)

Curtis Gibson <curt@quest.uucp> writes:

>I have been wondering about the AWACS, Crystal Palace, Looking Glass,
>and other such type aircraft with large crews of radar/radio operators,
>controllers and decision makers aboard.  My question is do they have
>parachutes and an excape hatch? 

In the 1970s I flew in a variant of the 135 that carried a crew of 25+. 
We all had parachutes.  There were two primary exits.  One was right
behind the front cabin, and the other was in the back of the plane.
They consisted of a "hole" about the size of manhole and a bar.  One
would hang from the bar and drop into the air stream.  After hitting
the air stream, one was to roll up into a ball (bouncing along the
bottom of the aircraft) until clear of the aircraft and then begin a 
normal bailout procedure.  Of course one problem was that there were 
several odd antennae along the bottom of the aircraft.  We flew with 
one rather large fellow who the crew voted would go first in order to
rip off any of the antennae. :-)  The secondary exits were the crew 
entrance (once exiting the aircraft, one had to worry about the wing)
and the starboard over wing door (the training manual said something
like "Place your left shoulder and foot onto the wing, then gently
slip into the air stream".  Right.  Of course one had to worry about
the rear stabilizer.)

In theory if the pilot had time, he would slow to a near stall speed,
and go into a banked dive.  I presume this was so crew members wouldn't
need to bounce along the bottom of the plane.  Rumor had it that the
AF tried the escape procedures with several dummies and none of them
had survived.

-- 
John Bentrup                                INTERNET: bentrup@CS.UIUC.EDU
Department of Computer Science              BITNET: bentrup%uiucdcs.BITNET
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1304 W Springfield Ave			  
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ron.Plunk@EBay.Sun.COM (Ron Plunk)
Subject: B-25 Info
Keywords: B-25, Mitchell, gunship, strafer, Pacific, Kenney, 5th AF
Organization: Sun Microsystems Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:43 GMT


From Ron.Plunk@EBay.Sun.COM (Ron Plunk)


   I and a "partner in crime" are doing research on the North American B-25 Mitchell in the 
Pacific Theatre of Operations, specifically Gen. Kenney's 5th Air Force. We are interested in
the "gunship" versions ("strafer", as Kenney called it) that were created by 'Pappy' Gunn and 
later built by NA on the B-25G & H models.  These include all of the multiple 50 calibre versions
as well as the 75mm field gun version.

   Our main problem is source material... other than the following list, we can't seem to find any
detailed information on any of this:

	Airwar by Jablonski, Edward
	B-25 by Squadron/Signal

   What we are looking for is unit history of any of these squadrons, mission details, and any
available aircraft data. References are appreciated.

   Any/all responses are "thanked in advance".


Ron Plunk					Customer Training Instructor
Educational Services				Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation
ron.plunk@Sun.COM				(408)276-4774
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:18 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <Bvytpv.y9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie) writes:
> 
> 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.
> 

(OK Randy, looks like you're not **Quite** all alone.) 

The F/A-18 A and C model planes in the VMFA's are used for Close Air Support,
Offensive Air, and Air Defense roles.  All of these require close coordination
with the MAGTF commander.  Sure, you could bring in Navy pilots to do this.
Put them on the ground for a few months to learn Marine doctrine, run them
through specialized training for USMC air support, and they'd probably be
almost as good as Marine pilots on average and some would be as good as our
best.  They would also become rusty in terms of Fleet Air Defense and what-
ever else their regular missions are.  This would lead to poor performance
evaluations and lousy promotion opportunities.  Now, if you can find any
Navy pilots who want to volunteer for such duty just have 'em ring up old
Admiral Kelso.  

You see, to make a Navy pilot effective in supporting the Marines on the
ground you'd just about have to turn him into a Marine pilot.  If you do
that then his performance ought to be evaluated by people who understand 
his mission.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hammer@searchtech.com (John Hammer)
Subject: Air-to-ground text wanted
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Search Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:28:24 GMT


From hammer@searchtech.com (John Hammer)

Is there an air-to-ground text that is complementary to Shaw's book
_Fighter Combat_ on air-to-air.  
-John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Hammer			404 441-1457
hammer@searchtech.com		uupsi!srchtec!hammer
Search Technology		Norcross, Georgia 30092
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Hammer			404 441-1457
hammer@searchtech.com		uupsi!srchtec!hammer
Search Technology		Norcross, Georgia 30092

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:23:12 GMT


From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

gawne@stsci.edu writes:

>Before I load up the napalm, is there anybody out there besides Randy who is 
>in agreement with his ideas? 

Let me help.  There seems to be *no one* who thinks that I make any
sense at all.  Perhaps there is some sort of "silent majority", but
that didn't work for Nixon so I won't even try it.

However, I did learn a few things, so I guess it was worthwhile.  This
is what I think I learned:


- There is little interest in talking about what sort of cuts are
needed in the military.  I'm not sure if this is because the people
don't think the cuts are needed (yet they will happen) or if this is
because people think that the politicians will do the cutting with
regards to politics and not military matters (so why worry about it).

- Most everyone likes the approximate status quo.  I'm sure that
everyone has their pet change.  However, no one likes my proposed
change, and very few wants to propose anything themself.

- There seems to be a strong sense of "I primarily care about my
service".  For instance, if the Marine Corps needs air supprt, and the
Air Force is inadiquate, then don't worry too much about the Air Force,
just give me planes.  There have been people who complain about the
Air Force, but everyone seems more concerned keeping tha Marine Air
Corps than fixing the Air Force.

- Few people seem to think that the military needs to be cut that
much.  Perhaps a program here, or a program there, but not any major
forces.  This seems to be a huge mistake to me.  IMHO, the total
budget *will* be cut substancially no matter who the next president is.

-Randy

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Subject: Soviet Carrier Ulyanovsk - its fate
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:18 GMT


From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)


	     Ukrainians Slice Up Carrier Ulyanovsk
	      -- Defense News, Sept. 21-27, 1992

An aircraft carrier being built in a Ukrainian shipyard, Ulyanovsk,
has been cut up for scrap, Victor Antonov, Ukraine's minister of defense
conversion, told a Washington news conference Sept. 17.

A second aircraft carrier is 68 percent complete and lacks electronics,
weapons systems and aircraft, but sale of the carrier to India or China
"is a fairy tale scenario," said Antonov.  Russia is the only realistic
potential purchaser.

Antonov was in Washington seeking investment in former Ukrainian defense
industries.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:39:34 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BvnELL.IBy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:

[rehash of previously stated ideas deleted]

> Like I said, what would *you* cut????
> 
> -Randy

Perhaps it was lost in the length of my first reply to you, so I'll
say it again.

Last year the USMC gave up ALL of its self-propelled artillery, largely
on the strength of the argument that Marine air in the Close Air Support
role could deliver the same ordnance loads on the same targets, given that
we were now equipped with F/A-18's in all Fighter/Attack Squadrons.

So the question is not so much what would we cut, as it is "...what 
HAVE we cut?"

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: grege@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Gregory M Ellis)
Subject: German V-2 project/assembly site
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:32:17 GMT


From grege@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Gregory M Ellis)

In the current issue of U.S. News (must be week of Oct 12-16 because I just
got it) there is a short article on the mountain tunnel complex where the
German's moved their V-2 production after Peenemunde was bombed by the
allies.  Apparently the site was "ransacked" by U.S forces and dynamited
closed by the Russians and has not been opened until recently.  It went on
to state that parts for approximately 40 rockets appeared to be located in
the tunnels - tunnels built by forced labor.

Does anyone have any information on the complex? I've forgotten the name of
the mountain......what do you expect, I just read the article last
night......

Newsgroups: sci.military